Has environmentalism become more than just a good faith effort to protect the Earth? Is it now tantamount to a religion?
And if it is, is that a good thing or a bad thing? PragerU’s latest short documentary, hosted by Will Witt, explores the origins, agenda, and motives of today’s environmental movement.
What he finds raises some challenging questions for anyone who sincerely cares about the future of the planet.
After watching, please take this important survey on your relationship with the environmental movement:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JCC9CJB
There’s a fallacy in thinking that the “religion of Green” is separate yet compatible with Marxist ideology.
Environmentalists were co opted and supported by Marxism long ago and they’re nothing but useful idiots in their eyes.
Look what happens to the environment whenever Marxists take over.
… but this time it will be different !
Filled out the PU questionnaire, but I did not reply to the question: How do you identify ideologically? … because I don’t.
They refused to accept that. Adding a red letter demand for an answer.
Get stuffed then.
But Marxists were obsessed with class and the ownership of the means of production and the first Marxist state the USSR certainly was not concerned with the environment, nor was/is Maoist China.
What environmentalism shares with Marxism is the totalitarian urge, state imposed collectivism and control over every aspect of people’s lives, even their minds à la Orwell, but that was also a trait of Fascism.
I visited China in the early 1980s (a scientific trip) and was impressed by the extent of reafforestation. By the size of the trees we saw, this had started 10 or more years earlier. The trip was not about environmental science, we just happened to drive through areas with extensive plantings, certainly for timber, but specifically to minimise soil erosion. A few years ago in Australia, a large contingent of Chinese scientists attended a conference on aeolian research ( http://aeolianresearch.com/index.html) which deals with wind erosion and deposition of soils and sediments. The papers and posters the Chinese delegates presented were impressive, and showed that China is well advanced in this field, which is also important in Australia given the semi-arid climate. China is serious about the environment, and would be under any government given the need to support such as large population.
They obviously took you to a different part of China than I saw, which was filled with uncontrolled environmental pollution, poverty, degradation of humanity, etc., but I was visiting the industrial might of China that had been gifted by the Soviets.
was impressed by the extent of reafforestation.
Just me, but I’d be much more concerned about how free people are than whether there’s reforestation or not.
I gave three invited technical lectures in China in 2005. One was given in Daqing in the North. It was like an industrial wasteland from Bladerunner.
I was stood in the lecture room presenting and realised that even indoors, with the windows closed (it was winter and very cold) my eyes and throat were still being irritated by airborne pollution. I have never experienced anything so bad. Even in Beijing, where there was smog, the air quality was not so bad. By contrast, in the South air quality was much better, as was the general environment.
Religion is a moral (i.e. universal frame), ethical (i.e. relativistic fame), legal (ostensibly “secular”) philosophy. Independent of the philosopher, a religion can be judged by its principles.
Morals are those traditions and beliefs that contribute to the survival of a society. Those traditions and beliefs are many times passed on via the development of a religion. Following a moral framework is being ethical by definition. That doesn’t mean that different moral frameworks can see another framework as unethical. I give you the Aztecs. That society lasted for a long time so its beliefs and traditions obviously contributed to the survival of that society. Acting within the moral framework of of that society was considered to be ethical to those living in the society. That doesn’t mean that a Judeo-Christian moral framework would see actions within the Aztec society as ethical.
Religions can only be judged based on their contribution to the survival of a society, not by someone outside that society with a different moral framework. *You* may not like human sacrifice because of your moral framework – but be careful of pointing your finger because three of your fingers are pointing back at you.
What a depraved, pseudo-intellectual comment! Human sacrifice doesn’t in any way contribute to the survival of society. How over-educated do you have to be to make a nihilistic argument like that? Any human should understand this intuitively. I condemn the Aztec religion without reservation and I don’t give a rat’s ass whether you think that’s intolerant.
My fingers are not pointing at you, but the middle ones are pointing at the sky.
Human sacrifice was a widespread cultural practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice.
Christianity is effectively based on human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism. Jesus died for us. Eat of his body and drink of his blood. We still talk proudly about the sacrifice soldiers make when they die in wars to contribute to the survival of our society.
So why do you expect humans to understand intuitively that it is wrong? Is it indeed wrong in all cases or only when it is forced on people against their will? What if the Aztec sacrifices believed they were acting to safeguard their country and way of life, just as soldiers today do when they are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their country?
“Christianity is effectively based on human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism.”
You like writing ignorant drivel or was that an accident?
If you read the writings of Paul, Peter or Luther, you will find nothing of the sort, – even back into the old testament.
What they deal with are precisely the conditions that leads you to write such minsinformed rubbish.
The blood of sheep and goats = substitutionary atonement.
In Psychology, It’s called ERSATZ.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who don’t have the foggiest clue regarding what Christians believe, consider themselves to be experts in what Christians believe.
I guess it goes along with the progressive conceit that they are experts in every subject they care to discuss.
Wow, that’s the same sort of addled reasoning the Romans made 2 millennia ago. Good grief, do some reading, educate yourself intellectually and come on up here with us moderns won’t you Tom?
For example, could you point to any time in history where Christians practiced human sacrifice and/or cannibalism? If you can’t, then the claim that “Christianity is effectively based on human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism” is a claim that’s almost as stunningly ignorant as it is sloppy in it’s first cognition, don’t you agree?
Because with all due respect, the comparison is obviously a first year undergrad philosophy student’s False Equivalence logical fallacy. The Aztecs went to war with warriors to safeguard their country and way of life, but this was a completely separate act from the barbarism of human sacrifice (including children) to malevolent deities who called for those acts.
Similarly, soldiers today don’t perform human sacrifice to safeguard their countries, rather they take themselves to war in order to kill people and break things isn’t that correct? And please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by attempting another False Equivalence by comparing killing men in war and killing men as a sacrifice to a deity.
To Pigsinspace and Mark W.
