One positive aspect of Christian environmental stewardship is that it can counterbalance the darkest aspect of modern secular environmentalism, namely, its anti-humanity.  Secular environmentalism tends to elevate the needs of rocks, trees, and snail-darters above human needs, and to see humans as totally negative carbon polluters and despoilers of the pristine environment. 

Christian environmental stewardship can counterbalance this by insisting that every human being is created in the image of God and is infinitely valuable--much more so than the snail darter--and that God created a bounteous earth to minister to our needs and comforts, while still insisting on responsible stewardship of the environment.   

It is always funny to read this type of articles, filled with emotion devoid of information. Nathan wrote:

--

As Christian stewards, we should be using the many choices in our lives, our consumer power and our political voice to work against the blind disregard of environmental responsibility in much of the Western world.

--

I guess Nathan being from Down under has never heard of the Enviornmental Protection Agency or Environmental impact statements. They are common place in the US. Probably in Western Europe as well. To say that these Western nations have blind disregard is so ignorant as to be laughable. Then when one looks at the underdeveloped countries or emerging countries like China and the horror of enviromental degradation of such countries as those formerly under the communist control in Eastern Europe we see truly polluted land and skies. 

The fact is the more prosperous countries the freer they are of pollution. You can afford to hug a tree if you don't have to burn the tree to cook your meal. But then like much on the political left emotion is their only guide and limited knowledge is the refuge they hide behind so that they can allow their emotion to rule their intelligence."workers of the world unite" sounds so good as does weath distrubution until we end our emotional enthusiasm and see what those political ideals gave us in the real world.

It still iritates me to see it mixed with Adventism though. There are so many reasons to write against pollution of our world, but they only choose those which impugne Western democracies. Maybe it is because so many don't have any concept of economics, clearly Nathan does not understand capitalism. It reminds me of the way the founder of Greenpeace had to leave the organization he founded because political zealots took over, sad.

"The fact is the more prosperous countries [sic] the freer they are of pollution. You can afford to hug a tree if you don't have to burn the tree to cook your meal."

 Really? Is there any research supporting the assertion that the prosperous industrialized nations are in reality responsible for less pollution than are developing nations? I seriously doubt it, but would be nonetheless interested in reading it.

Burning trees (wood) to cook meals would seem somewhat less polluting than what we see, smell and breathe in many of the manufacturing centers of the industrialized (and prosperous) west; not to mention that (pollution) resulting from auto emissions in more prosperous countries.

Your timing, in the wake of Climategate, is a bit ironic, Nathan.  "The debate is over..." will draw snickers among informed readers these days.  Tell me, was Al Gore or Paul Ehrlich the featured speaker at the state-of-the-natural-world-conference? Ah, maybe they channeled Rachel Carson.  Perhaps the reason so many scientists believe in absurdities like positive feedbacks in the environment is that positive feedback mechanisms are so commonplace in the herd mentality that characterizes the political-academic complex.  Young scientists trained in a given field are required to accept certain premises and theories in order to access graduate research stipends, participate in grant sponsored research, or even find an advisor to work with.  Then they have to come up with conclusions that fit the theories in order to get published.

Man, as apocalyptic destroyer of Mother Gaia, is one of the pagan myths that religious progressives use to persuade Christians to bend the knee to the Baals of academia and science.  If anyone wants an excellent overview of just how wrong and overstated the fundamental claims of the treehuggers are, just read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician.

Nathan's blog is long on generalities, and totally devoid of specifics. The reality is that most people are not equipped to sift through the enormous economic, scientific, demographic, political and social data that is necessary to define specific problems and to come up with the best solutions.  Christian demagoguery and sloganeering may make you feel very sanctimonious.  But it does not address the cost-benefits and trade-offs that must be considered in the real world.

And in the context of Climategate, the notion that we should trust conclusions that favor big government solutions, offered by scientists whose research - surprise, surprise - has been funded by government grants, is risible.

Do progressive Adventists, who have derided the Church for crying "wolf" over Sunday Laws and seeing all reality through "end-of-time" filters, realize how ridiculous they look when they turn right around and enlist Adventists to believe in their own pagan doomsday eschatology?  At least traditional Adventist theology seeks to prepare people for the Kingdom of Heaven rather than for an enlarged, command-and-control earthly kingdom.

