Does Creationist Science Foster Anti-Ecological Practices?

If you can ever get the topic going - and somehow avoid the apparently inexorable pull to making this another conservative-bashing thread (not that I've got a problem with conservative-bashing, I just think this topic is extremely important) - I would like to hear your rationale and/or evidence that there's a linkage between the fundies and ecological disruption (in whatever form). For reference, I would LOVE to be able to find such a linkage. However, I'm not sure there's support for it.

Well, take your time. I need to get back to my computer and concurrently my reference materials before I can get too deep into this topic. My position is that H. sapiens in general has had an exceptionally negative impact on both regional and global environments over the last 30-40,000 years or so. I am one of those that believes we are seeing a new mass extinction event whose end result is impossible to predict, effected primarily by human activity. In addition, over the last few hundred years, human-caused extinctions have increased exponentially. What I DON'T see is any real connection between religion - whether fundy Christian/Moslem or mainstream - and such activity. Human greed, human ignorance, and human need are the driving forces.It could be a very interesting discussion. I hope you'll find time to participate.

I think what I'm looking for is some kind of objective evidence that provides a direct linkage between the religious outlook you mention and extinction. I also think you're being somewhat Rousseau-ian in your characterization of ancient peoples as "being in and of the natural world". If you look at the correlation between the arrival of H. sapiens to a region and the extinction of whole families of organisms during the Late Pleistocene, for example, you'll note that these ancient cultures certainly had a profound negative impact on the local fauna.Please note: I am NOT a proponent of the "overkill" hypothesis. I think Martin's scenario for the North and South American megafaunal extinctions is simply physically impossible. Humans were likely not the ultimate cause (probably more on the lines of contributing factors), but certainly there is strong evidence that non-Christian "ancient" cultures were devastating to local fauna, especially on islands. All you need to do is look at the Maori on New Zealand, the Polynesians on Hawaii, the aborigines in Australia, etc.However, I think the most telling evidence against the Christianity-as-cause is the widespread destruction caused today by non-Christians. From traditional Chinese medicine (extinction of Panthera tigris amoyensis, precipitous decline in Indian populations of P. t. tigris, Asian populations of Saiga tartarica and Panthalops hodgosni, and African populations of Diceros bicornis and Ceratotherium simum), habitat destruction and hunting of the Indonesian rhinos Rhinoceros sondaicus (extinct) and Didermoceros sumatrensis (critically endangered), commercial bushmeat hunting in West and Central Africa (for instance, Pan troglodytes populations have been completely eliminated by this in Benin, Togo, Gambia, and have been nearly eliminated in Ghana and Guinea-Bissau). The list is literally endless.Both the megafaunal extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene and the current list of extinguished and/or critically endangered species from around the world IMO tend to render a connection between Christianity and extinction somewhat problematic. As I said before, human need, human greed, and human ignorance are the ultimate causes of what could be termed the Holocene Mass Extinction - not a particular religion. Unfortunately.

double postThis message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-30-2004 10:40 AM

Actually, I did read it. I saw NOTHING in that article that would lead me to believe there's an actual correlation between religion and ecological disruption. What I DID see was simply more examples of corporate greed and corporate influence over government spending and policy. I also saw quite a bit of rhetoric directed at the carpet-chewing fundies. He spends a good deal of time trying to make the equation Republican = Christian = fundamentalist/rapturist, an invalid equation if there ever was one.If you have hard evidence that the Christian fundamentalist worldview leads directly to environmental degradation, then please post it. Otherwise Bill Moyer's opinions don't hold a lot of water for me.

How is it a strawman? I'm not misinterpreting your argument, deliberately chnaging your words into something you don't espouse, then knocking it down. I pointed out that early humans were at least the proximate causes of major extinctions beginning ~30-40,000 years ago. We continue the problem to this date. I can provide species-by-species correlations to my contention within +-1000 years (at the earlier end) all the way to specific dates (at the more recent end). Your quibble about "functional feedback" is totally irrelevant. If we continue that argument, then we excuse every human-caused extinction up until the rise of the environmentalist movement in the 1960's.As to the psychology of early humans, you can not possibly have ANY real evidence to back up your claim. The fact that early humans made cave paintings of animals, for example, is no more relevant than the fact that a deer hunter has a painting of a 16-point buck over his mantlepiece. You seem to have bought whole cloth into the myth of Rousseau's "Noble Savage". It's utter crap, in spite of what the politicallly correct cultural revisionists would have you believe. I can point to quite a few recent/current "primitive cultures" who are as devastating to their local ecologies as DOW Chemical is to the global ecology. And NONE of them are Christian. I'd say this refutes your claims to primitive psychology even without the obvious absence of evidence. More noble savage nonesense. Granted early human cultures were much more closely effected by nature, and their "spiritual" activities revolved around nature spirits in the main (and fertility spirits, among other things). This IS evidenced by their art, among other things. However, that didn't stop them from exterminating vast numbers of species in bulk.I admit you know a great deal about Marx. I submit, however, that you have very little more than a general, cursory understanding of the causes and consequences of extinction. That's the problem, as I see it. We can't justifiably claim a correlation, much as I would like to add this to the list of the "sins" of organized religion and specifically Christianity. The explanation for why in mainly Christian, modern industrialized states environmentalism takes a back seat as you note derives, IMO, more from human greed and less from religion. Especially considering the large number of non-Christian cultures that are even now going gleefully about the world slaughtering as many critters as they can. Not to mention mind-bogglingly vast habitat degradation. And not to mention bioinvasion-caused extinction due to globalization (which now leads both habitat destruction and pollution as an extinction cause).I don't disagree with the rest of your paragraph, however. That was definitely the European mindset of the Middle Ages - and remains in many areas the American and Western mindset of today. It is also, unfortunately, the modern Asian and industrialized African mindset as well. The rest of the world is destroying the biosphere simply to survive. No disagreement.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-05-2005 11:48 AM