I am fairly sure, after an upbringing in Christianity and just rechecking the Bible (though I know a lot of it by heart,) that:
1. Jesus was crucified and died as a sacrifice on our behalf.
2. At Holy Communion, Christians eat bread and drink wine not as symbols but transformed into the body and blood of Jesus (at least in the Roman Catholic church, not sure about all the others).
I understand if you don’t like the idea that these aspects of Christianity are a continuation of a very widespread human concept of sacrifice (human or god) as part of religions.
Of course I am aware of substitutionary atonement, the sacrifice of animals. But Jesus was a god/man. Although the symbolism does cross over; I have a photo somewhere of a photo I took in a Christian cemetery of a large stone cross with a life-size sheep, wearing a crown of thorns, hanging from it in the place of Jesus.
I am happy that we have done away with both animal and human sacrifice in religion, though we still use the term sacrifice for young soldiers who die in war. But the point I was making is that human sacrifice is a long human tradition, and is not necessarily abhorrent if the sacrificee believes they are doing it for the good of others.
There’s profound philosophical, theological, sociological, psychological and moral distinctions between, on the one hand, a malevolent deity who demands ritual human sacrifice as appeasement in order to remain at peace with man (Aztec), and on the other, a benevolent deity who himself enters creation, becomes man, and voluntarily sacrifices himself as a propitiation for humanity’s transgressions. And furthermore, this mode of sacrifice wasn’t easy. It came over hours of agonizing pain and gradual asphyxiation, i.e., through suffering the most barbarous method of human punishment available at the time to the Roman state.
These two belief systems aren’t in any way continuous. Rather, they’re so unique in concept between them as to be paradigmatically different. There is no comparison. They have nothing in common other than a superficial commonality of sacrifice.
I take a bullet to save my wife. I take a bullet fighting for my country. The two scenarios are wholly separate and distinct actions for wholly different purposes. They have nothing in common other than a superficial commonality of sacrifice.
Tom,
Don’t let them put you down. They are only showing their own ignorance.
You might have been badly catechized in your youth Tom, but obviously you are a Biden Catholic at this point in time, i.e. an atheist who might find it convenient to identify as a Catholic from time to time and pretend that you know something about what you don’t practice.
You didn’t hear the story correctly in your youth. It’s sophistry to say that Catholic faith in a metaphysical idea is a belief in the need to commit cannibalism. The concept of transubstantiation is not something that I intend to defend, much less prove. It is a religious concept first of all that there is anything at all real about “metaphysics”. It is totally a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
In the case of transubstantiation, the actual doctrine says that even though the “accidents” of bread and wine are still perceived (all chemical and physical properties unchanged), at an invisible level, they have truly been transformed into the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Jesus. You can only accept that on faith or reject the argument, but you cannot provide an iota of evidence to disprove the concept that something has changed in an invisible way, or that a soul or presence of God is or is not there.
Also, if your knowledge were not so limited, you would know that the theme is that Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Testament and the lambs slaughtered at Passover pre-figured Jesus being the lamb of God. The early Christians said that it was God’s plan to sacrifice his only son to atone for our sins, in the same way that the passover lamb was supposed to do that.
This admittedly odd concept, of eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood, in the appearance of bread and wine, just carries the analogy of eating the sacrificial lamb of passover to its logical conclusion. It does not suggest that cannibalism is an acceptable practice, and of course cannibalism is a mortal sin in the Catholic church. Communion is about receiving the real presence of Jesus.
Sure sacrifice has been in our DNA from the dawn of the species. But the story you are denigrating is the opposite concept. It is God the Father who is supposed to be sacrificing (or allowing the sacrifice) of his son who according to the theology is actually the same God in a trinity of persons. So it is a God self-sacrifice to cover the sins of man, not a sacrifice made by man to a god.
The so-called sacrifice of the mass is supposed to be an act of making the one crucifixion sacrifice by God present on the altar for the benefit of the people assembled. The act itself is supposed to be made by Jesus himself, not by the man who is a priest acting “in persona Christi”. Please don’t bother arguing about whether any of this is believable, it’s not the point.
I’m not reciting this to proselytize but just to make clear that what you say Catholics believe is not correct. Again, this is not to argue whether there is any validity to what Catholics believe, it is just to make clear that what you claim they believe is not at all what they believe.
Catholic religious practices are not remotely similar to barbaric tortures committed by a depraved primitive culture. The false equivalence and refusal to see the stark difference is a sign of some kind of metal illness.
Rich,
You are judging *everyone* based on your beliefs and traditions. You may think the beliefs and traditions of others are wrong but they would consider your beliefs and traditions just as wrong.
What you condemn or don’t condemn is irrelevant.
No, Tim. I am categorically condemning murder and cannibalism by any person who commits these atrocities at any point in time in any context. In addition, I am happily condemning as INFERIOR, any culture that treats these horrific crimes as virtues.
Anyone who lacks an inherent sense of horror at the mere thought of these acts demonstrates a lack of empathy, a social pathology. Cannibalism for purposes of survival in a situation where the victim has not been killed for that purpose is the only situation where such an act could be conceivably acceptable. Fighting wars to capture victims of ritualistic torture and then eating their bodies is clearly something that we can all condemn. We can all arrive at the conclusion by reason alone, regardless of our ethnic or religious background, on the simple principle that what we would not want done to us, we should not risk condoning to be done to others. We should be wise enough to understand that we are the “other” to many.
It is monstrous thinking like you display that gives me great concern for the future. Your sense of moral relativism can easily justify that inconvenient people should be killed.
What society chooses to condemn or not to condemn is very relevant. Society is the sum of its individuals. So what I condemn or what you don’t condemn is perhaps not significant, but it is still relevant.
If a large enough proportion of society sides with you, then we end up with tolerance of anything that a culture deems good. If France and Germany finish their population exchange, perhaps subjugation of infidels, beheading for blasphemy and apostacy will become the cultural norm there. (Lest I be misinterpreted, I am pointing to the worst abuses of the worst fanatics in order to make a point. I am not saying and do not believe that Islam is properly represented by those barbarians).