The truth is that Christians should be stewards of the earth; we should be conservationists; and most of us want to be.  But whipping up existential angst so that we will turn our lives and our world over to politicians and self-proclaimed experts is not helpful. We need look no further than the fraud and manipulation of climate science, prominently exposed at "wattsupwiththat" over the past couple of weeks, to see that scientists are no better at predicting the future than are economists or tele-evangelists.  A scientific "consensus" regarding the dire threat posed by CO2 emissions was built upon a foundation of lies, manipulation of data, fraud and intimidation that, by its global political and economic impact, dwarfs any other scientific fraud in history.

So tell me again, Mr. Brown - exactly why is it that we should trust the same group of folks who are still trying to sell us the global warming lemon? 

Nathan B, thanks again for your thoughts, your willingness to share them, and the interesting and thought-provoking manner in which you express yourself.

Ron and Nathan S - your immediate, scornful attacks from Rightwing field are unfounded, unnecessary, and yet, somehow, unsurprising. 

Nathan B is no way, shape or form is advocating a specific political agenda.  He never declares belief in global warming or in radical environmentalist's views or science, about which he humorously and cleverly understates that "there may be some quibbling..."

Ron and Nathan S - What Nathan B does do is state that we are undeniably having a negative impact on nature.  From your post, it seems you agree, and you also agree that we should be doing better.  What Ron in particular seems to resent is that Nathan B has pointed out that Western nations bear the bulk of the responsibility for pollution.  Perhaps China has indeed surpassed the US as the biggest emitter of pollutants, but it did so in the act of producing most of the consumer goods purchased in the United States and other further developed countries.  Even if it wasn't our insatiable desire for Chinese-produced widgets and gadgets that fuels the pollution surge in asia, the NIMBY principle shouldn't apply to our environmental stewardship.  The world is now our backyard - we can't pretend we don't see or bear any responsibility for the destruction of coral reefs, rain forests, ice pack, everglades, prairies, timberlands or other environments. 

It's unfortunate that the world allowed New Age, Left-wingnuts to hijack the cause of environmentalism as if they invented nature themselves.  As Christians, knowing who created each living thing, delicately balanced each ecosystem, and then asked us to watch over it, we should be the biggest proponents of environmental protectionism.  "Cost-benefits" are a poor counterweight against which to balance our stewardship, but one that has too often been given undue consideration, leading to our capitalist, western reputation as environmental rapists and pillagers. 

There is nothing in Nathan B's post that is worthy of drawing "snickers among informed readers."  Read it carefully, and it should draw respect and admiration.  If it sparks further discussion, so be it.  But to ridicule his thoughts and opinions is ill-mannered and disrespectful. 

David Read - very well said.  There is surely a place for debate within the Christian family on how we are doing with regards to that stewardship. 

As for prosperous countries doing better in pollution control it is pretty logical, if you aren't prosperous the country does not even think about pollution control. But here is a study for you. http://www.isc.hbs.edu/GCR_20012002_Environment.pdf

You will no doubt ask why they choose the three areas of measurement. The reason is that they had to choose things that the countries measure and as the poorer the country the less likely they will document their pollution. Here is the key part to take from this:  "One pattern that is immediately discernable across all three measures is that richer countries achieve better results than poorer ones.The improvement of environmental performance as income rises is most pronounced with regard to urban particulates and energy efficiency, and least strong for SO2 emissions. Among lower-income countries, the variance on all three measures is particularly high relative to more prosperous countries."

In case you are wonder the article begins by defining environmental performance: "Environmental performance, encompassing the control of pollution and stewardship of natural resources,.."

--- 

The SO2 rankings cover 47 countries.Argentina and Lithuania rank at the top on this measure. China and Russia face the most severe SO2 problems.
Energy usage data are available for 72 countries. Denmark and Switzerland rank highest in energy efficiency.

Russia and the Ukraine emerge as the most energy inefficient countries.
Figures 2, 3, and 4 plot the relationship between each measure of environmental performance and GDP per capita. One pattern that is immediately discernable across all three measures is that richer countries achieve better results than poorer ones.The improvement of environmental
performance as income rises is most pronounced with regard to urban particulates and energy efficiency, and least strong for SO2 emissions. Among lower-income countries, the variance on all three measures is particularly high relative to more prosperous countries.This suggests that environmental performance can be substantially improved in many low-income countries independent of the gains that come with economic development.

