I have written before that the two movements that I think are very pernicious are radical environmentalism and
Should we engineer human eyes to be like cat eyes so we don't need lights at night?
transhumanism. Radical environmentalism wants the plague of humanity to be reduced (or disappear all together) so the Earth can be "healthy" again. Transhumanism wants to radically engineer man to be "posthuman" which includes, but is not limited to living forever through enhancements.
These two movements seem diametrically opposed and yet they suffer from the same faulty underpinning: rejection of human nature. We live on this planet too. We are built to reproduce, like all other living things. And we are not naturally immortal.
It is not often that these two movements converge, and yet more and more, there are suggestions that we engineer ourselves to save the planet; a marriage of transhumanist ideas of engineering humanity and environmentalism. I have written before that way back in 1967, MIT engineers suggested that we engineer humans to be smaller to conserve resources.
The idea that we radically engineer our species to "save the planet" is in the news again. The Atlantic has an interview with S. Matthew Liao, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University, who wrote a paper exploring ways humanity can change our nature to combat "climate change." Liao says he is simply discussing the subject and is not an advocate of forcing these options on people.
One way Liao explores is either to select smaller children through IVF and PGD or to engineer our children to be smaller with growth-stunting chemicals or genetic manipulation:
What are the various ways humans could be engineered to be smaller?
Liao: There are a couple of ways, actually. You might try to do it through a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, which is already used in IVF settings in fertility clinics today. In this scenario you'd be looking to select which embryos to implant based on height.
Another way to affect height is to use a hormone treatment to trigger the closing of the epiphyseal plate earlier than normal---this sometimes happens by accident in vitamin overdose cases. In fact hormone treatments are already used for height reduction in overly tall children. A final way you could do this is by way of gene imprinting, by influencing the competition between maternal and paternal genes, where there is a height disparity between the mother and father. You could have drugs that reduce or increase the expression of paternal or maternal genes in order to affect birth height.
One avenue that Liao discusses would be right up the transhumanist's alley. Genetically altering people to be able to see in the dark like cats:
Your paper focuses on human engineering techniques that are relatively safe. Did your research lead you to any interesting techniques that were unsafe?
Liao: Actually, yes, although unfortunately the science is not there yet---we looked into cat eyes, the technique of giving humans cat eyes or of making their eyes more catlike. The reason is, cat eyes see nearly as well as human eyes during the day, but much better at night. We figured that if everyone had cat eyes, you wouldn't need so much lighting, and so you could reduce global energy usage considerably. Maybe even by a shocking percentage.
At least Liao labels this suggestion unsafe...for now. But unfortunately, Liao seems to buy the transhumanist line that engineering ourselves is "liberating." (I would argue that, instead, embracing our nature is liberating much the same way we tell girls to love themselves the way they are, not the way others would have them be.) In a world where people are forcibly limited to how many children they can have, Liao suggests the engineering the size of our children would give us more choice in the matter:
In your paper you suggest that some human engineering solutions may actually be liberty enhancing. How so?
Liao: That's right. It's been suggested that, given the seriousness of climate change, we ought to adopt something like China's one child policy. There was a group of doctors in Britain who recently advocated a two-child maximum. But at the end of the day those are crude prescriptions---what we really care about is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family. If that's the case, given certain fixed allocations of greenhouse gas emissions, human engineering could give families the choice between two medium sized children, or three small sized children. From our perspective that would be more liberty enhancing than a policy that says "you can only have one or two children." A family might want a really good basketball player, and so they could use human engineering to have one really large child.
There is so much to discuss about Dr. Liao's exploration that a blog post could hardly do it justice, but I will try.
First, as Wesley J. Smith points out what begins as discussions among academics, becomes policy for the masses. I fear if we embrace engineering ourselves to "combat climate change" then to save the planet these radical ideas could become compulsory.
Second, our attempts at engineering mankind to combat overpopulation in Asia has had devastating societal impact. As Mara Hvistendahl reported in her book Unnatural Selection, the West feared the population increases in Asia and pushed an agenda of contraception, sterilization and abortion, some of it non-voluntary. Decades later there are 163 million missing Asian women as a direct result of efforts to control Asian population. This is a problem of epidemic proportions and women are more commodities to be bought, sold and traded than ever before.