We don’t need to ask you if you will condemn that outcome, you have already told us that you would not, indeed must not. All cultures are equal in your mind, and we must not judge. Well guess what Tim? I do judge them and even cretins like Manu Micron still know enough to judge them.
“Human sacrifice doesn’t in any way contribute to the survival of society.” — It might if it increases social solidarity through a “costly signaling” effect.
“Religions can only be judged by . . “ is not actually correct. That would be one way of judging them, but there are other valid ways also. For example, since all religions have differing interpretations of reality, some of which will be further from, and others closer to that reality that actually is, they could be rated by proximity to what is real. In that judgement, the Green Religion is significantly down the list.
Ignoring reality is not a survival trait.
Then it seems the foundational premise you pose for evaluating religion must be a priori false.
You said: “Religions can only be judged based on their contribution to the survival of a society, not by someone outside that society with a different moral framework.”
I’m sure you’ll agree that the Aztec’s theological system ignored the reality that their gods were false.
If ignoring reality is not a survival trait, and we know without question the Aztec religion ignored reality, then their religion couldn’t have contributed to the survival of their society.
I have long believed that environmentalism has morphed into a cult religion. It’s has the key element of dogma. I have also theorized that as people have walked away from traditional religion they sought a replacement.
I was never religious, and I don’t search a replacement, because I miss nothing.
Those who walk away from the moral framework of a society, typically encoded in religion, tend to substitute moral relativism as their framework. That basically leads to believing that you are a law unto yourself and that no one else can judge your actions. See “criminal” in the dictionary.
Wow. That argument leads to the conclusion that all atheists are criminals!
That’s your interpretation based on your biases against religion.
An honest interpretation would be that it is easier for atheists to become criminals because they have no internal rules against such behavior.
@MarkW
Is that really your belief ? Why has an atheist no rules ? What’s about education, never heard ? Why do you think that most of mafia criminels are very relgious, and not only these guys, there lot of others too ?
The ice you are walking on is more than thin, be glad I don’t take that personally !
So where do these rules that atheists are guided by come from?
If they are generated by the atheists themselves, then who gets to say that one set of rules is superior to another?
Just look at how many progressives manage to convince themselves that it is moral to use government to steal from those who have more than you do, based on nothing more than your desire to have more stuff.
Those who call themselves atheists usually aren’t. They buy into the Judeo-Christian beliefs and traditions while saying they don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian religion. They simply do not walk away from the moral framework of our society.
Tim, that may be the view from your moral framework, but it’s not reality.
Uh, nobody ever admits to being a “moral relativist.” That doesn’t mean they don’t practice moral relativism. You may think you have discerned “reality,” but reality is a bit more expansive, in terms of individual human beings’ behaviors and practices, than you think.
What was that definition of “character” that I heard? The thing that you do when nobody is around to see you doing it. That’s a paraphrase, but it illustrates my point.
It actually is reality. Almost all criminals indulge in moral relativism – rejecting the beliefs and traditions of our society. Since our beliefs and traditions are so tied in with the Judeo-Christian religion they are almost indistinguishable.
Ask any criminal who has a jailhouse conversion how much different their viewpoint concerning our traditions and beliefs are before and after the conversion.
Believing you are a law unto yourself and no one else can judge your actions? Isn’t that a libertarian?
As an atheist, I live by the rule ‘do unto others as you would be done by’ because I want to live in a society where people respect and help each other. I am happy to wear a mask to protect others, and I would be grateful if others extended ne the same courtesy. I don’t need a religious framework to see this as moral. I just wish all religious people lived by their claimed moral principles.
Tom Foley – Uh, the golden rule that you cited “do onto others as you would have them do onto you” is sourced from Christ in the Bible. So is “Love one another.” That IS precisely a “religious framework.” One of the few great teachers of religion in the history of the world to articulate the thought in that influential way. I wonder how many people would have been able to take that to heart and articulate it if Christianity had not existed.
Once again Mr. Foley demonstrates his willingness to pontificate on belief systems that he obviously knows nothing about.
How progressive of you.
Wasn’t there something about a camel going through the eye of a needle too?
The only “green” worshipped these days is greenbacks. In fact that’s Eric’s religion, why only last week he was saying “greed is good”.
“One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion.” Sir Arthur C. Clarke
+100
I don’t think you understand the context behind this Clarke quote.
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn’t require religion at all.”
This is actually perfectly in agreement with my statements above. Morals are the traditions and beliefs that ensure the survival of a society. Those morals are typically passed along to successive generations as religion but it isn’t required. That doesn’t mean that those who take on the trappings of religion follow the moral framework themselves. And that is really what Clarke was getting at.
I have observed that many “moral relativists” in their personal lives are moral absolutists when it comes to global warming, “racism” (a word used in a bewildering variety of ways), antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, and other scare words and boogeymen.
People seem to have a deep seated need to believe in something greater than themselves.
Those that reject traditional religion, often fall into worship of ideology.
Especially so when their ideology centers around low taxes, strong military, limited government and worship of the orange man.
-42^42
It really is sad how atheists and progressives spend so much time hating others that they can’t even bear to accurately research what it is those others believe.
Mark
You should get out more often! Many atheists were once Christians and are in no need of researching what it is those others believe as they were indoctrinated from childhood.
You make huge assumptions without any proof.
John
I hate nobody, why should I ?
MarkW:
As a child I was puzzled by the antagonism and, yes, hatred, between people of different religions – where I grew up, between Catholic and Protestant. Even though I went to church, got confirmed, went to youth events, even to a Billy Graham rally, I guess I became an atheist before I was 10, though I didn’t know the word then.
I became a scientist after I became an atheist. I have continued an interest, indeed fascination, with religion, and I know I have read much more widely about religions than most religious people that I know. Yes, I know and am friends with many, including a Catholic priest. So I know what others believe, and I don’t hate them for it (though I remain puzzled).