The regression relationship between environmental performance and GDP per capita provides an interesting perspective on how each country performs relative to its wealth. Countries above the regression line in Figures 2, 3, and 4 exhibit weaker environmental results on the particular
performance measure than would be expected given their level of GDP; those countries below the regression line demonstrate better performance.These results are shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4

Page 85 Ranking National Environmental Regulation and Performance: A Leading Indicator of Future Competitiveness?
DANIEL C. ESTY, Yale University
MICHAEL E. PORTER, Harvard Business School and Director, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness 

--

Oh yes and thank you for your insertion of (sic)  Stephen Foster says: "The fact is the more prosperous countries [sic]"

You might want to go correct the  UK Timesonline as their editiors must need you help also. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3617160.ece

Actually according to Google there are 73,200 for "prosperous countries" so you will really be in demand as an editor.

Statefarmsteve, I'd suggest that you open your eyes to the reality that the environmental movement is, and always has been, first and foremost, about politics. Consider the following: "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." The First Global Revolution (1991), published by The Club of Rome.  Jurriaan Maessen has exhaustively documented the eugenics/world government agenda of the highly influential Club of Rome, which came out with its first book, Limits to Growth, in the early '70's.

Environmentalism has long been a cherished tool in the arsenal of tyrants to destroy private property rights and erode liberty.  In 1913 Ludwig Kleges wrote an essay entitled Man and Earth, which anticipated all the themes of the contemporary environmental movement - accelerating extinction of species, disturbance of perceived global ecosystemic balance, deforestation, loss of aboriginal cultures and habitats, urban sprawl, and alienation of man from nature. Man and Nature disparaged Christianity, capitalism and hyperconsumption. An ardent antisemite, Kleges paved the way, during the Weimar era, for the reactionary romanticism that gave rise to national socialism and eugenics, and became the "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party. Tyrants need moral cover, and environmentalism, along with anti-corporatism, was a cornerstone of Hitler's justification for concentrated power.

Google John Holdren, the science advisor to President Obama, and you will get a pretty good sense of the radical political purposes being advanced by the century-old Chicken Little rants of environmentalists. Death panels sound like hyperbole until one actually reads what folks like Holdren, Zeke Emmanuel, The Club of Rome, and others who have the Presidents ear, have said about population control and the problems of limited, shrinking resources that they envision and welcome.

That Nathan B. may be oblivious to the political implications and history of his message should not blind us to that reality. 

Nathan S, if you're going to get historical on me, then you also might admit that Capitalism was first and foremost about maximizing profit without regard for and at the dire expense of the enviroment, animals, and people.  An environmental movement opposing this slash and burn version of progress was inevitable.  Google the following - American buffalo, trail of tears, early American fur trapping industry, logging, mining, robber barons, child labor, slavery, etc.

Capitalists are now so quick to talk about liberty and property rights, just a few short years after having ripped away the land from the Native Americans.  History shows that the original American violators of liberty and property rights were committing these atrocities in the name of the same progress that you so faithfully defend today.  Yet America was built on stolen land with slave labor.  If you're so concerned with liberty and rights, why not begin with returning the land to or properly compensating the original owners, and also explore the need for reparations for the descendents of those that built the entire American economy.   It sounds like justice hasn't yet been served, and there can be no liberty without justice. 

If you want to talk about being blinded to history, make sure the picture you have is complete, too.  Don't forget the roots of capitalism - slavery, robber barons, child labor...  Socialism didn't crop up out of nowhere. 

It seems to me that you are wedded to an idea that the noble free-market capitalists are engaged in a holy war against evil socialists.  My persective is that history reveals that capitalists have proven to be as irresponsible as socialists.  The victims are the same.  The only difference is the name brand of the bullet in the corpse.   

steve wrote:

--

Capitalists are now so quick to talk about liberty and property rights, just a few short years after having ripped away the land from the Native Americans.

--

This is why arguing with these myopic people is useless. Can you name one country or nation that did not get it's land from someone else? That is hardly an accusation that can only be leveled against capitalists. But because truth and reality are never really a concern of some people half truths seem to do just fine...at least for propaganda purposes.