Third, all of this assumes that people, and children especially, are things to be manipulated for some goal. Even of that goal is deemed worthy, we cannot fall into the trap that our inherent dignity need somehow be compromised to meet that goal. Children are gifts, not items we can manipulate to fulfill certain needs. They are certainly not things from which we can choose which ones are the "best for the environment."
The Catholic Church is clear that any attempts at genetic engineering must have normal human development as the goal. The Charter for Health Care Workers states:
On the other hand, interventions which are not directly curative, the purpose of which is 'the production of human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities,' which change the genotype of the individual and of the human species, 'are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being, to his integrity and to his identity. Therefore they can be in no way justified on the pretext that they will produce some beneficial results for humanity in the future,' 'no social or scientific usefulness and no ideological purpose could ever justify an intervention on the human genome unless it be therapeutic, that is its finality must be the natural development of the human being.
The goal of intervention on the human body must be therapeutic in nature keeping the inherent dignity of each individual the foremost concern. Therapeutic for the person, not for the planet.
The Obama Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have told Catholic institutions all across the country they must violate their conscience and provide coverage for hormonal contraceptives.
The response by Catholic bishops and Catholics everywhere has been loud and proud. We know that this mandate violates our religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Despite our cries, it seems clear that Obama and HHS really do not care about our free exercise of religion.
But I wonder if Obama and HHS care about the environment. Yes. That's right the environment. Obama is always talking about green energy and has branded himself a champion of the environment.
And yet all this newly covered hormonal contraception will cause even more damage to lakes, rivers and streams and the wildlife in them. The fact is, hormonal birth control has wreaked havoc on the environment for decades.
In 2003, a Seattle Post Intelligencer headline warned that birth control may be harming the state salmon population. They reported that synthetic estrogen, an ingredient in hormonal contraception, is "showing up in waterways around the nation" being dumped there from sewage treatment plants. And the levels found are high enough to harm wildlife. The Intelligencer reported:
Birth-control pills can curb the reproduction of more than just the women taking them. Western Washington scientists have found that synthetic estrogen -- a common ingredient in oral contraceptives -- can drastically reduce the fertility of male rainbow trout.
The findings are likely to fuel concerns about the environmental effects of chemicals that aren't being filtered out by sewage plants, including pharmaceuticals and pesticides that can mimic hormones.
In frogs, river otters and fish, scientists are "finding the presence of female hormones making the male species less male," said Doug Myers, wetlands and habitat specialist for the Puget Sound Action Team, the government agency coordinating restoration of the Sound.
Hormonal contraceptives are harming wildlife in Colorado too. In 2007, the National Catholic Register reported that EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado found a high level of female and strange "inter-sex" fish in Boulder Creek. The culprit? Estrogens and other hormones from birth-control pills. From the Register article:
It’s “the first thing that I’ve seen as a scientist that really scared me,” said then 59-year-old University of Colorado biologist John Woodling, speaking to the Denver Post in 2005.
They studied the fish and decided the main culprits were estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth-control pills and patches, excreted in urine into the city’s sewage system and then into the creek.
Woodling, University of Colorado physiology professor David Norris, and their EPA-study team were among the first scientists in the country to learn that a slurry of hormones, antibiotics, caffeine and steroids is coursing down the nation’s waterways, threatening fish and contaminating drinking water.
Contaminating drinking water. Jillian Michaels, of Biggest Loser fame, tells the obese in her book Master Your Metabolism to forgo hormonal contraceptives and opt for condoms because hormonal contraceptives disrupt natural hormone balances making it hard to maintain a healthy weight. Is it even remotely possible that our nation's problem with obesity may be more than just a calorie consumption issue?
And with these reports of hormones in waterways around the country, one would think that environmentalists and the health conscious everywhere would be taking up the charge to clean up and prevent the contamination. But no one seems to care. This lack of concern puzzles some including George Harden, a board member of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. Harden told the Register:
“It’s going to start looking funny. The radical environmentalist won’t eat a corn chip if the corn contacted a pesticide. But they view it a sacred right and obligation to consume synthetic chemicals that alter a woman’s natural biological functions, even if this practice threatens innocent aquatic life downstream.”
With Obama such a champion of the environment and Michele so obsessed with the obesity epidemic, I wonder if HHS would be more likely to grant exceptions to the mandate to cover hormonal contraceptives on environmental grounds than on religious grounds?