What I do object to is religious self-righteousness, and the demands by some religious groups that everyone else live by the rules of their faith, even as far as legislating this to control others. Not to mention generic accusations that because I am an atheist I must hate others. If that makes me progressive, then so be it.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who assume that they know everything about a religion merely because their parents claimed to belong to that religion and might even have gone to church once or twice a year.
I consider atheists people who were really but hurt when they found out god didn’t exist. Apparently they were really enjoying it.
Capital (i.e. retained earnings), “walk softly and carry a big stick” doctrine, limited government/organic cooperation, yes. Worship of the Orange-American man, a mortal god? No, that would be antithetical in spirit, principle, and black letter law of American conservativism, and the right-wing libertarian ideology.
American conservatism, and the right-wing libertarian ideology better get their act together, because they “own” their cult leader. They’ve co-opted their values.
I second MarkW’s thoughts on bethan456@gmail.com‘s lack of evidence and questionable interpretations about conservatism, especially as it relates to Trump.
Massive hatred and vituperation against those who believe in a different view from yourself indicates more than a hint of bigotry to me. Something all too common on the Left these days, who tend to believe that they have a monopoly on truth.
By the way, bethan456, I will be glad to “own” the current President of the United States – and NOT as a “cult leader,” either. His record is such that he has earned the right to be re-elected to that office. Such projection on your part.
His record is such that he has earned the right to be rightfully blamed for a significant proportion of the 230,000+ Americans that have died from COVID-19. In fact his current rallies are spreading the infection. https://sebotero.github.io/papers/COVIDrallies_10_30_2000.pdf
I see that there is no lie so venal that bethan won’t repeat it, so long as it denigrates someone he ates.
Trump bears no responsibility for those deaths. Those that you worship condemned Trump as a xenophobe when he closed the border to China.
Those that you worship told Trump that they were in charge of their states whenever their was a policy difference regarding COVID-19 treatments and policies.
These are examples of what happens when one worships an ideology:
https://tinyurl.com/y6glmw34
https://tinyurl.com/y3l7r3xb
https://tinyurl.com/y34lgqfj
https://tinyurl.com/yyynlvby
I.e., violence, death, destruction, mayhem, lawlessness, insurrection, looting (i.e., indiscriminate theft), destruction of private property that isn’t your own, etc.
THESE are Liberals.
And this is the hypocrisy of Liberalism.
Kyle Rittenhouse
Thank you for making my argument for me:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/kenosha-shooting-new-footage-kyle-rittenhouse-tucker
James Alex Fields
Sorry Mr. Sycomputing, your 17 year old murderer was not a liberal.
Well, yes, that was exactly my point in the previous argument.
Once again, thanks.
From all the actual evidence Mr. Rittenhouse shot people who were attacking him.
As always, progressives hate it when their victims fight back.
From all the actual evidence Mr. Rittenhouse was in possession of a gun, and was 17 years old at the time. That is a crime in Wisconsin.
Here’s a few more crimes that are noteworthy in this context. From the Tucker Carlson video:
4:14: Rosenbaum (a convicted child molester) – it seems as a peaceful protestor he was committing arson by setting various fires to other people’s property.
4:35: Rittenhouse is filmed running past someone’s cell camera with a fire extinguisher in hand, presumably to extinguish the peaceful protestor’s peaceful acts of arson against other people’s property.
4:40: Rittenhouse has dropped the fire extinguisher and is being chased by Rosenbaum.
4:45: a gunshot by peaceful progressive liberal protestor Alexander Blain(?) (video of Blain(?) with handgun in hand prior to shots here)
4:50: video of muzzle flash of Blain’s(?) handgun off to Rittenhouse’s (then) right. Now Rittenhouse is being cornered, and as far as he knew at the time, was also being fired at by one of the peaceful protesting progressive liberals close by.
4:56: Rittenhouse is pinned between parked cars with multiple combatants brandishing bats, etc., and who are forming a barricade between him and escape. Rittenhouse has heard gunshots that weren’t his.
5:10: trapped, and with the sound of gunfire to his right fresh in memory, Rittenhouse turns and fires on his pursuers. Without that rifle, he likely would have suffered serious injury from the peaceful progressive liberal mob chasing him down for putting out their majority peaceful fires in acts of arson. After all, it wasn’t their property and they deserved to loot, pillage, burn and destroy anything they wished.
5:18: Rittenhouse fires 4 shots, immediately thereafter an unknown individual fires 3 more, i.e., the peaceful progressive liberals had guns and were using them.
5:30: child molester Rosenbaum has 4 wounds, but 8 shots were fired, thus it’s yet unclear how many of Rittenhouse’s rounds hit the child molester (frankly, if I had been in Rittenhouse’s shoes, I would’ve been aiming to stop the threat with all 4 of my shots, so I just don’t care if it turns out all of Rittenhouse’s rounds found their target.) Rittenhouse stops to attempt to render aid but is quickly threatened again and runs.
6:02: unidentified protestor films Rittenhouse running away after mob begins to rush him, asks him if he shot somebody. Rittenhouse says he’s “going to get the police.”
6:10: a markedly stupid (after all, Rittenhouse had a deadly rifle in his hands) peaceful, progressive coward liberal attacks Rittenhouse from behind, striking him in the head. Rittenhouse stays up, clearly working off adrenaline and fear of the violent, murdering mob of peaceful progressive liberals with guns behind him and gaining ground.
6:20: Rittenhouse trips and falls, one member of the mob of peaceful protestors thinks it’s a good idea to attack Rittenhouse, who has a rifle pointed directly at his chest. Rittenhouse fires two WARNING SHOTS into the air, kindly not striking the individual at all and saving his life.
6:27: disregarding the clear warning that happened just 2 seconds earlier, Anthony Huber, 26, convicted of 1) domestic abuse, 2) use of a dangerous weapon, 3) battery, 4) strangulation and suffocation and 5) 2nd degrees reckless endangerment, that is, just another wonderful, loving and peaceful member of the murderous progressive liberal mob community, attacks Rittenhouse with a skateboard to the head, then tries to take the rifle. Rittenhouse fires one round into the man’s chest and Huber dies.
