Environmentalism as Religion

[le Voyageur]

BTW, Michael Crichton died a little over a year ago so I fear he is unavailable to help Voyageur with his chicken plucking.

 

not a problem...the chickens got a reprieve. However, Bambi is now hanging up. Looks like venison steaks, and roast for the Christmas dinner.

 

 

[GaHillBilly]

I said I was going to finish replying, but I'm not.

 

I shouldn't have started in the first place. It's not what I need to spend time on right now. And, I made matters worse by exhibiting the same sort of arrogance I accused Voyageur of.

 

It's too late to stop when I shudda, but I can stop now, so I am.

 

GaHillBilly

[le Voyageur]

@ Voyaguer:

 

You, I don't respect so much.

 

Your problem, not mine

 

You started off rude and supercilious, and the asserted silly PC claims like "the most dangerous animal is the human over fatted on religion".

 

I don't consider my life experiences with those "overfatted on religion" to be supercilious. However, it's very apparent that you jumped to the conculsion that this statement was directed at your's. Note, there is no adjective in front of "religion", your failure to reason and comprehend the obvious is your err, not mine.

 

You followed that up by self-confidently piling obvious error on top of obvious error.

 

and those errs are what?

 

I don't know whether you are actually as ignorant as you seem, or if you just got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

 

Yes, I'm ignorant. Meaning that I'm aware of my shortcomings, but still capable of learning. So are you ignorant, too. Or, just arrogant?

 

.Regardless, let's catalog your nonsense by the numbers, last first. I'll have to get to your ridiculous claim about the RCC murdering a "billion", after I've done some more checking. It's worth doing, because something similar is often claimed, though your "billion" is by far the most extreme claim I've seen.

 

having gone through this post of yours several times, you're not capable of scholary research. Sorry for being so blunt.

 

1. No, I knew who Shem . . . and Ham and Japeth were all by myself.

 

I'll put a gold star by your name

 

2. I'm guessing if you had *really* studied under "Ruth DeEtte Simpson", you would have learned to spell "Lewis" (sic) Leakey's name correctly. I'm not sure where you hear of Ms. Simpson, but I'm guessing that "semester", may really have been only a 'siesta' taken after reading an article about her.

 

Bad speelers of dah whorl, untie

 

3. Regardless, Ms. Simpson's chief fame to claim seems to have been the bogus the "Calico" dig where she both proved she couldn't tell rocks from tools, and also managed to bring an end to Louis Leakey's career.

 

lol...seeing that you've now made yourself the "expert" on the Calico dig by cherrypicking the net for the negatives, you should know the key reason why Calico was being discredit, but not now. Well, do you?

 

4. None of Ms. Simpson's 'achievements', or even her curatorship of the "Gene Autry Museum of the West" exactly qualified her to speak expertly about ancient Middle Eastern texts.

 

And why is that? And what proof do you have to make that claim?

 

5. I've read both the Gilgamesh Epic, and the account of Noah several times. If you had done so, you'd have known that the two accounts share features, but are not identical.

 

Are you aware that the stories, and myths of preliterate societies will change over time, and when adopted by outside cultures, those stores will be adapted, modified, and changed to fit the idenity of that culture? Maybe not!

 

I have to assume, given all the obvious errors you've made, that you are not a fan of Googling, since, a few minutes with Google would have saved you the thumping you're about to get.

 

A Thumping...lol....More of your self self conceited arrogance, hey?

 

2. You claim to have studied under a "Ruth DeEtte Simpson", who was indeed an acolyte of Leakey. Maybe you actually did so. I have my doubts, however, since if you had, I'm pretty sure you'd have known that Leakey's first name was Louis, not "Lewis". (I didn't have to Google for Leakey's name, since I already knew that.)

 

You're repeating yourself.....check your strawman above

 

3. I did Google for Ms. Simpson however, who I'd never heard of before. I feel that this was a forgivable lapse, since I don't think most people would keep up with the identity of the chief curator of the Gene Autry Museum of the West! I did discover that Ms. Simpson's primary claim to scientific fame was the infamous "Calico", noted for generating a set of rocks that may be either primitive artifacts or just rocks. Apparently, the most widely accepted opinion today is that what she was digging up were just rocks.

