Deadly environmentalism

According to Arminian scholar Ben Witherington:

BenW3 My problem with this whole sort of maybe approach to climate change, is that if there is even just a very good chance it is happening, we ought to be scrambling to do all we can, with the things we can control, like air pollution from burning fossil fuels, to slow down the process. I'm tired of the stalling and lies by the coal and oil industries on this front. Bw3 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2015/08/11/william-k-reilly-on-climate-change/#comment-2186387517

Because global warming alarmists never lie (e.g. Climategate).

And what about all the poor Third-World residents who die as a consequence of First-World environmentalists? 

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-new-holocaust-deniers/?singlepage=true

We Don’t Cry for Lions

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html

First World v. Third World

http://nypost.com/2015/07/30/what-lion-zimbabweans-ask-amid-global-cecil-circus/

The zebra courage award

ZooNews

On the heels of the Arthur Ashe courage award, the ZUF (Zebra United Front) made Walter Palmer this year's recipient of its annual Zebra courage award. ZooNews caught up with a spokeszebra for ZUF, to conduct a brief interview:

ZooNews: Why did you award Palmer?

ZUF: Because the only good lion is a dead lion. Ask any zebra. The zebras are for the zebras. 

ZooNews: PETA says Palmer should be extradited, charged, and hanged. 

ZUF: That's so very human. PETA doesn't speak for zebras, that's for sure. No zebras were consulted before PETA issued that partisan statement. 

ZooNews: Randal Rauser joined in the condemnation of Palmer.

ZUF: That's just one more reason no self-respecting zebra would ever be an Arminian. Rauser is such a bigoted speciesist. How typical that he'd side with the lion. Humans love a glamourpuss.  

ZooNews: Some groups condemn the shooting because Cecil had a collar. 

ZUF: That just illustrates how paternalistic you humans are. Humans don't respect wild animals. They treat lions like pet kitty cats. Putting a collar on it makes it special. 

ZooNews: Late night talkshow host Jimmy Kimmel delivered a tearful eulogy for Cecil. 

ZUF: Unlike zebras, Kimmel has never met a wild lion up close and personal. He should be put in a cage with a lion overnight to get acquainted. These bleeding-heart humans have never been on the receiving end of a lion.

Know-nothing nature lovers

I used walk along a paved trail where I was living at the time. Lots of folks walked their dogs there, too. As temperatures rose, some of them tried to hydrate their dogs.

Depending on how far I walked, there are four drinking fountains along the way. The one at the far end actually had a ground-level drinking fountain for dogs. But the others did not. 

Some dog owners bring a little water bowl along. Some fill a cap with water. Some let the dog drink directly from their water bottle. Great idea having dog germs on the water bottle you drink from.

One time I saw the owner of a toy dog lift the animal so that it could drink from the (human) water fountain. Get dog germs on that, while you're at it.

Now, why do I mention this? Because I left something out. The trail was right alongside a river. That's why it's popular. It's scenic.

It doesn't even occur to these dog owners that on a hot day, the logical way to hydrate your dog is to walk it down to the river–just a few yards a way. You know, the way people water their horse in Westerns? Or nature shows where wild animals frequent the local watering hole. 

Not only could the dog drink, but on a hot day it could cool off in the river. Jump in. Get wet all over.

But somehow, these dog owners can't make the connection between a river and a thirsty dog. How do they think animals hydrate in the wild? Do they think wild animals drink tap water?

No, wild animals drink from rivers, lakes, ponds–even mud puddles. 

I'm sure most of these dutiful dog-owners pride themselves on being animal lovers and environmentalists, yet they don't know the first thing about nature or animals. Even when nature is right under their nose, they can't make the connection.

I suspect their problem is that when the look at their dear pet dog, they don't see a canine–they see a furry human. And since they (the dog-owner) wouldn't drink river water, they subconsciously imagine that's unsanitary for a dog.

Of course, dogs have a tougher digestive system than humans. For that matter, our forebears had a tougher digestive system than we do. 

Snack food

Years ago I saw a special on Darwin, Australia. When settlers first moved into the area, it was infested with crocodiles. Saltwater crocodiles–along with the Nile crocodile–are the most dangerous crocodilian species. That made Darwin a hazardous place for humans to inhabit.

But back then, settlers did what settlers normally do: eliminate the major natural predators that pose a threat to man and livestock. They decimated the crocodile population, which made Darwin a much safer place to live. 

But that was then and this is now. Thanks to the environmentalists, Darwin has reverted to its crocodile infested state of nature. In the meantime, the human population has greeted expanded from when the area was originally settled. And the situation is aggravated by period flooding, which brings crocodiles directly into populated areas.