6:51: 3rd peaceful protesting progressive liberal who’s carrying a handgun approaches Rittenhouse from the front while Rittenhouse is still on the ground. Rittenhouse points his rifle. Peaceful protestor carrying a handgun stops and puts his hands up. Rittenhouse makes a move to get up and continue running away. Peaceful progressive protestor with handgun then chooses to attack Rittenhouse and gets his upper right arm pretty much destroyed with a single round. That’s Gaige Grosskreutz, convicted of possession of a firearm while intoxicated.
I’ll see my criminal and raise you yours.
I reject traditional religion. I don’t worship anything.
That is a question of personality, I never was faling in what ever “worship”, why should I ?
Way back in my childhood, people used to use the bible to justify actions. They’d say the bible says this or that, so you have to do this or not that. Now, “science” is used in a similar manner. So, in a way, environmentalism might be used as a new religion and similarly, science as a new bible.
Short answer, yes.
Absolutely, especially in that the religion of green adherents that I know all talk the talk, but not one walks the talk.
Green is a colour of the second largest world religion, often in the news, sadly for the wrong reasons.
In the 60’s I read a John W Campbell editorial in his Analog that mention three ‘green’ ideologies to be wary of. I remember that two of the three were environmentalism and the religion of Islam, but for the life of me cannot remember the third. Anyone?
Hi Richard,
How about ‘little green men’ 🙂
They get away with false narratives because in order to be a member of the “good” tribe you must never question the moral authority of liars. Straying even slightly from doctrine gets you banished from the tribe.
The intellectual fascism and censorship dominating public discourse now is by far the greatest threat to freedom I have witnessed.
Wow, to the point!
The video touched on recyclable materials. If recyclables are not actually being recycled like they are intended to be, then they should be burned to generate electricity. Obviously metals and glass cannot be burned, so they probably still end up in a landfill somewhere. They should ensure that the trash burning power plants have the latest pollution control technology. Even so, the environmental movement will still probably oppose them.
What is sorely needed is an effort to separate what is scientifically sound environmentalism from religious environmentalism. For example, planting trees I would guess is supportable by science since trees produce oxygen and provide forest habitats for wildlife. However, claiming we humans are burning up the planet with our CO2 emissions is religion — the SOUND science does not support that.
I am not going to hold my breath waiting for politicians and the MSM to learn and distinguish the difference between scientifically sound environmentalism and religious environmentalism. When eco-religion provides a good fear-mongering smokescreen for activist/political agendas, it won’t be going away anytime soon.
Good video from PragerU.
I agree with you. I, however, want to throw a question out here to you and others that I, admittedly ignorant about how the Federal government’s strategic reserves are managed and what materials – other than petroleum and various foodstuffs – are held in strategic reserve. If the government doesn’t hold metals and glass in strategic reserve now, would it not be better (given the sheer amount of the stuff there currently is in our landfills) for both Federal and state governments to hold in strategic reserve a certain percentage (say, hypothetically, 25%) of metals and glass currently set for disposal? I would think this could be done in various underground places around the country – especially the salt mines that are being prevented from holding nuclear waste right now. It seems a shame to bury all of that metal and glass, and then not have it to resort to in a genuine national or international emergency. Perhaps the cost would prevent it, I don’t know.
Just throwing something out there as food for thought or for discussion. Moderator, please indulge me here, if you don’t mind. I don’t really think this is too far off topic – I’m just trying to learn something that deals with the topic of recycling as it relates to the current cult of “environmentalism.”
Metals actually are quite recyclable, especially aluminum, but steel as well. Glass is a bit trickier. There aren’t many locations where glass is re-melted, and hauling glass long distances gets expensive. Where we are, for example, the glass is simply used as an aggregate, in asphalt, and I suppose concrete as well. My guess is they simply take the glass, and no money is exchanged. The recycling center saves on having to haul it to the landfill. That use hardly seems worth the effort though.
Bruce – I used to be an Assistant City Attorney for a major city in Texas. One of my clients was our Sanitation Department, with several operating major landfills (and a number of closed landfills). We had any number of recycling contracts in the time that I was around, and I learned this much (this goes back to 10 years ago and beyond, and hasn’t really changed): there have always been, since recycling was adopted as a public policy, a glut of things of metals and glass. So much so that in many instances, my client had to pay them to take the stuff. The market is generally bad these days. When it is, it always costs the contractors more to process the stuff than the price they can get when they put it on the market. That is one reason I ask now whether the Federal government strategically holds metals and glass like they have for petroleum. In order to aid the market in clearing out and helpfully recycling these particular recyclables, and to hedge against supply and demand in the event of emergencies.
Now that I think of it, perhaps it is economically worthwhile to melt down metals for recycling now that natural gas is relatively cheap. If and when NG becomes more expensive someday (when Biden implements a fracking ban for example), the economics of metals recycling would probably change. Not that Biden would take that (or anything else on the downside of a fracking ban) into consideration before implementing a fracking ban.
At any rate, I do recycle my paper, glass, plastics (no. 1 and 2) and metals. If they end up in a landfill anyway, the eco-cultists can’t blame me for it.
I am old enough to remember the sound of clinking glass, as the milk was being delivered to your door.
Recycling glass can’t get much better than that surely?
Religion?
Cult of Calamitous Climate,with all the tolerance you see in any cult.
Gang Green is a disease that seeks to destroy the host it feasts upon.
This was Michael Crichton’s argument way back in 2003: https://www.sebgorka.com/read-the-full-transcript-of-michael-crichtons-speech-on-global-warming/
I sure miss him. Think of all the fodder out there now for him to wrap his talent around.
I remember Crichton’s speech, but didn’t have a transcript. So I went and got it. I also really miss Crichton’s analysis for its wisdom and perspective on science and climate change especially.