Really, Statefarmsteve, I do believe you aimlessly lob grenades from your fallacious tu quoque redoubt simply to amuse me. I am of course sorely tempted to mount a spirited defense of slavery, child labor, Injun hunting, and buffalo slaughter.  But in the interests of staying on point, I shall save my discourse extolling the virtues of moral maleficence for another post.

Kidding aside, I don't think you want to seriously argue that child labor, slavery, subjugation of native populations, or disregard for the environment are unique to capitalism, much less the objective of capitalism. Every economic, political and social system contains within itself the seeds of evil. It is certainly fair and necessary to judge a belief or system by how it has functioned in the past, and whether it has demonstrated a capacity for self-criticism and change. 

I have pointed out that the environmental movement has long and deep roots in ecofascism, and that its goals are pretty scary for anyone who believes in the limited government of checks and balances envisioned by our founders. I believe I recently read a comment by you that you would support the educatetruth calls for transparency were it not for their ultimate agenda.  Isn't it valid to look at environmentalism, health care reform, cap and trade, etc., in the same manner?  

Now if Nathan B. is simply arguing for Christians to accept personal responsibility as stewards of what God has given them, I wholeheartedly agree.  But I think he is laying the groundwork for Christian ecopolitics.  Apart from the obvious church-state problems with such a position, I think its important to understand where the engineers driving the train of environmentalism want to take us before jumping aboard. Don't you?  

'Tis true, Nathan, that I am amused, challenged, and entertained by our discussions, and I hope that you are, as well.  If Ron isn't keeping up, and it appears he isn't, I'm okay with that.  He has no use for my myopic arguments, perhaps, but I enjoy our exchanges nonetheless.  

I'm definitely not arguing that slavery, death, and destruction are not the goal of capitalism - making money is clearly the goal.  Slavery, child labor, and pollution are mere side effects that are only tempered by the same government intervention that most capitalists label as interference. 

My point is this - socialism didn't appear out of thin air.  There was a very real, very destructive nature to early 20th century capitalism that lit the fire under socialists.  I'm not saying I favor their particular brand of government, either, but unless we Americans acknowledge and own our past failures, we won't be able to succeed in the future. 

If government fails to balance the hunger of the proletariat with the thirst of the elite, then revolution is inevitable.  I believe our system of government is the best at handling this delicate balance of society, and I believe that the events over the past 10 years are the biggest test of that system.  I believe it is up to the test.  The Obama administration is the inevitable swing in the other direction from the Bush administration.  The further one side swings, the further the other will swing in its direction.  The trick will be to find a way to un-radicalize the pendulum. 

I'm not saying that we'll solve the liberal v. conservative political war here on AToday, but I'm saying that recognizing that many tenets of the two opposing sides are less different than they appear may help.  It's also worth noting that both sides have less than stellar track records, and that both capitalist extremism and socialist extremism have proven to be quite ugly. 

But are slavery, child labor or pollution more probable when free markets, political freedom, and personal rights are highly valued? The historical evidence suggests otherwise. Historically, those evils have been most reliably enabled and perpetuated by centralized government.

Environmentalism, as a movement, unapologetically seeks to fundamentally transform lifestyles, politics, and spending through centralized government bureaucracies implementing its ideological agenda. In other words, deprivation of freedom is not simply an unfortunate, avoidable side-effect of the environmental agenda; it is one of its primary goals. The ill-effects of capitalism, by contrast, are not its objectives, but are ameliorable consequences.  

Our current Administration has embarked on policy after policy intended to destroy the foundations of our wealth and to gain control over the lives of all Americans - all in the name of some higher moral agenda.  The Green Wing of the Obama administration serves the same function and has the same goals as did the Green Wing of the Nazi Party. Calling attention to America's historical dirty laundry - dirty laundry common to all nations at the time - and blaming it on freedom, will not change the reality of the Green movement objectives. 

Nathan - Slavery here in America was not perpetuated by, but rather ended by the intervention of our central, federal government.  Interestingly enough, the same anti-federalist, states' rights, euro-style tyranny arguments were being made in the 1850's - the same arguments that are being made today against healthcare reform and environmental policy. 

If one were living in the mid-1800's in America, they might have written: 

Abolitionism, as a movement, unapologetically seeks to fundamentally transform lifestyles, politics, and spending through centralized government bureaucracies implementing its ideological agenda. In other words, deprivation of freedom is not simply an unfortunate, avoidable side-effect of the abolitionist agenda; it is one of its primary goals.

