A Sermon

Originally posted by @rwingett
Alright, since I rarely post here anymore, I'm going to call this thread to order. If I still can. Does anyone have anything to say about pantheism? Or about pantheism's potential role in relation to industrial society? Can the ecological "end times" be averted, or are we hopelessly bound to the scripts assigned to us by global consumerist capitalism?

Being a pantheist myself , I must say I agree with the OP. Unfortunately we live in a culture ( in the US ) which is driven by capitalism. If this can be packaged so some big corporation can make lots of money it just might be workable. It will serve us right to suffer.

Originally posted by @rwingett
😴

You think global capitalists had something to do with the writing of both the Old and New Testaments?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
In regards to this thread though, the issue is less about how we attack each other and more about how we are attacking the planet. The Bible may indeed instruct you how to treat your neighbour but is noticeably negligent in telling you to treat the environment around you with respect.

Indeed, all this talk about being in the 'end times' is more ...[text shortened]... l still be here thousands of years from now; granted, with two heads and advanced fashion sense.

I think we should treat the planet and everything around us with respect. I worry more about us than the planet that is not going anywhere regardless of what we do to it.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I think we should treat the planet and everything around us with respect. I worry more about us than the planet that is not going anywhere regardless of what we do to it.

And yet why can I not help having my suspicions that you've probably cheered on every appointment made at the EPA - and other departments - since the 2016 U.S Presidential election?

Originally posted by @caissad4
Being a pantheist myself , I must say I agree with the OP. Unfortunately we live in a culture ( in the US ) which is driven by capitalism. If this can be packaged so some big corporation can make lots of money it just might be workable. It will serve us right to suffer.

It makes me wonder if technological civilization is an inherently self-defeating project. Whether any civilization that dips its toe into the murky pool of science is doomed to follow an extractivist logic that ultimately despoils its land base to the point that it all collapses in ruin.

Originally posted by @rwingett
It makes me wonder if technological civilization is an inherently self-defeating project. Whether any civilization that dips its toe into the murky pool of science is doomed to follow an extractivist logic that ultimately despoils its land base to the point that it all collapses in ruin.

Your concern is what that we will ruin the planet?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Your concern is what that we will ruin the planet?

That we will seriously degrade the earth's various ecosystems, leading to widespread species extinction and collapse and misery in human populations.

Originally posted by @rwingett
It makes me wonder if technological civilization is an inherently self-defeating project. Whether any civilization that dips its toe into the murky pool of science is doomed to follow an extractivist logic that ultimately despoils its land base to the point that it all collapses in ruin.

Not at all. The ecological ruin comes from people who put profit above people and the planet. In the document "Who Killed the Electric Car", oil companies were shown lobbying against cars like the EV1, an efficient hybrid car, and spending their resources trying to defeat their creation. A pivotal court hearing that could've been huge leap forward was killed by oil companies.

There are countless stories like, for example, Donald Trump's appointing as head of the Environmental Protection Agency someone who sued them 14 times on behalf of the coal industry, Scott Pruitt. Since Pruitt took over the EPA, not only have efforts to curb emissions output been killed, but a pesticide found to cause brain cancer in children avoided a ban, after Pruitt met with the head of the company that makes the chemical.

It's not science and technology that's the problem, but those trying to profit from it at the expense the planet.

Originally posted by @vivify
Not at all. The ecological ruin comes from people who put profit above people and the planet. In the document "Who Killed the Electric Car", oil companies were shown lobbying against cars like the EV1, an efficient hybrid car, and spending their resources trying to defeat their creation. A pivotal court hearing that could've been huge leap forward was kil ...[text shortened]... and technology that's the problem, but those trying to profit from it at the expense the planet.

I don't agree. I think the problem is systemic in nature. No matter how many times you run that simulation, or who you put in charge of it, technological societies will inevitably follow the same path to self-destruction. The problem is that technology is not neutral, as so many would have us believe. All technologies are embedded with certain values. Their widespread adoption compels societies to reorganize themselves in such ways as to maximize the use of those technologies and to foster an infrastructure conducive to the research of other technologies. The more pervasive technological inputs are in a society, the less room their is for personal agency in deviating from a path dictated by technological needs.

