Ecological anthropology: better Red than dead?
I often attend evening service at Holy Communion Episcopal Church in East Memphis. Recently, they have been having a series of after-church studies on the Genesis Covenant. This is an interfaith movement to save the earth from the alleged coming disaster of global warming. I had not been to the previous sessions, but last Sunday, November 23, I was going to another late gathering in the area, so I stuck around to hear the presentation. It consisted of a video of a talk titled "Who are We? Ecological Anthropology," given by Sallie McFague in the middle of some kind of Episcopal conference on the subject. The talk must have lasted an hour, as it was still going when I had to leave to get to my other meeting. I'm sorry that I missed any discussion that followed.
The talk focused on both a theoretical background for action and a call to action. The theoretical background was that global warming is going to destroy the world if we don't all change the way that we live immediately. The call to action is that the religions of the world have to join together to teach their people a new theology calling for societal changes to save the planet. Lifestyle changes by a few individuals won't do it. It has to be the whole of society, and we have to change the institutions of society. In a democratic society, the only way to achieve this is by convincing, or educating (I wish I could remember the word that she used) enough people.
Her evidence for global warming is that it is accepted "by all scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals." Really? And even if that is so, is it not just possible that this has become such a tenet of current scientific "orthodoxy" that those who do not accept it are not allowed to publish in peer-reviewed journals? After seeing Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," I see that as a real possibility.
At one point, she seems to blame the Protestant Reformation for global warming. She said that the Reformation got us all focused on the individual's relationship to God rather than the world as a whole. This encouraged individualism that led to freedom that led to a choice of lifestyle that led to global warming. What a connection!
She sees science and Christianity as telling the same creation story, but makes it clear that we have to start with the scientific version. This translates, essentially, into evolution. Even though she and her friends use the term "Genesis covenant," I rather doubt if they would even consider the Genesis account of creation as anything more than a fairy tale.
McFague's mention of having to convince people in a democratic society was disturbing. One got the sense that she would really prefer an authoritarian government, so that she would just have to convince a few top leaders to implement her scheme, and the rest of us would have to fall in line. Well, authoritarian governments sound fine, as long as you are in the crowd who has authority. They don't sound so good otherwise.
McFague said that we must turn from an individualistic anthropology to an ecological anthropology. Her mantra is" Everything is related to everything else. That means that we need to figure out where we fit in the scheme of nature and then live in harmony with that place. I can't remember the exact phrasing that she used, but she said something like: the world would be better off without us humans around. That is frightening.
She also had some good words for Communism: "Say what you will about Communism, it is a communitarian philosophy." So we have a new take on the old saw: "Better Red than dead." We have to embrace Communism, or something like it, to save the world, or we'll all be dead.
Now some observations. They tell us that global warming will kill us all, and then tell us that the world would be better off without us here. So, what's the problem? By their own logic, they are working against the best interests of the world if they try to save humanity. We should all just keep living the way that we are and hasten our demise in order to truly save the world.
If there is indeed a climate change problem that is going to seriously disrupt the world, then human beings are the only ones who can do anything about it. Rather than falling into an enforced primitivism, we ought to be encouraging individual effort and creativity to develop new ideas and new technology to combat the problem.
What is really scary is that the new administration will probably be ready to listen to this kind of talk. Those who value their freedom need to be aware of this kind of threat and not take it lying down.
The talk focused on both a theoretical background for action and a call to action. The theoretical background was that global warming is going to destroy the world if we don't all change the way that we live immediately. The call to action is that the religions of the world have to join together to teach their people a new theology calling for societal changes to save the planet. Lifestyle changes by a few individuals won't do it. It has to be the whole of society, and we have to change the institutions of society. In a democratic society, the only way to achieve this is by convincing, or educating (I wish I could remember the word that she used) enough people.
Her evidence for global warming is that it is accepted "by all scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals." Really? And even if that is so, is it not just possible that this has become such a tenet of current scientific "orthodoxy" that those who do not accept it are not allowed to publish in peer-reviewed journals? After seeing Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," I see that as a real possibility.
At one point, she seems to blame the Protestant Reformation for global warming. She said that the Reformation got us all focused on the individual's relationship to God rather than the world as a whole. This encouraged individualism that led to freedom that led to a choice of lifestyle that led to global warming. What a connection!
She sees science and Christianity as telling the same creation story, but makes it clear that we have to start with the scientific version. This translates, essentially, into evolution. Even though she and her friends use the term "Genesis covenant," I rather doubt if they would even consider the Genesis account of creation as anything more than a fairy tale.
McFague's mention of having to convince people in a democratic society was disturbing. One got the sense that she would really prefer an authoritarian government, so that she would just have to convince a few top leaders to implement her scheme, and the rest of us would have to fall in line. Well, authoritarian governments sound fine, as long as you are in the crowd who has authority. They don't sound so good otherwise.
McFague said that we must turn from an individualistic anthropology to an ecological anthropology. Her mantra is" Everything is related to everything else. That means that we need to figure out where we fit in the scheme of nature and then live in harmony with that place. I can't remember the exact phrasing that she used, but she said something like: the world would be better off without us humans around. That is frightening.
She also had some good words for Communism: "Say what you will about Communism, it is a communitarian philosophy." So we have a new take on the old saw: "Better Red than dead." We have to embrace Communism, or something like it, to save the world, or we'll all be dead.
Now some observations. They tell us that global warming will kill us all, and then tell us that the world would be better off without us here. So, what's the problem? By their own logic, they are working against the best interests of the world if they try to save humanity. We should all just keep living the way that we are and hasten our demise in order to truly save the world.
If there is indeed a climate change problem that is going to seriously disrupt the world, then human beings are the only ones who can do anything about it. Rather than falling into an enforced primitivism, we ought to be encouraging individual effort and creativity to develop new ideas and new technology to combat the problem.
What is really scary is that the new administration will probably be ready to listen to this kind of talk. Those who value their freedom need to be aware of this kind of threat and not take it lying down.
posted by John at 6:05 PM
0 comments