You're really quite mistaken that America's moral gaffes were "common to all nations at the time."  By the time the 1700's rolled around, I can't think of a single European nation that still embraced slavery.  As for overwhelming natives and forcing them off of their land, the US was doing this well into the 1800's - although the practice in Europe ended about the time midieval kings stopped beheading their old wives when they wanted a new one. 

Remember a few years ago, when the radical left was lamenting the "Bush Dynasty" and the looniest of the loony were saying that he planned 9/11 so he could boost oil prices, declare martial law and and turn America over to Blackwater and Halliburton?  That was the doppelganger of the arguments that Obama is trying to subdue Americans by giving them healthcare and asking them to drive priuses.  The big difference is that CNN didn't run a 24-hour campaign of misinformation and political commentary to support the "Bush Dynasty" idiocy, although Murdoch's Fox News seems intent upon propogating the Obamanazi angle. 

Perhaps the exchange of accusations of absurdities is just the nature of modern politics.

Statefarm, did you really write, "If government fails to balance the hunger of the proletariat with the thirst of the elite, then revolution is inevitable." ??

I got a good a laugh out of that.  I assume you were being ironic, and lampooning old-time communists of 100 years ago. 

Statefarm, you'll be saddened to learn that an appellate court in Canada has lifted the lifetime ban on the Rev. Boissoin saying anything discomfiting to about gay people.  See here:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/23640442/Boissoin-Ruling.

"The direction to cease and desist the publishing of "disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals' is beyond the power of the Panel. "Disparaging remarks"were not defined by the Panel. But clearly, "disparaging remarks" are remarks much less serious than hateful and contemptuous remarks and are quite lawful to make. They are beyond the power of the Act to regulate and the power of the Province to restrain."

There are still some limits on the extent to which speech can be regulated in Canada.  Although, I doubt that free speech has much of a prayer anywhere, given the contempt and hatred in which liberals like you hold it, and given the tireless, freakishly religious devotion with which liberals tenaciously pursue their agenda.  Alas, most conservatives actually have lives, and cannot spend their every waking moment trying to preserve our civilization from the Left-wing onslaught.

David - I did really write that.  I didn't pull it out of a hat, but rather based it on the fact that every revolution, including the one in 1776, began out of discontent, not satisfaction. 

As for your post on the Canadian court ruling, it's more than a little off-topic, and in it you personally attack me as someone who has contempt for and hatred of free speech.  There is no context for, nor place for such comments here.  If you'd like to personally attack me, at least do it in a secular post where I can at least direct you to engage in an act of self abuse that is physically complex but figuratively appropriate, or do it in person where your desire to personally insult another man would necessarily be tempered by the possibility that the object of your insults might choke you out or break some of your bones. 

You also suggest that I have no life, although I'd counter that my life is infinitely more satifsfying than that of the average man.  I have a great family, a wonderful wife, 3 dynamic, well-adjusted children, my own business, tons of free time, a bunch of hobbies, including golf, writing, reading, exercising, watching movies, and travelling.  As far as I can tell, you're an attorney with no clients, and an author whose books nobody buys, largely due to the fact that you write on subjects that you have no related education or credentials to write about.  So I can't help but wonder exactly where exactly your suggestion that I have no life is stemming from. 

Get on topic, and get off the personal attacks.  The exchange of ideas which you jumped into was relatively open, honest, and positive.  If you can't contribute to that, stay out of it. 

Steve wrote:

---

You're really quite mistaken that America's moral gaffes were "common to all nations at the time."  By the time the 1700's rolled around, I can't think of a single European nation that still embraced slavery. 

--

Maybe that is because your history is faulty. as it was not till the beginning of the 1800's that Britain first started it anti slavery acts. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

Seems there was even a movie about it. Oh yea and since you don't like wikipedia here is the biography of William Wilberfource.

http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm

But the post I took your quote from was probably the most rational I have seen of yours for quite a while.

Ron - if your education in history went beyond wiki, you wouldn't be so quick to critiicize, and your critique would carry more weight.

Slavery in England had disappeared by the beginning of the 17th century.  Blacks and other minorities were imported as house servants, but their status as chattel never stood up to court challenges (See Lord Mansfield - you can wiki him if you'd like...)  In the outlying English colonies, the wealthy British elite continued to use their political influence to continue their policy of enslavement.