My boss had two wastebaskets in every office, one grey (ordinary trash), one blue (recyclables). A co-worker confirmed my suspicion that everything ended up in just one dumpster behind the building.
Gaia worship was among the very first religions which also properly included Sun worship. It’s resurgence has been amplified by a false prophet called ‘IPCC science’ and channeled by Al Gore whose misrepresentations and lies comprise the dogma of the modern Gaia religion. Rather than worship the Sun as sustaining life, they’ve been brainwashed by their prophets to believe that mankind will destroy Gaia and that CO2 is the weapon while failing to recognize that CO2 combined with the Sun are what creates Gaia in the first place.
Like all religions, it occupies the place in the human psyche that differentiates good from evil. Unfortunately, far too many people can’t rationally tell the difference once they blindly accept the differentiating dogma on faith. This fits a pattern seen throughout history where good and evil are transposed by a false prophet (or leader) and evil ultimately wins, at least temporarily …
I would note that James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia hypothesis, is an atheist and in no way supports the notion of environmentalism as religion or as a religion substitute. I believe that he would agree with your comment, however.
He calls such zealots that have fallen into these kind of beliefs, “buggers.”
Joe Biden (on the campaign stump a few minutes ago): Climate Change is about jobs, health, and safety. As always, this is intended to counter the other candidates position, ie, Donald Trump is about less jobs, poor health, and danger.
How can you tell Joe Biden hasn’t a clue of what he’s talking about?
…
His lips are moving
Modern religions center on unprovable beliefs. Modern environmentalism pushes disproven claims, so it depends on whether you consider blind cults as a subset of religion or as similar but distinct from religions.
Disproven as in mathematically disproven? There is nothing disproven about AGW, its standing right behind you about to bite your arse.
Read “Slaying the Sky Dragon.”
Your continuous hissy fit is very entertaining. Why do you continue to refuse to stop using fossil fuels? Why do you continue to use all the items that derive from fossil fuels? Why are you such a blatant hypocrite?
God created the earth as a Garden of Eden millions of years ago, and made sure there was lots of CO2 in the atmosphere so the Garden would be lush and green. However, the dinosaurs came, over-grew as a result of all the greenery, and created too much destruction. Therefore God instructed the massive meteor to hit the earth, destroy the dinosaurs, and bury enough of the carbon to keep them from ever re-creating again. But now Man has taken over and has been putting the carbon back in the atmosphere by burning the coal, and therefore also making it possible for the dinosaurs to rise again. We will end up paying for our foolishness, and in due course there will be yet another massive meteor to punish us for subverting His plans!
The mesozoic (age of the dinos) lasted for about 195 million years. So your god was certainly patient. We’ve been around for maybe 200,000 years, but have only just started ruining the planet in the last 200 I guess. I doubt that humans will be around in 1, 5, or 100 million years, but what ever we evolve into will probably still be here. I very much doubt whoever, or what ever they are will have any idea how backward and foolish we are. We are, of course, much more likely to annihilated ourselves through nuclear war or misguided collapse of our own economic and energy systems due to irrational climate hysteria. If we can get through just a few more decades we might even be capable of deflecting large asteroids and harnessing nuclear fusion. Maybe we can have a 100 million year plus run too. But going back to a low or no carbon lifestyle is simply not going to be possible this century or maybe even this millennia.
Like ALL religions, this newest version of an old set of superstitions is cloaked in modern green robes spun from shimmering panaceas, modeled by poseurs, and promoted by a wide variety of pontificators. All of it is man made. Full stop.
I don’t think environmentalism has had anything to do with “good faith” for a very long time. They used to be watermelons, but now that green rind has been removed exposing the red within. They lie, they deceive, they oppress, they censor, and they do their best to destroy the careers of anyone in academia that disagrees with their claims no matter how great the credentials that person has. They even tell each other that to lie is a good thing if it advances their cause. They do NOT have the best interests of human kind or any other living organism other than themselves as their objective
I always liked listening to Dennis Prager. If find him not “over the top” and someone that looks for truth.
Moral frameworks are those beliefs and traditions that contribute to the survival of a society. That moral framework is typically encoded in a religion so it can be passed from generation to generation.
The green religion is *NOT* a set of beliefs and traditions that contribute to the survival of a society no matter how loudly the adherents claim otherwise. The green religion is all about the destruction of society, not its survival.
“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” Albert Einstein
Again, ethical behavior is defined by the traditions and beliefs of the society that enables its survival.
Sparta existed for over 1000 years. Their beliefs and traditions were not exactly in accordance with what you listed yet their society survived a long time. Probably longer than our “American” society is going to last if the Marxist left has their way.
Einstein’s recommendation may suffice most of the time, but what happens when one faces strong social pressure or strong financial or other incentives to behave in an unethical manner? And what is stop one from defining ethics in a self-serving way? Ethics that are not grounded in a duty to God can become infinitely flexible. It is easy to be ethical when one has very little to lose or to gain from unethical behavior, but sometimes that is not the case. Without faith in God, it is easy to fall into some version of the “might makes right” philosophy.
I would dearly love to ask some of those people in the video what they know about mathematics and averages. I would like to give them an average temperature and have them tell me what maximum temperature values contributed to that average temperature. They seem to have a firm belief that the earth is on fire (see Bill Nye’s demonstration) but have no real understanding whether that is truth or not. Its like the belief that witches float.
All religions are cults of true believers. All religions use coercion, dogma and dire predictions of the future so they can manufacture true believers which sustain them. Contrary observational data is never mentioned. I keep asking, “Where is the tropical tropospherical hotspot’? for the last 30 years, but I never got an answer. You can’t believe in AGW without it, so that should tell you something about why its ignored by true believers.
One constant with atheists, none of them have any idea how religions work. They just assume that their inane stereotypes must be true. After all, all the atheists they know agree with them.
MarkW:
I pointed out in a comment above, that it is simply not true that for atheists ‘none of them have any idea how religions work.’ I suggest that you don’t seem to have any idea how atheists think. After all, many religious people just assume their inane stereotypes about atheists must be true! After all, all the religious people they know agree with them.
