Careful Treatment of Nature: Imperative From Any Angle

by ishambat | November 18, 2011 at 12:23 am
295 views | 4 Recommendations | 25 comments

Australian aborigines used to believe that all things in nature - plants, rocks, streams - had special significance. This attitude would logically lead to careful treatment of nature, and it did.

The environmental science came up with similar conclusion, but from a different direction. Every species has evolved over millions of years for its place in the ecosystem; and disrupting or destroying these ecosystems ruins millions of years of evolution. From the position of environmental science, it is imperative to be careful in treatment of nature, as what is being affected is something that has taken millions of years to take effect; that one cannot recreate; and that has arrived at greater richness than anything that man has ever created.

From the Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu perspective, careful treatment of nature is likewise imperative. If you believe in a creator God, then the last thing you want to do is destroy God's creation, when you are not God and cannot recreate what has been created by God. A true Christian - or Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu - would likewise be careful in his treatment of nature; and those who are not, are not being true to their creeds.

Careful treatment of nature is therefore a logical imperative for all major systems of thought: For science; for indigenous beliefs; and for God religions. The lack of such care is a mark of inadequate cognition and inadequate knowledge. Careful treatment of nature is demanded by all major systems of thought; and a person who does not practice it is wrong by any standard.

Advertisement
recommend Sign In or Join to post comments
1
matt stefanovich

I am in a funny mood now. excuse me this remark of mine- yes, Nature is Gods creation. sometimes I think, than Mankind loves Nature so much, that it wants to rape it... :)pure, natural, untamed passion.. is that possible?

1
ishambat

Yeah, it's possible. In psychology it's called loving something to death. When Englishmen discovered some island in the Pacific, they were so happy with what they saw that they went around shooting dolphins. However most of the destruction of nature comes not from loving nature but from brainless economic practices. It does not come from loving; it comes from not caring.

1
Jimi DoLittle

Let me know when smug self-righteous prigs like you are unplugged, and are no longer breeding. Until then by your very existence you are contributing negatively to the environment. If you really cared for the planet you'd off yourself instead of judging everyone else as uncaring.

0
ishambat

Nothing self-righteous here. I show how careful treatment of environment is an imperative according to all major ethical systems that are out there. That means everything from science to Christianity.

1
The 1

Good article ishambat ! I think you may have said it best when you stated in the above comment..

"However most of the destruction of nature comes not from loving nature but from brainless economic practices. It does not come from loving; it comes from not caring."

1
Gorky Park bench

Ha, ha, ha. Religious people is responsible for global warming

0
ishambat

To a large extent they are. However Soviets, who were not religious, were quite careless with environment as well. And in America there are also non-religious people (some claiming to be objectivists or libertarians) who see nature as only tools and have no value for it.

0
PETA Lover

Death to Humans the Enemy of Mother Nature

0
ishambat

That doesn't go anywhere. Both people and nature will continue to exist; the question is, in what form. Making smarter choices about which technologies to use will benefit both humans and nature and create a much more symbiotic situation in which both people and nature do well.

0
Ancient Aliens

Humans and their pathetic science have created all environmental issues. It's time for humans to go. They are a global infection. Until humans are eradicated earth will know no peace.

0
ishambat

Once again, that does not go anywhere. People will continue to exist; nature will continue to exist. The question is in what form and what can be done for it to be a good form.

0
Z-CloneB

The point is that you don't go any further. To be taken care of with a human only isolated DNA programmable poison. Once humans have been killed off nature will take it's rightful place as intended.   Humans will not continue to exist. Their debt to mother nature and sins against earth must be paid for. One last destructive event. A noble sacrifice to pay for the rape and pillage. Death to humans the useless scourge of planet earth.

0
NewWorldOrder

Depopulation. Culling the 'useless eaters'. The Global 2000 Report. To save the planet the world population will have to be reduced by half or more.

0
ishambat

To hell with this Malthusian crap. People use better technologies, the burden on nature is reduced. Intelligence is and always has been the true saving grace of humanity.

0
Maslow's Needs

And I'm sure you consider yourself to be an example of this human intelligence at work. Global population to reach 10 billion as the useless eaters out breed the capacity of the producers to supply the basic needs.

See if you can wrap your brain around this conundrum of global warming.

[“Eating Oil” was the title of a book which was published in 1978 following the first oil crisis in 1973 (1). The aim of the book was to investigate the extent to which food supply in industrialised countries relied on fossil fuels. In the summer of 2000 the degree of dependence on oil in the UK food system was demonstrated once again when protestors blockaded oil refineries and fuel distribution depots. The fuel crises disrupted the distribution of food and industry leaders warned that their stores would be out of food within days. The lessons of 1973 have not been heeded.