Here, from Wiki, that pinnacle of scholarly knowledge.  Wiki "Slavery":

"In Western Europe slavery largely disappeared by the later Middle Ages.  The trade of Slaves in England was made illegal in 1102."

Statefarm, talk about being off topic, what does a discussion about slavery in British dominions have to do with a theology of environmentalism?  I can certainly understand the desire to change the subject, with the "climate change" hoax, f/k/a the "global warming" hoax, coming undone as we speak. 

But regarding slavery, you write that, "the wealthy British elite continued to use their political influence to continue their policy of enslavement."  The scandal is that the forces keeping the slave trade alive included the Church of England, which held stock in some of the sugar growing colonies that burned through slaves.  And the man most responsiblie for ending the slave trade was a member of the British elite named William Wilburforce, who used all of his energy and much of his fortune to end the slave trade.

There's a column today in the WSJ that talks about what I mentioned in my first post, i.e., the dark side of the modern environmentalist movement:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574581673107794380.html

"• Anti-humanism: In his 2007 best seller "The World Without Us," environmentalist Alan Weisman considers what the planet would be like without mankind, and finds it's no bad thing. The U.N. Population Fund complains in a recent report that "no human is genuinely 'carbon neutral'"—its latest argument against children. John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser, cut his teeth in the policy world as an overpopulation obsessive worried about global cooling. But whether warming or cooling, the problem for the climate alarmists, as for other totalitarians, always seems to boil down to the human race itself."

Obviously, if we are serious about developing a tree-hugging theology, it cannot be infected with this sort anti-humanity.

From David Read:

Statefarm, talk about being off topic, what does a discussion about slavery in British dominions have to do with a theology of environmentalism?

We're going to need to get you a little bouncing ball to help you follow the conversation.  If those engaged in the conversation type more slowly, will you be able to keep up?

Statefarm, I'll admit that you got off of the topic incrementally, one logical or illogical step at a time.  But a debate about European slavery is way off the topic of a Christian doctrine of enironmental stewardship, or even the global warming hysteria.

By the way, I want to apologize for my little rant back there about you hating freedom of speech.  That was an uncalled for personal attack that I regret.

Steve wrote:

--

"In Western Europe slavery largely disappeared by the later Middle Ages.  The trade of Slaves in England was made illegal in 1102."

--

That is funny, from the period of feudalism where pretty much the majority of the population were slaves you find that statement as relevant. You should read a history book sometime maybe you can find something by Noam Chomsky as he is probably the only person who you could ever agree with, it may not be history but it would content your hate of capitalism and personal responsibility.

Thanks for the post, Nathan. The subsequent conversation has taken some interesting turns.

I added links to this post on two blogs--Adventist Activism and Adventists for the Environment.

Peace, Jeff

It is both fascinating and instructive to consider why Statefarmsteve felt compelled to advect the currents of 19th Century moral issues into a discussion of Christians and the environmental movement.  His tu quoque digression was ostensibly in response to my observation that the intellectual roots of contemporary environmentalism (alarmist and totalitarian in methods and objectives) are deeply embedded in early 20th Century ecofascism.

That my remarks apparently prompted Statefarmsteve to reflexively flash his moral credentials, rather than actually engage with the subject matter, reflects a pervasive moral imperialism on the part of progressives, which perceives political virtue as a trump card, obviating confrontation with the practical, real world consequences of high-minded sentiments which serveas proxies for political policy. This mindset absolutizes overarching moral imperatives, and deems trade-offs, facts, costs, and possible base motivations to be inconvenient distractions from the great moral Truths of which "progressives" are the self-appointed guardians.  Vindication of those Truths invariably looks to statist power to trample on personal liberty and take away private property to serve some greater good.

This mindset refuses to concede that opponents of "progressive" solutions may actually support conservation, and may actually believe that government has an important role to play in the laudable goals of protecting the environment, improving quality and lowering cost of health care, etc. Naysayers are equated with holocaust deniers.  When they ask questions they are demonized and marginalized as "part of the problem". Climategate, a.k.a. "The CRUtape Letters", is a timely illustration of how science can become a demonic religion when used by scientists to advance moral and political agendas. 

