back
6 comments
Why do we feel compelled to dither on the politization phenomena rather than on finding ways to dig ourselves out?

It's not as if we could go back in time and then decide to retard our development in order to wait for more "humane" ways to achieve progress?

Whatever mess we're in today, I don't think we're in a less desirable place than we were in 1610. And we would not be where we are as a species if we did not go thru the destruction we have inflicted upon ourselves.

Let's look at something analogous in China's rise. Should china have taken a more measured approach to process and thus have another generation or two or more eek out a living barely surviving, or as they have chosen, power through to progress but knowing a good many people would suffer in the convulsion through injustice pollution, inhumanity, " capitalism with Asian values", corruption, etc?

It's not an easy call and there are benefits and drawbacks to either approach. I'm not sure history can educate us on what would have been better, although it can inform us and help us make future decisions with one hopes, better understanding.

It's a totally fair question. It definitely doesn't make sense to nail it down to a single year...

However, the same facts convince and persuade diffrent people through different aesthetics and contexts. This is especially true in today's age of the economy of the sign and the nearly mainstream replacement of Christian theology with science.

IOW, it's to make it scientific b/c so many people believe in science.

This of course ignores the fact that there are still many people UNpersuaded by science. So, to convince them will require another web page wrapping the same concepts and facts in the aesthetics and belief systems that will persuade them...

(Unfortunately the belief system of Christianity has already been eroded to some extent by the concept opposing climate change theory called "Christian Dominion" in which it's a religious duty to consume all the resources possible before the second coming, so those of us who feel strongly about this manner will have to subdivide and find new ways to convince the stubborn.)

>"Christian Dominion" in which it's a religious duty to consume all the resources possible before the second coming

Question: is this a doctrine as they would state it, or an exaggeration? I've heard of doctrines of "man has stewardship over the earth" in the sense of all nature being for man's use, and also doctrines of "God will provide" and thus that overpopulation cannot be a significant issue. but I haven't heard official statements of the "use everything up before the Second Coming as a moral imperative" before. Sources?

I am areligious, but I thought stewardship, in their context meant 'looking after' more than 'exploiting'.
tl;dr: Trying to make geology into a movement for social justice, by defining geologic periods for geopolitical events.
Hey! That's the OP's own summary! I didn't make that up.