Environmental Issues

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Richard's analysis of the Air Force Times article on Earth Day
activities in the Air Force.


[CAUTION: SOME POLITICAL DIATRIBE FOLLOWS]

>     To get rid of all this garbage, and heal the planet, Earth Day was

What environmentalists, PETA activists, etc, fail to mention is that
the environment can take care of itself quite nicely, even *IF* the
secularists are right and we're the result of random selection.

For the sake of argument, and to speak on the level of many
environmentalists, I will speak as a secular evolutionist.  I will
approach this from the Christian POV below.  According to
evolutionary theory:

CONSIDER--
  * According to fossil evidence in Greenland, there has been life
    on this planet for over three billion years.  Life first appeared
    in what would be an extremously poisonous atmosphere for most
    modern life forms.

  * The original life-forms on this planet manufactured their own
    poisons and were so successful that they totally changed the
    atmosphere of this planet two billion years ago.  Unfortunately
    for them, the nice nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide mix we have
    today killed them early critters to extinction.

  * Speciation remained pretty uniform for huge stretches of time.
    Only after global disasters which wiped out up to 90% of the flora
    and fauna living on the planet did diversity of species occur.

  * Modern environmentalists promote their agenda partly in the name
    of "diversity."

THUS--
  * If diversity is good, then the best way to increase diversity of
    life on this planet is through a massive global disaster, such as
    an intercontinental nuclear war.  The slow way to death, such as
    poisoning the atmosphere through industrial sludge and nuclear
    waste, would also probably do an adequate job.  After we kill off
    ourselves and the critters and plants around us, who knows what the
    next style of life will be? :-)  If diversity is good, this is what
    we want, correct?
  
>"We cannot, and must not train in ways that harm rare plants and
>animals, or destroy sensitive ecosystems."

The true agenda of environmentalists is not preservations of sensitive
ecosystems, but selfish preservation of their own skins and enjoyment
of nature.  After all, who wants to live with a bunch of cockroaches;
orchids and black-footed ferrets and little Bambi deer are so much
nicer to look at :-)

>not yet learned to fully respect nature.  Some serious concerns for
>the planet include:
>     -- Shrinking rainforests
>     -- Global warming
>     -- Thinning of the ozone layer
>     -- Contamination of the ground waters
>     -- Contamination of the oceans and fish in the oceans
>     -- Increased air pollution
>     -- Problems with finding a safe way of disposing nuclear waste

All of which are bad for humans and the current life on this planet,
but which is *not* bad for the "environment" or "Mother Nature" or
"ecology" or whatever.  There is no "delicate balance" -- nature will
find its own equilibrium no matter what.

According to evolutionists, life on this planet has survived
oxygenation of the atmosphere, direct hits with massive meteors, ice
ages, axis changes, and the coming of mankind.  If 90% of the life on
this planet dies off, evolution says critters will come along to fill
the voids.

And if evolutionists are right, what does it matter if we kill every-
thing else off?  We're merely the most successful species, the critter
at the top of the food chain.  If "survival of the fittest" is the
game, we're clearly the winners, and there are no moral incentives for
anything -- including preservation of worthless, weakling species like
pandas and bald eagles.


TRANSITION TO THE CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW

Besides self-preservation, a motive for "preserving the envirnment"
can *only* be found from a religious standpoint.  Many activists are
indeed motivated by some version of an earth religion.  Of course, all
that stuff about "respecting mother nature" or "worshipping the earth"
is garbage anyway since, like I indicated before, the earth would take
care of itself.

If there were some conscious "Gaiea" entity composed of the entirety
of everything on this planet, it's been around for at least 4 billion
years and might be excited about the prospects of having a different
kind of life form coming along, rather than keeping with the same old
boring oak trees and jaguars and humans that have been around for 6000
years.  Earth worship is mindless and pointless.


RICHARD'S POINT OF VIEW

In reality, of course, we know the LORD created and maintains this
universe and everything in it.  We are not to worship the creation,
but the Creator which it points to!

>     "However, this is not enough.  We must establish new policies
>to fully integrate our stewardship responsibilities with the military
>mission."

Recall, though, that this creation around us is the handiwork of the
LORD.  We have been placed here as stewards.  Adam was placed in the
garden to tend it (Adam worked BEFORE the fall!  Will we be gardeners
in heaven?)

Adam was commanded to subdue the earth and have dominion over the
creatures of the earth.  Should we be harsh dictators, mindlessly
ripping up the Lord's creation with no thought to what we may be
losing, or should we be benevolent rulers, carefully tending this
place the LORD has created.

The opinions of...

Richard M.