I expect any day now to see a blog by Erv Taylor acknowledging how the arrogance of science, particularly when it is called consensus, can end up subverting the truth, suppressing criticism, and stifling honest debate.  However, I'm not holding my breath. Erv may not want anyone to know that perverse religious rituals are sometimes practiced in the temples of science, despite the high priests' protestations that they have no emotional attachment to, or intimate realtionships with, their harems of data and theories.  

Nathan - it was my impression that we were having a legitimate exchange of ideas.  I don't recall having refused to engage on the subject matter, or flashing my moral credentials, etc.  I'm also not sure why you consider my reply to your comment regarding "ecofascism" as a digression.

I was merely discussing the perspective of the historical events and movements that you brought into our conversation.  The roots of 20th century environmentalism and socialism took hold in response to the rise of industrialism and its robber barons, unconscionable labor conditions, monopolistic industry empires, and the disparate division of wealth that was fostered during that time. 

I apparently mistakenly thought that you and I were improving our ability to discuss politically divisive topics without personally attacking each other. 

However, when I elaborate on a subject that you brought up, you label it "a tu quoque digression."  Perhaps you consider it non-responsive because you made the idiotic assertion that the federal government perpetuated slavery - as if the Union ships fired on Fort Sumter in order to suppress the Confederate cause of abolition. 

If I might be so bold as to quote myself:

It's also worth noting that both sides have less than stellar track records, and that both capitalist extremism and socialist extremism have proven to be quite ugly. 

This is where I'm coming from in the conversation - not that capitalism is all evil, just that capitalism, if allowed to run amuck, will propogate its share of evil.  If you understand this to mean that I would like to trample your rights and liberties to satiate my thirst for moral superiority, then we have no more need for civil discussion.  We can just call each other names and affix labels to each others' foreheads. 

Perhaps, though, this isn't the intent of the Forum.

My comments, Statefarmsteve, were not intended to be a personal attack on you. I'm sorry they sounded that way. Rather, they were directed toward a dangerous mindset of progressive analysis, which I think your argument reflected. 

Elitist, top-down political ideals long preceded the industrial revolution, and have prevailed throughout most of human history. Slavery, displacement of indians, and bison slaughter were not the products of capitalism.  Laws regulating and prohibiting child labor were actually first introduced in capitalistic economies. I don't think I said that slavery was encouraged or perpetuated by the federal government (Another problem with progressives - one has to spend a lot of time pointing out to them that you didn't say or mean what they claim you said and meant.). What I said was that government was necessary - namely, the Southern State governments - to enable the evil of slavery.

The tangent you took assumed a non-existent argument on my part that environmentalism caused socialism. And so you set out to argue at least a moral equivalency between socialism and capitalism by pointing out that capitalism didn't change human nature, a point I would readily concede. What I in fact argued - and you did not refute - was that the environmental movement depends on, and has always promoted, a coercive, command and control government to achieve its objectives. Any power source will do, whether it is socialism, communism, or a dictator (Socialism is really a very brief, transitional form of government that cannot maintain itself). Your implication that capitalism was somehow related to certain evils of the 19th Century was a non-sequitur, because those problems were the result of human nature, not any particular economic or political system. Furthermore, capitalistic economies do not need unrestrained, rapacious individualism in order to succeed.  They need personal liberty, the rule of law, and markets that are allowed to operate according to the laws of economics. 

Environmentalism has unfortunately succeeded in recreating the same type of government-science complex that made Nazi Germany so horrible, and nearly invincible.  Unlike capitalism, which does not need the evil of unconstrained human nature to succeed, the environmental movement does need the evil of unconstrained government power to succeed.  That is why Christians should support conservation, but oppose the environmental movement.    

"This is why arguing with these myopic people is useless. Can you name one country or nation that did not get it's land from someone else? That is hardly an accusation that can only be leveled against capitalists."

So wrote Corson. I have often thought that but until now have not seen anyone who relates the truth about the fact that there has been land taken from others since the recorded days of history. What country in Europe, i.e. was not occupied by another ethnic group before the current inhabitants? Whether right or wrong that has been the history of mankind.

 And exactly what is the matter with capitalism? I surmise that everyone who has commented on this blog benefits some way from capitalistic ventures.

I doubt not that there is globalm warming but I really doubt it has much to do with man's activities. That being said I'm certainly in favor of reasonable attempts to clean up our own environment.