How do the local authorities respond? "Be careful!" 

No doubt that's good advice, but it takes the status quo for granted. It treats the massive crocodile population as a given. The issue, then, is not about crocodile control, but human control. Human behavior management. 

Not surprisingly, there are Darwin residents who don't think the lives of crocodiles rate higher than human lives, but they complain in vain. This is an example of how a culture elite imposes its views on everyone else to the detriment of everyone else. 

Hunting

i) I'm going to venture some comments on hunting. I myself am not a hunter, much less a trophy hunter, so I have no vested interest in this debate. I do have male relatives who are hunters, but that's just not something I grew up doing. 

I did grow up with nature shows and TV dramas like Daktari and Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. I've watched nature shows all my life. I had a normal boy's interest in animals. Read many reference works on zoology. Read a book by a big-game hunter in Africa. Another book by a wolf-trapper. And a book by Joy Adamson. That's my background, such as it is.

ii) Some people distinguish between hunting and poaching. I think that's a valid distinction in principle. There are some problems in practice:

a) In poor countries, poaching is so lucrative that I doubt it's realistic to hope we can save animals by law. I like the idea of a wildlife refuge or sanctuary. But where a prize kill can fetch so much money in a poor country where money goes a long ways, I doubt we can successfully protect animals that way. Given the economic situation, laws are an ineffective deterrent. The potential reward outweighs the potential risk. 

I've read many naturalists admit that zoos are probably the only way to save some animals from extinction. But some animal rights activists are so fanatical that they'd rather see animals go extinct than be kept in zoos. 

b) Although it's valid to regulate hunting to prevent overhunting, this is a highly politicized issue. Animals rights activists, who oppose hunting and trapping in principle, will lobby gov't to declare a species "endangered" as a pretext to further their radical agenda. It's naive to unquestioningly accept a gov't classification. 

iii) Feminism and animal rights activism intersect. Many men enjoy hunting. There's a concerted effort to shame men for enjoying things that come naturally to men. 

But there's no reason men should be made to feel defensive about that, any more than women should be made to feel defensive about activities that many women naturally enjoy. This is anti-male bigotry. 

I'd add that there are natural Tomboys who enjoy stereotypically masculine activities. Likewise, there are women who've grown up in wilderness areas where it's normal to be around guns. Where it's normal to hunt with their father or brothers.  

Men enjoy hunting for the same reasons they enjoy sports, paintball, or archery tag. Competition. Comeradarie. Testing yourself. 

A hunter has to be very alert to his natural surroundings. Use his eyes and ears. Notice clues. Give the situation his undivided attention.

When stalking dangerous quarry, there's a heightened sense of alertness to the hunter's surroundings. His life depends on it. That's primal. Instinctual. Confronting life without a safety net. Just you and nature in direct contact. 

Takes us back to an earlier time, not so very long ago, when we didn't have the suffocating technological bubblewrap. Our culture has become insanely risk-averse. I see lots of skaters with elaborate safety gear, on a straight level paved trail. They don't dare use a skateboard or roller skates without suiting up in full-body armor. What's next–human hamster balls for joggers? 

There's nothing wrong with men being men–just as there's nothing wrong with women being women. Moreover, it's a salutary way of channeling male aggression. 

iv) Is bowhunting more or less ethical than hunting with a rifle? On the one hand, in bowhunting, you're more likely to injure the animal rather than kill it outright. Some people think that's cruel. Mind you, it's no more cruel than how most animals naturally die in the wild.

On the other hand, lots of folks who object to hunting complain that it isn't fair; the animal didn't have a fighting chance against a high-powered rifle. By that standard, it's far riskier to the hunter to shoot some animals with an bow and arrow than a high-powered rifle

Likewise, it's very hazardous to track a wounded predator. So, from the standpoint of "sportsmanship," one could argue that bowhunting is "fairer" than using a gun. As a friend of mine said:

Bowhunting predators is a risky business:

1. You have to get significantly closer.

2. You have to make sure you hit him exactly in the sweet spot so he'll bleed out rather than become enraged.

3. You don't get a second shot.

Dear Francis, mind your own business!

You'd think Pope Francis has enough pressing issues relating to his actual job to write about: the nun/priest shortage, the secularization of Europe, the attack on religious liberty (including Catholic institutions) in the US, the priestly abuse scandal, the implosion of Catholicism in traditional bastions of Catholicism (e.g. Ireland, Quebec), rampant modernism in the church of Rome, an embattled archbishop of San Francisco, the threat of Islam, the predominance of homosexual clergy, &c 

But, no. He has to pen an encyclical promoting radical chic environmentalism. A topic on which he has no competence. 