However atheists are human, and I concede that some of them can at times be as foolish as religious people!
TIme and time again, Tom demonstrates that he know nothing about Christianity or conservative thought, yet he routinely proclaims himself to be an expert in both.
You are the perfect example of both a progressive and an atheist.
+1
Environmentalism has more to do with people control than with control of the environment.
Environmentalism is just the modern version of the absurd notion of eternal life.
Conservation of energy is the piece you are missing.
Hypnotherapist’s regressing clients to the root of their problem found people going back to past lives. Past life regression was developed as a result. There is a huge body of work if you care to study the subject.
The only other explanation than eternal consciousness is that people are accessing the information field and personally identifying with someone else’s life. That doesn’t explain why they are healed when past life trauma is released.
Marxists believe that religion is the opiate of the people, so it should come as no surprise that they would want to invent a religion that they can use to control the masses. I don’t think it’s even wrong to say that the elites in societies throughout history have abused religion to gain power and keep the population docile. You don’t have to accept the Marxist view that all religions are false in order to see that this has been the case. That is the kernel of truth in the Marxist belief.
The problem with the video in my view is that the Climate Change agenda can’t just be explained as one big Marxist plot. It’s not just (maybe not even primarily) the Marxists who are driving the Climate Change agenda to gain power. Many of the people pushing the agenda are pursuing profit, fame, or career advancement, without necessarily being interested in implementing Marxism.
Indeed some of the worst offenders are big corporations pretending to believe in a need to combat climate change so that they can make billions from government subsidies.
There are plenty of politicians like Boris Johnson who (probably) are not committed Marxists, but are more than happy to dance to any tune that is currently popular with the electorate.
Climate science researchers know that their career advancement (and even the continuation of a career) depend on churning out papers that say “it’s worse than we thought”. For the most part their actions are self-preservation rather than ideological.
Actors and other celebrities who depend on publicity to keep their names current can get in the news by attending climate protests. The fact that they fly to the protest in their private jets demonstrates that the are not sincere. Their lifestyles and bank accounts are not particularly compatible with Marxism.
Even the inbred royals get in on the deal. What’s up with that? They know that they could be voted out of their wealth and privileges, and that the Marxists certainly would like to see that. They are trying to be seen in a positive light by the post-Christian majority who have substituted the Green religion for the traditional faith. As daft as Prince Charles is, it’s probably unlikely that he’s a Marxist.
“Climate science researchers know that their career advancement (and even the continuation of a career) depend on churning out papers that say “it’s worse than we thought”. For the most part their actions are self-preservation rather than ideological.” — Thanks, that is a prime example of why it is hard to maintain ethical behavior in society when people do not fear a personal God or expect to answer to a Divine Judge.
The survey above is defective. It contains ambiguities and leading questions. This is common these days. Very few seem to be written by people who know how to construct and test surveys, or get assistance from competent statisticians. I offer to fix the problems I see for a reasonable charge, sometimes no charge, and I am sure others do as well. A large number of respondents offered to fix the mess made in the original Doran & Zimmerman 97% nonsense.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/2818/Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx
Actually the main religion is Secular Socialism, whose deity is the government. All religions are man made constructs that first enforce an individual spirituality and then permutate it for the enrichment and power of their rulers. This is a religion mutated from the post modernist belief in Secular Humanism. The Church of Climate is just one denomination of the faith. The other main denominations are the Church of Feminism, Race and Sexual orientation. The main purpose of their faith is destruction of free market capitalism, which will accomplish the goals of the globalists elites to reduce the population of the peasants except for the labor they need. The analogies with religion are many. Any disagreement with any of the dogma of any of the churches gets one branded a heretic, i.e. denier, misogynist, racist, homophobe. They have their evangelists. Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey and Ellen Degeneres are metaphors for Joel Osteen in the various denominations. There are many other parallels that can be demonstrated when put in the religion context.
Fact, Fiction, & Faith
Sometimes a simple fact can expose as fiction the foundations of our faith. I will assert that of necessity such facts should become foundational in our search for truth. Yet also out of necessity that in the search for truth faith is also foundational.
FACT: Sometimes people lie.
EXPOSES AS FICTION: The idea that “X” is true because “Y” said it was true cannot be used to prove “X” is a fact nor can it be use to prove “X” is a fiction.
This is an example of a “logical fallacy” commonly called “Appeal to Authority”. Everyone is “guilty” of using it. And we use it out of necessity, but regardless of how often we use it such an argument will never by itself prove anything. Which means for example, all of the following are signs of statements of faith and not necessarily statements of fact:
…because science says…
…because my teacher says…
…because mom says…
…because the president says…
…because the actor says…
…because business says…
…because Darwin says…
…because the pope says…
…because God says…
…because the rabbi says…
…because the priest says…
…because the mullah says…
…because the monk says…
…because government says…
…because the old man says…
…because the child says…
…because the professor says…
…because the scientist says…
I hope those of you who disagree will take the time to tell me why I am wrong about any of the above.
I am going to make a claim that religion is a much broader human sphere than even ardent self-identified atheists could ever fear. Science is a method, a process and a very useful one at that. Used properly, it can filter thru many statements and if used “dogmatically” help to identify those which are more likely to be true. But far to often statements are made on sites internet wide that so and so said such and such and therefore your belief in this idea is invalid. If your argument can be simplified to X said Y therefore Z is true you have uttered a religious statement. I do not have a problem with people making religious statements, just with them refusing to acknowledge the nature of their statement. Once you realize how much of our statements on this and other sites can be reduced in this manner it should be easier to accept the religious views of others as you come to recognize them in yourself.
Good points James. Religion is indeed an aspect of a broader human nature. It is the ability to hypothesize what we do not see directly and make necessary decisions on the basis of incomplete information. Is that shadow a tiger lurking in the tall grass? The ability to imagine that had real repercussions.