Today the food system is even more reliant on cheap crude oil. Virtually all of the processes in the modern food system are now dependent upon this finite resource, which is nearing its depletion phase.

Moreover, at a time when we should be making massive cuts in the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in order to reduce the threat posed by climate change, the food system is lengthening its supply chains and increasing emissions to the point where it is a significant contributor to global warming.

The organic sector could be leading the development of a sustainable food system. Direct environmental and ecological impacts of agriculture ‘on the farm’ are certainly reduced in organic systems. However, global trade and distribution of organic products fritter away those benefits and undermine its leadership role.

Not only is the contemporary food system inherently unsustainable, increasingly, it is damaging the environment.

The systems that produce the world's food supply are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Vast amounts of oil and gas are used as raw materials and energy in the manufacture of fertilisers and pesticides, and as cheap and readily available energy at all stages of food production: from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, through to processing, distribution and packaging. In addition, fossil fuels are essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads. The industrial food supply system is one of the biggest consumers of fossil fuels and one of the greatest producers of greenhouse gases.

Ironically, the food industry is at serious risk from global warming caused by these greenhouse gases, through the disruption of the predictable climactic cycles on which agriculture depends. But global warming can have the more pronounced and immediate effect of exacerbating existing environmental threats to agriculture, many of which are caused by industrial agriculture itself. Environmental degradation, water shortages, salination, soil erosion, pests, disease and desertification all pose serious threats to our food supply, and are made worse by climate change. But many of the conventional ways used to overcome these environmental problems further increase the consumption of finite oil and gas reserves. Thus the cycle of oil dependence and environmental degradation continues].
*Excerpted from the paper Why Our Food is So Dependent on Oil
by Norman Church published Apr. 2005

0
ishambat

Once again, it does not have to be this way. The more the world uses clean energy, the less of this will go on. The worst problem today is the people who deny the reality of global warming and thus deny progress toward real solutions. The more the stance of the global warming deniers made untenable, the quicker and fuller the progress toward better solutions. The less to fear.

0
The 1

"Australian aborigines used to believe that all things in nature - plants, rocks, streams - had special significance. This attitude would logically lead to careful treatment of nature, and it did."

ishambat lets not overlook or underestimate the effects waste products such as garbage and chemical waste also has on our earth; in the land, water, and air_including all other living creatures living on earth sharing the same land, water, and air. The point being made in the above comments concerning overpopulation is a relevant one. Mankind can't continue on this path of expansion without severely overtaxing and polluting the earth resources_effecting all living creatures regardless of future energy or technology advancements.

0
The 100%

Once again it IS this way and none of your claims to the contrary are going to alter this reality. Those who deny global warming are not the issue or of any real problem to the world. Not any more than the religion haters like you have any impact on religion or what people ultimately believe. And there is much to fear. In the sense of our future and the ever expanding global population, because the penultimate eventuality is that the producers will hit the wall of zero return. That it simply cost too much to catch the last fish or to grow the last carrot in ground long starved for any mineral values. By 2045 earths population is to reach 10 billion when in 2011 7 billion have already depleted the worlds farmlands of mineral values and where most vegetables are grown in a sludge of pig shit. Mmmm good stuff that.  

0
ishambat

The people who deny global warming do, and did for three decades, stand in the way of real solutions.

I do not know where you got the idea that I am a religion-hater.

As for over-population, the most overpopulated place in the world - India with its billion people on a small territory - is agriculturally self-sufficient, and so would the other places with this problem if they make the right choices.

0
liebestraum

People stood in the way? What real solutions to global warming have been denied by the deniers. lol  If India is self -sufficient than it is not over populated. Countries that have more people than they can care for by definition are over populated. As example, China believed itself to becoming over populated and took steps to reduce their birth rate. Indian culture has a built in birth control. Having valued male children above female children India is now experiencing a 4:1 ratio males to female. We'll see how that works out for them. It could be their saving grace as China's one child policy is for China's over-population.

0
ishambat

You bring up an interesting point. China has more males than females being born as well - they abort female fetuses because, due to the one-child-per-family policy, they all want a male successor. This will mean down the road a lot of men without women, which can be breeding ground for war.

0
Humans are evil

War is not a efficient solution for depopulation. The two world wars only managed a total death toll of 70 million. We gotta kill billions to save the planet.

0
ishambat

Short of turning into a psychotic mass murderer, do you have any other solutions?

0
GT Radial

Nice Article.i am agree with you because any religion is a good

1
Factor five

Methylmercury, PCBs and DDT are key neurotoxins that biomagnify as they travel up the food chain. So do such things as steroidals and other pharma biodrugs in animal husbandry and human healthcare once they enter the water and soil.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from