 

Again, you're repeating yourself. You must love to hear yourself talk. btw, besides tools, we uncovered several campfire rings beneath 8 feet of dirt. Would you like to explain that?

 

I had not known, previously, that Leakey through out his adult life suffered from severe zipper problems. (he could not keep his pecker in his pants).

 

This is a Scouting forum, read by many young Scouts. You need to watch what comes out of your mouth....as such, you crossed the line here on this board with that comment

 

4. Regardless of Ms. Simpson's skills, or lack thereof, as an archeologist or curator of the "American West" there is nothing in her career that suggests that she was an expert in ancient Semitic culture or language. In fact, it would appear that she was about as qualified as I am to judge the relationship between the Gilgamesh Epic and the account of Noah.

 

Again, you repeat yourself, and still you offer no proof. Surely you must be tiring of stuffing those strawmen of yours

 

5. Given your comments, I have to question whether you have read either, much less both. (I have, and not just today, either.) There are some similarities. But they are by no means identical. The oldest copies of Gilgamesh Epic predate the oldest dates for Genesis. This is often assumed to establish a textual relationship. But, that's only an assumption, and there's no other proof of a relationship.

 

Do you ever tire of repeating yourself? Without proofs bearing citations, this is just more of your petty strawmen tactics. You're saying nothing, it's all smoke and hot air. So far, I don't see anything in your ramblings that amounts to a "thumping".

 

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

It's been fascinating reading this thread - I've learned things, and scoffed at things - truly the mark of a good campfire discussion.

 

I remember reading Crichton's rant went it first came out. I thought it was an interesting opinion - and I suggest we all remember that it is just one man's opinion, with some glaring flaws in it used to bolster his arguments. For instance, Crichton declares unequivocably that DDT does not cause cancer in humans so banning it was unneccessary. The twofold problem with his declaration is first, that there is some epidemiological evidence that DDT is a cause of liver, pancreatic and breast cancer in humans, and second and more importantly, even if DDT doesn't cause cancer, it, and it's by-products DDE and DDD (which come about as DDT "decomposes") are toxic to humans and animals. When did it become acceptabe to accept toxicity as long as a product doesn't cause cancer? That seems to be one of Crichton's arguments - "who cares if it's toxic, it doesn't cause cancer so it's not a problem".

 

But beyond that, I say this. The origins of what we think of as environmentalism was in the fight for clean air and clean water in the late 60's, early 70's. Environmentalism as religion? I know this - I need clean air to breath and clean water to drink in order to survive. Environmentalism has helped and continues to help ensure that we will have these things. I don't need to pray in order to survive - and prayer isn't going to stop factories from polluting the air and water needed for survival.

 

 

[packsaddle]

To answer Trevorum, I'm not sure about Buddhism or Scientology (although I like to poke fun at Scientology), and I defer to Dan with regard to Wicca. But I am certain that consumerism, capitalism and environmentalism (at least part of it) meet those criteria. Consumerism is, of course, strongly related to capitalism, perhaps a logical outcome, so the 'unseen hand' takes care of the supernatural part. The ritualized behaviors are rather obvious and the behavioral rules are, well, practically the definition of these 'isms'.

Environmentalism as practiced by lay persons with little actual formal understanding of environmental structures or processes seems to be susceptible to beliefs in mysterious forces that have supernatural characteristics. The ritualized behaviors are sometimes comical but they're there. And the behavioral rules...all I need to invoke is 'Birkenstocks', etc. or maybe stupid floppy hats made of recycled hemp (you get the idea).

So environmentalism at one extreme could be considered as a rather weak or confused religion for some of those afficionados.

However, I have serious doubts that there is any risk of this last group infiltrating the United Nations and successfully replacing the known world religions with what they have to offer.

But the attempt sure would be interesting...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

Pack, I take offense that you think my religion is rather weak or confused. My religion is rather weak AND confused. Just the way I like it.

[packsaddle]

Gern, I stand corrected, thanks.