Those who believe in a religion will state on faith that the tendency to need religion was designed into our DNA, or “is written on our hearts”. Those who reject religion will state on faith that the tendency to need religion evolved into our DNA because relying on fallible rules of thumb contributed to survival and reproduction, with the most useful rules of thumb resulting in the best outcomes for survival. Survival seems to prove the validity of the beliefs.
Consider the many dietary and hygenic rules found in various religions. Isn’t it probable that most of them arose because somebody had a bad outcome that was explained by eating the wrong thing or touching the wrong thing? So there was a fact observed and then an explanation given that wasn’t necessarily completely accurate. For example, somebody eats undercooked pork and dies from trichinosis. It became pigs are unclean and must not be eaten under any circumstances. If you follow that rule, even though it’s unnecessarily strict, you won’t be getting trichinosis from eating undercooked pork, and you have a higher probability of passing on your genes.
But the observed reality that people feel good about themselves when they forego something as a sacrifice is a strange reality. I don’t mean when people follow the religious practices that they were taught. I mean that people seem to get a positive reinforcement from sorting their recycle or no longer using aerosol spray cans as a couple of examples. They seem to be programmed to perform acts that do not provide any benefit to them and may require acting significantly against their interest. This altruism gene seems to be real. Is it designed in or is it evolved in? That question still requires an act of faith to answer either way.
“Those who believe in a religion will state on faith that the tendency to need religion was designed into our DNA, or “is written on our hearts”. Those who reject religion will state on faith that the tendency to need religion evolved into our DNA because relying on fallible rules of thumb contributed to survival and reproduction, with the most useful rules of thumb resulting in the best outcomes for survival.”– These two interpretations are not incompatible. If you were God, would you bring about a world in which people who did your will would be destined to die out rather than thrive? Whether one believes that the universe and man’s place in it is or is not the result of a divine will is, in either case, a matter of faith. The atheist’s position is as much faith-based as anyone else’s.
To the extent that “green” encompasses the meme of dangerous man-made climate change (i.e., AGW or CAGW), it has always been a belief in the unprovable . . . that is, it has ALWAYS been a religion.
It has been a religion for over 30 years now, an Elmer Gantry hucksterism sort of religion, and there is NO redemption for its practitioners or leaders.
‘Has environmentalism become more than just a good faith effort to protect the Earth? Is it now tantamount to a religion?’
No.
Next question!
Griff –
Check the post three above yours. Oh, and yes I’m a pot and acknowledge that I’m “black”. What’s your color kettle?
griffie has been an alterboy in the Church Of Globall Warmining for many years.
griff posted “Next question!”
My question to you is, what kind of gratification do you get by posting comments to WUWT, only to be continuously corrected and/or ridiculed?
Not that I am expecting an answer for someone (some bot) that exemplifies being a troll.
It could be his sacrifice for the faith that lets him know that he’s a “Good Person”.
It could be that he is remunerated by George Soros.
It could be that “he” is a legion of people paid to be omnipresent defending against our heresy.
It could be that it is a bot.
One thing is for sure, the griff entity is impervious to reason and facts.
“No.
Next question!”
Really?….. none of it….. not even a teensy weensy bit of Extinction Rebellion…no….the red robes…..the End of the Worldness…..repentance…. no…..all completely normal.
..and yet they have all the characteristics of one.
Their god is the planet, their scripture is climate science RCP8.5, their rallies serve as religious meetings where there is guidance in thought, from which they then go and evangelise throughout society.
And of course if you have a problem with their core dogma that is; “we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making” then you quickly become a heretic, it’s got it all really.
The real problem isn’t that the environmentalist movement has become a religion. Where the problems arise is that, like atheists, most of those that espouse the unproven beliefs deny that they belong to a religion. And more often than not see their beliefs as superior simply because they don’t stem from a traditional religion.
No religion requires more faith in and belief in God than atheism.
GK Chesterton “When people stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing.They believe in anything.”
I am an atheist and I think most green ideology is misguided,but for some it is a religion, and that global warming hysteria is just that – hysteria.
Now that I’ve watched the “Religion of Green” video, I’d paraphrase the two themes here as number one, ‘Human Nature Abhors a Religious Vacuum” and number two “Whatever Rushes in to Fill the Vacuum is Likely to Include the Fear of ‘Something’. Of course, there is also some subtlety there about the tendency to make the Earth the focus, as opposed to making God the focus, but that’s a capsule paraphrase of the psychology that seem to be at work for environmentalism becoming a ‘religion’ of sorts.
A big problem right now is that the Leftist extremism we are seeing is clearly not even all focused on the environment as such, if only it were that simple! A lot of the ideology we are seeing has to do with government control, mostly Leftist in concept, but also no doubt some right wing globalist ambitions get mixed in to this as well. So, what can we do, maybe debunking bad ideas isn’t enough, maybe we have to substitute a higher, less damaging grade of scary stuff?
Say, look everyone, you must please hold scientists and the media to a higher standard —
— or Dr. Doom will get us all!
I find that as annoying and persistently hypocritical as greens are, to grant them religious status is far too great a compliment. The movement bears all the hallmarks a cult complete with followers who will not see any truth put in front of them but the one their grand leader has decreed to them. The real joke will be on them if they succeed and Marxism gets a foothold and the acolytes aren’t granted the saintly status they seek, but breadlines like the rest of the commoners. The academics should examine how theur kin have fared under Communism as well.
But it will be different this time right…
science and religion are complementary:
religion answers questions about the unknown (creation of universe, purpose of life…) so God may be regarded as our notion of ignorance. Therefore religion also is a firewall against existential fears and uncertainty.
Science is about things that can be counted and investigated.
Secularization transformed God to Mother Earth, the canonization of (wild) nature.
So, environmentalists became the new clergyman.
But opposite to the church which prayed salvation and the love of God, the environmentalists declare mankind as “cancer of the earth” , spread immense fears and request sacrifices that cost billions : windmills and solar panels are the indulgences for our sins: exploiting the earth. But to live means to exploit the earth, there is no choice.