Originally posted by @rwingett
That we will seriously degrade the earth's various ecosystems, leading to widespread species extinction and collapse and misery in human populations.

So what is it your really concern about? The misery of the human population, all the ecosystems species being wiped out? One more important to you than another?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So what is it your really concern about? The misery of the human population, all the ecosystems species being wiped out? One more important to you than another?

They're all interconnected. But I won't be around to bear the brunt of it. So it's not going to affect me personally if things go belly up. But it'll affect your children or grandchildren.

Originally posted by @rwingett
They're all interconnected. But I won't be around to bear the brunt of it. So it's not going to affect me personally if things go belly up. But it'll affect your children or grandchildren.

Thank you for your response.

Originally posted by @rwingett
I don't agree. I think the problem is systemic in nature. No matter how many times you run that simulation, or who you put in charge of it, technological societies will inevitably follow the same path to self-destruction. The problem is that technology is not neutral, as so many would have us believe. All technologies are embedded with certain values. Thei ...[text shortened]... less room their is for personal agency in deviating from a path dictated by technological needs.

We know technology isn't inherently self-destructive due to the many sources of renewable energy: wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc. The problem is figuring out a way to implement it.

Our resources can indeed be managed. Take the Philippines, for example:
http://www.no-burn.org/from-dream-to-reality-in-the-philippines

in 2009, they started following a Zero Wast Initiative. This includes laws that citizens must throw out waste in sections, using designated containers. This means food, plastics, cans and other categories are separated for recycling, then picked up the the local waste-removal units. The goal is as the name states, that no garbage is actually wasted, and that they are used in some form; for example, thrown out food is turned into compost. Indonesian law mandates strict fines to anyone who doesn't cooperate.

This greatly reduced Indonesia's use of incinerators, reducing greenhouse gases to nearly nil within just two years. This shows that waste is simply a matter of responsibly using and managing resources.

But I do get what you're saying: even with the best of intentions, if the entire human race devoted it's know-how to keeping wast and pollution as non-existent as possible, that at some point, we'd still run bleed the earth dry, as we become more technologically advanced. This is most likely true. However, we never know what kind of scientific breakthroughs may come that could enable mankind to be able to maximize our efficiency at conserving resources and protecting the planet.

Humans (and the planet) will one day cease to exist on earth when the sun inevitably swallows up the earth as it reaches the end of its life. Only technological advances can save us, as we explore new planets, and find ways to make them habitable for humans. Humans (and earth) are doomed, but technology can *hopefully* lengthen their existence beyond living on earth, through scientific advances.

Originally posted by @vivify
We know technology isn't inherently self-destructive due to the many sources of renewable energy: wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc. The problem is figuring out a way to implement it.

Our resources can indeed be managed. Take the Philippines, for example:
http://www.no-burn.org/from-dream-to-reality-in-the-philippines

in 2009, they started following ...[text shortened]... y can *hopefully* lengthen their existence beyond living on earth, through scientific advances.

Ah, so we come to the crux of the matter - technophilia as the de facto religion of the secular age. The belief that our vaunted technology, despite all evidence to the contrary, will somehow save us from ourselves. As fervently as Christians believe that Jesus will come again, those who are enmeshed in a technological society believe that we will somehow innovate our way out of our current predicament. Well, I don't believe that a society raised on a technological catechism will be capable of altering its values to a degree sufficient to make the wholesale changes necessary. Sure, we tinker around the edges with this or that green technology, but despite all that the system as a whole continues to decay at an accelerating rate.

As for exploring new planets on the chance that we should render this one uninhabitable, it is the stuff of science fiction. I would conjecture that in reality interstellar space travel is an impossibility. The reason is that the amount of resources necessary to sustain a space faring civilization is more than any one planet can provide. Such a civilization would deplete its resource base and crash before it could successfully relocate itself across space. In short, there is no 'Planet B'.

As for the sun burning itself out, that is an event so far in the future as to be irrelevant. The far more pressing concern should be to get our own house in order. And I think pantheism may be the only path available that can successfully challenge the twin dictates of technology and capitalism.