Truth Seeker

From Nathan S

(12/06/09) Historically, those evils [slavery] have been most reliably enabled and perpetuated by centralized government.

(12/11/09) I don't think I said that slavery was encouraged or perpetuated by the federal government (Another problem with progressives - one has to spend a lot of time pointing out to them that you didn't say or mean what they claim you said and meant.). What I said was that government was necessary - namely, the Southern State governments - to enable the evil of slavery.

Nathan S, I apologize for distorting your words.  When you said "centralized government" I thought you meant "centralized government" and mistook it to mean a single government seat of power, which I stupidly assumed was the federal government.  I didn't realize that you were referring to all of the different, separate southern slave states of SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, TX, VA, AR, TN, and NC as a singular "centralized government." 

No wonder you have to explain over and over again to progressives what you actually meant - we're totally dense!

Nathan S, you (and Ron, too, though unlike you, he brings no eloquence, clear thought, proper grammar, or spell check to the table, tho' he does bring the heck out of wikipedia) took the original tangential position that Nathan B was either secretly or unintentionally acting as an agent of socialism by promoting a green agenda. 

I don't refute that the environmental movement depends heavily on government and both its carrots and sticks to regulate pollution and waste, and to promote green research for alternative energy and renewable resources.  But this dependence exists largely because corporate America, whose only moral obligation is to return shareholder value, will not and should not eat into profits to reduce waste or pollutants, unless forced to do so by government intervention.  This isn't an indictment of corporations - just a fact of life.  Without government intervention, we'd be sitting in a house built from 2 x 4's harvested from the Redwood National Forest eating a burger made from the last ground-up manatee on the planet. 

I do strongly disagree with your assertion that environmentalism needs "the evil of unconstrained government power to succeed."  Not only am I confident that it does not need such an evil, but there is absolutely no danger of such a takeover of the Halls of Congress.  One only need spend a day in DC or in your state capitol to find reassurance that the Big Business Lobby still rules that roost.  Most of us "greenies" define success not as a non-existent, never-gonna-happen government takeover, but as a city or corporation adopting a recycling program, or seeing a customer walk into the grocery store with reusable shopping bags, or even getting into our Prius in the morning.  (The Prius is a great example of the success of the environmental movement - it exists only because environmental awareness created a demand (capitalism and environmentalism hand-in-hand!), not because anyone lobbied the government to create it.)  Hardly evil, unconstrained government in my book. 

It is telling, though, that even a mild sway in the direction away from the status quo ignites a firestorm that is fueled by inane, illogical parallels to Nazi Germany and Hitler.  As bright as you are, I know you didn't invent that one yourself.  It's a Fox News/Rush Limbaugh soundbite that is simply moronic and insulting to the victims of actual Naziism. 

What entire race of people would the Liberals attempt to round up and gas and burn so their ashes rain down and the rank odor of their burning flesh and hair blankets the countryside?  What people would Liberals subject to Dr Mengele's tests, sans anesthesia, like injecting chemicals into their eyes to change the color, or dismembering their bodies, or sewing two living twins together to "create" conjoined twins?  Cries of Naziism reborn?  Please.  I have a Jewish friend who is older than dirt, who still bears the numbered tattoo on his arm from his time in a Nazi concentration camp, who would try to fight you for being so insulting to the memory of his friends and family who were truly victims of the Nazis.  Maybe you could celebrate your insensitivity by sending him a swastika-emblazoned Easy-Bake Oven for Christmas. 

Environmentalists taking over the US Government, and then driving it willy-nilly all over your rights and liberties?  Please.  The day I see a legislator push aside a lobbyist from the Trial Lawyers Association, Goldman Sachs, or Pfizer in favor of a meeting with one from the Nature Conservancy is the day I'll eat my shoe.  Nathan S, you can take great comfort in knowing that as a trial lawyer, your grip on the seat of power in America is much, much firmer than Nathan B and his tree-hugger friends' is or ever will be.  But even knowing that, I'm willing to bet on the success of the environmental movement, because it's happening right now, as we speak. 

Announcement: We have a new moderation policy [see posted announcement]. We are aiming to raise the bar in our forums and by doing so we are moderating all comments before they are published. Please read the announcement and stay informed as it may affect your future comments.

Marcel Schwantes

Online Editor, Adventist Today