Finally, someone who doesn't pull his punches when talking about Climate Destabilization. Duane Elgin's language resonates with me.

What are the ethics of irretrievably mutilating an entire planet?

This generation of humans is committing "eco-cide" or the murder of the Earth's environment. This means we are committing more than an unimaginable crime against future generations of humans: We are committing the murder of a large portion of the Earth's biosphere with all of her animals and plants. How can this generation explain its inconceivable disregard for future generations and allow such a tragedy to unfold? This is runaway insanity!

...the mass media ... are abdicating their responsibilities and using adolescent entertainment to promote a superficial, consumerist lifestyle of ruin.

Every major institution and profession with the responsibility to be awake, mature and engaged is, instead, either enabling or ignoring the Earth's slide into disaster.

What is the expression of moral outrage that is equal to our suicidal destruction of the biosphere? Perhaps the penetrating language of Frederick Douglas...

"At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! Had I the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, I would today, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced." -- Frederick Douglass [emphasis mine]

Deleting the theistic reference, of course, everything else expresses my own feeling.

Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide Ethics

Views: 172

Replies to This Discussion

I would have to agree with you Ruth - eco-cide is what is happening right now.

We should be thinking about the affect we have on the environment.

Ruth, you wrote in "Methane, more scary than we thought" that

It seems we've been "fudging the numbers" in a sense ... we don't have 100 years. A 20 year time frame would be much more realistic, given the urgency of climate crisis.

To truly face up to a planetary emergency, we could be doing things such as globally outlawing gas-guzzlers as weapons of mass destruction.

Or using taxes evaded by the 0.01% for research and development... turning the recent battery and solar breakthroughs into affordable products that can be widely deployed.

The longer we delay, the harsher our transition will become. Just as Cargo Cult members had a frenzy of destruction of old culture valuables in order to welcome the magic cargo planes loaded with new ones, our cultural transition to a sustainable economy will - more and more likely - involve a frenzy of destruction of offending goods.

I just learned we spend $35 million to maintain the airplane graveyards, for example. That money could go toward green initiatives, if we just allowed scrap metal companies to recycle the junkers. Nostalgia and military history are less critical than survival.

When I hear Romney say, “We have 250 years of coal. Why wouldn’t we use it?” to me it sounds like

Mitt Romney intensifies EPA attacks


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service