I guess the remaining question is whether he's a green pope or red pope. Perhaps we could split the difference and dub him the purple pope. Part environmentalist, part liberation theologian. 

Selective multiculturalism

Critics of Japan’s whaling practices are guilty of “eco-imperialism” for trying to impose their beliefs on countries that hunt and eat whales, Japan’s pointman on the issue said Wednesday. 

Critics of whaling needed to drop their “zero tolerance” stance and recognize that different countries have “different codes,” said Joji Morishita, Japan’s commissioner to the International Whaling Commission. 

Take people in India who don’t eat beef, Morishita told reporters in Tokyo.
“What if they start promoting their habit on the rest of the world, and are promoting an anti-McDonald’s, anti-beef steak movement throughout the world with economic sanctions,” he said. “People can see the stupidity of this if you talk about beef, but what’s the difference between a cow and whales?” 

Ordinary people in Japan viewed countries who criticized whaling as cultural imperialists, Morishita said.
“[They] say, ‘I don’t eat whale meat, however I don’t like the idea of beef-eating people or pork-eating people saying to Japanese people to stop eating whales,’ ” he said. “We do recognize that, from country to country, we have different codes and different conditions. But maybe we shouldn’t impose our code on others,” he said. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-vows-to-resume-antarctic-whale-hunt-for-science-next-year/2014/11/26/5133884c-73f2-11e4-95a8-fe0b46e8751a_story.html

Rat outbreak

Another bright idea by environmentalists. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/388713/print

Quick observation: isn't composting food, rather than disposing of food, going to be a magnet for rats? Won't that policy invite rat infestation–with all the predictable and attendant public health hazards? Do we want residential neighbors to be overrun by rats? 

The food police state

Vegans make a big deal about "meat is murder." That's their wedge issue. How can you love a puppy dog but eat a piglet? 

Admittedly, that's not a wedge issue for me. But in any event, it's important to keep in mind that veganism, as well as the animal rights movement that's driving it, is far more radical than eliminating meat from your diet. Vegans are equally vehement about dairy products. They claim dairy products are the result of the same inhumane, exploitative process as the meat industry. 

That means that if the vegan food police had their way, they'd not only ban beef, fish, pork, poultry, &c., but they'd ban pizza, ice cream, &c. If meat is murder, pizza is rape! As one vegan put it:

Most people believe that dairy isn’t a bad thing because an animal doesn’t have to die in order for you to get it.  But the truth is that an animal does have to die – in fact, many animals have to die – for the sake of that slice of cheese on your sandwich, or that milk in your cereal.  If you really care about animal rights, the first things you must eliminate from your diet are eggs and dairy. 

If you are a feminist like I am, dairy should really hit home for you.  This is because dairy is a business that profits off of the exploitation of the female reproductive system.  The entire life of a dairy cow is a never-ending nightmarish cycle of depression, torture and rape. 

These aren't just eccentric, powerless fanatics. They influence police policy. No idea from the loony left is too preposterous to catch on. Today's absurdity is tomorrow's law. 

Trust me, I'm a scientist

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/05/30/iucn-polar-bear-specialist-group-says-its-global-population-estimate-was-a-qualified-guess/

How Eating Meat Can Save the Planet

If they could, animal rights activists would ban meat production. But that's politically almost impossible due to the immense popularity of beef, pork, chicken, fish, &c. 

One strategy is to lasso the meat industry into global warming. Eating meat suddenly becomes an existential threat to the survival of the human race. 

Here's an interesting pushback from someone who hails from the vegan community:

http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2024133,00.html

http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/meat-eating-vs-vegetarian-or-vegan-diets

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation/print

Noah divides

Opinion is divided on Aronofsky's Noah. What's somewhat striking is that this doesn't always fall along predictable lines. Ken Ham panned the film. Yet, to judge by reviews (I haven't seen it), the film checks all the right boxes for a young-earth-creationist flood. It has a global deluge. It has antediluvian herbivory. It has the special creation of Adam and Eve. And it has a strict YEC-chronology. Just 10 generations between Adam and Noah, which makes Methuselah the living grandfather of Noah. So it's ironic that Ham dislikes it so much. 

Of course, Aronofsky is co-opting antediluvian herbivory as a pretext to propagandize his vegan ideology. So I understand why creationists like Ham resent the political opportunism. Still, the essentials are surprisingly faithful to a YEC interpretation of the flood account.

For his part, Brian Godawa despises the film with a passion. He hates the film the way Anakin Skywalker hates the Tusken Raiders. To a great extent, this is driven by his opposition to the misanthropy of modern environmentalism. And he dislikes Aronofsky commandeering the flood account as a vehicle to promote that ideology.

Yet Godawa is a contributor to the Biologos Foundation. The current flagship of theistic evolution. The nemesis of young-earth creationism and intelligent-design theory. So it's striking when Ken Ham and Brian Godawa, who are hermeneutical antagonists, both pan the film. 

Wesley J. Smith reprobates the film for the same basic reason Godawa does. Misanthropic environmentalism. However, I've never been clear on Smith's theological outlook, if any. He used to be a consumer advocate, coauthoring four books with Ralph Nader. So he's hard to peg.

Finally, there's E. Calvin Beisner. He's an OPC elder, and archfoe of the radical environmentalist agenda. So you might expect him to pounce on the film for the same reasons Smith and Godawa pan it. Yet he came away with a more varied impression of the film:

I saw Darren Aronofsky's NOAH yesterday and actually enjoyed it. It was far less bad than I anticipated and in some respects was quite good. Its environmentalist message was muted from what one expected from the first script--still there, but not dominant. It (mostly) "gets" the sinfulness of man and the justice of God that responds in righteous wrath. It doesn't get God's mercy and grace or the way Noah and the flood and its aftermath presaged the person and atoning work of Christ. It pretty poignantly portrays the difficulties of a walk of faith and obedience to God, but because in it God Himself never speaks, it misses the real foundation of that faith--propositional revelation from the God who speaks and shows (to adopt the title of Carl F. H. Henry's magnum opus).
As Thornbury points out in his review, the movie is far less simplistic than lots of Christians will think. Yes, it’s got wrong theology—lots of it. (So have Lewis’s Narnia tales and the movies based on those, and Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings tales and the movies based on those.)
Two of the reviews I linked point out, rightly, the misrepresentation of the fallen angels. Even that isn’t so straightforward as it might first appear, though. The movie presents them as fallen not because they were more merciful than God but because they disobeyed the Creator by helping Cain’s descendants damage the earth through industrialism—which of course is itself untrue. And yes, the movie falsely portrays some fallen angels as repenting and serving God’s purposes after all and so earning their way back into heaven. What do we expect from moviemakers who don’t understand the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone or Christ’s unique relationship to the human race through the incarnation that differs so starkly from His relationship with the angels [Hebrews 1–2]? But the idea that some fallen angels might decide to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing—well, it’s not true to what the Bible teaches about angels, but it is partially true to what the Bible teaches about human sinners: that even the unregenerate are capable of doing what theologians call “civic righteousness,” not true righteousness, which arises from true love of the true God, but right acts good for the community. Even the idea that those fallen angels who helped Noah understood mercy while the Creator didn’t needs to be met with careful literary consideration. Is the movie intentionally conveying that message as true? Or is it conveying the unregenerate mind’s failure to understand the pretty inscrutable fact that God is holy and righteous and just and hates sin and is loving and gracious and merciful and loves sinners, and causes His sun to shine and His rain to fall on the just and the unjust—so that from the perspective of the unregenerate [including the moviemakers], those fallen angels “got” mercy better than God did, though in reality [not the perspective of the moviemakers], God did was indeed merciful?
And there are many, many more theological errors in the movie—each of those reviews covering some, none covering all, and plenty not covered in any of them. It is filled with major theological errors—most importantly that it completely misses the grace and mercy of God and the place of Noah and the flood in redemptive history as pointers to the atoning and restoring work of Christ on the cross and in His resurrection and ascension and His rule from heaven over and through His church—all stuff, by the way, that would hardly have been understood at all by Noah, or even Abraham, or even Moses, or even David, or even any of the Prophets (1 Peter 1:10-12), which suggests that a movie that leaves those things unclear, barely hinted at (as in the rainbow at the end), does a pretty good job of portraying how (little and poorly) the flood would have been understood by the people in Noah’s own age.
I might add: the movie also presented creation as a six-day affair, and it didn't try to add thousands or millions or billions of years between creation and Noah. In that regard, it was faithful to the Genesis text. Would that lots of folks who get down on it for its (many and real and sometimes very bad) departures from the Biblical text would give it credit for getting that part at least generally right.

So, as I say, it's somewhat hard to pigeonhole reactions to the film. They don't necessarily correlate with where you range along the theological spectrum. Some who might be predisposed to pan it like it. Some who might be predisposed to pan it like it (with caveats).

The least Biblical Bible film ever

Noah's director Darren Aronofsky, a self-described atheist who made the Oscar-nominated hit The Black Swan, has described the movie as is "the least biblical biblical film ever made" and called Noah "the first environmentalist". According to one early review, the name "God" is not actually spoken at any stage. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/10717724/Noah-epic-awash-in-flood-of-controversy-for-green-agenda-and-taking-liberties-with-Bible.html

Mixed reviews of Noah

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2014/03/26/darren-aronofksys-noah/print/

http://godawa.com/movieblog/deconstructing-noahs-arc-godawful-storytelling/

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/noahs_war_on_hu083841.html

The science of global warming

John Kerry

U.S. Senator from Massachusetts

Posted: August 31, 2009 12:21 PM

We Can't Ignore the Security Threat from Climate Change

Read More: Climate Change, John Kerry, National Security, Green News

Scientists tell us we have a 10-year window -- if even that -- before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable and irreversible. The threat is real, and time is not on our side.

Facts, as John Adams said, are stubborn things. 

The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.

The people of the tiny coastal village of Newtok, Alaska offer a harbinger of the challenges ahead. Citizens there recently voted to move their village nine miles inland because melting ice shelves made their old home too dangerous.

But don't take my word for it. Anyone who doubts the reality of climate change should go to Alaska and see the melting permafrost for themselves

This time we have to connect the dots before we face catastrophe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/we-cant-ignore-the-securi_b_272815.html

Climate change

On the one hand, organizations like Green Peace want people to do all they can to prevent climate change. For example:

What you can do about climate change

We can stop catastrophic climate change. We know what causes it, we have the technologies to prevent it, and there's a rapidly growing understanding of just how urgent the need for action is.

All that's missing is the action itself.

The government needs to put in place meaningful policies to urgently reduce emissions - and to act on them immediately. We need your help to persuade them. Together, we can stop climate chaos.

(Source)

Faced with the choice of deadly, dirty, dangerous energy like coal, oil and nuclear power, or safe, clean and renewable power, what would you decide? Renewable energy, smartly used, can and will meet our demands. No oil spills, no climate change, no radiation danger, no nuclear waste – simply energy we can trust. We can achieve a world with 100% renewable energy. Will you make that choice?

(Source)

On the other hand, I presume most climate change proponents subscribe to modern evolutionary theory. If so, they might like to take a gander at the following from geologist Bernard Wood:

Hominin evolution has taken place at a time when there have been major changes in world climate. . . . During the period from 8 to 5 MYA the earth experienced the beginning of a long-term drying and cooling trend. Early hominin evolution took place in Africa at the time of these climatic changes.

(Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction)

Why is climate change necessarily undesirable? Something people should do something about?

A theistic evolutionist could possibly make a case to support organizations like Green Peace in their fight against "climate chaos."

However, given naturalism and modern evolutionary theory, who's to say what's ultimately "bad" or "good" for us or other species? Doesn't "bad" or "good" in part imply there's a purpose for a particular organism or species?

It may be a "bad" thing for individual members of a species. It may be a "bad" thing for an entire species if the species can't adapt. But who's to say individual members of a species or even entire species are worth saving?

It's even conceivable the extinction of other species including our own would actually be a "good" thing since it could pave the way for other species that will be "better" than current species. Let's not be prejudiced toward speciesism including future ones!

At the very least, given naturalism and modern evolutionary theory, why try to intervene as if climate change were something humans should do something about?

Threnody for Bambi

 

Years ago, atheist philosopher William Rowe wrote an influential article on the evidential problem of evil. His memorably used the sentimental example of a fawn burning to death in a forest fire, to illustrate gratuitous natural evil. This tearjerker is appealing to some people.

However, Rowe’s expertise lay in philosophy, not forestry. As the field of fire ecology demonstrates, forest fires are not gratuitous evils, but beneficial to fauna and flora alike. Although some animals die, forest fires contribute to the common good of the ecosystem. For instance:

http://www.fire-ecology.org/education/doc1.htm

"Cats are evil"

This is a promising development:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/01/new_zealand_eliminate_cats_they_kill_endangered_bird_species_and_shouldn.html

I’m glad that environmentalists have opened a new front in the culture wars by attacking pet owners. I hope that they will make this their new cause and pursue it aggressively.

I say that because many voters who don’t bat at eye at eugenic abortion or involuntary euthanasia are passionately possessive and protective of their pets. Indeed, for many liberals, pets take the place of kids. Waging war against cats, dogs, horses, &c., and tying that to the green ideology, is a wonderful way to create a popular backslash against the Green movement.