They probably would. Which is sad because the religious objection is the one actually protected by the Constitution. Maybe Catholic institutions should re-brand themselves as environmental organizations. Maybe then our objections to being forced to cover damaging hormonal contraception wouldn't be so carelessly cast aside.
I have always feared that, in the name of the environment, man would do terrible things to each other. Why? I remember a study that found that those identifying themselves as "green" were more likely to steal and less likely to be kind. The authors of the study were surprised. I was not. Radical environmentalism (and not-so-radical environmentalism) often hides a hatred for humanity. Some people who embrace the "green" movement also believe that humans are a blight on the planet. If in their minds we are THE problem, it makes sense that such people would engage in misanthropic behavior. They are good to the planet and so do not have to be good to their fellow man who is screwing it up. In other words its the "Green" Golden Rule: Do unto to your neighbor what you believe they are doing to the planet.
Unfortunately, this disturbing story from the New York Times illustrates the horrific possibilities when "the environment" is placed above human lives. Ugandans were killed and their homes burned to make room for trees that are meant to offset carbon emissions:
KICUCULA, Uganda — According to the company’s proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.
People here remember it quite differently.
“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”
Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.
“They said if we hesitated they would shoot us,” said William Bakeshisha, adding that he hid in his coffee plantation, watching his house burn down.
According to a report released by the aid group Oxfam on Wednesday, more than 20,000 people say they were evicted from their homes here in recent years to make way for a tree plantation run by a British forestry company, emblematic of a global scramble for arable land....
But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.
The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.
The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. Its investors include the World Bank, through its private investment arm, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC....
Olivia Mukamperezida, 28, said her house was among the first in her community to be burned down. One day in late 2009, she said, her eldest son, Friday, was sick at home, so she went out to find medicine. Villagers suddenly told her to rush back. Everything was incinerated.
“I found my house when it was completely finished,” she said. “I just cried.”
Ms. Mukamperezida never found the culprits. She buried Friday’s bones in a grave, but says she does not know if it is still there.
“They are planting trees,” she said.
This misanthropy hiding behind environmentalism is as disturbing as it is unnecessary. We can take care of the planet without marginalizing our fellow man. We can look at protecting the environment as a way to better creation AND humanity at the same time. Pope Benedict IX said in his message for the World Day of Peace:
Respect for creation is of immense consequence, not least because “creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works”, and its preservation has now become essential for the pacific coexistence of mankind. Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace and to authentic and integral human development – wars, international and regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, and violations of human rights. Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us. For this reason, it is imperative that mankind renew and strengthen “that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying...”
A greater sense of intergenerational solidarity is urgently needed. Future generations cannot be saddled with the cost of our use of common environmental resources. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries; for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family. Universal solidarity represents a benefit as well as a duty. This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future, a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community”. Natural resources should be used in such a way that immediate benefits do not have a negative impact on living creatures, human and not, present and future; that the protection of private property does not conflict with the universal destination of goods; that human activity does not compromise the fruitfulness of the earth, for the benefit of people now and in the future. [my emphasis]
In my junior year of college, I took sometime off from my chemistry studies and went to Oxford University to study English literature, philosophy and Latin. To pay my way, I poured pints at The Turf Tavern. The Turf's motto is "Find us if you can!" because it is a pub nestled right outside the old city walls with only two small alleyways that lead to it. It was purposefully hidden due to the illegal activity like drinking and gambling that would take place there over the centuries. The Turf is an old pub, possibly the oldest in Oxford, dating all the way back to the 13th century.
What does my beloved Turf Tavern have to do with the engineering of humans? Well, if there was one thing I learned working at the Turf was that people back in the 13th century were short. And they were small. The Turf Tavern is notorious for its low ceilings. Trying to squeeze my average size 12 backside up the stairwell while simultaneously ducking, each time I had to go speak to my manager, (his name was Biff Clifford - no joke) I realized how much bigger humans are today. It made me ponder how much bigger we will get in the next 500 years.
Turf's low ceilings
Fast forward to modern day, and I am married to a man who is 6'7" and weighs around 325. He is a giant that wears size 16 shoes. I would take him back to the Turf Tavern for a visit, (if his scary long legs would fit in a coach airplane seat) but he would not be able to stand up straight in there. Because my husband is such a large man, we make different choices. Our furniture does not come from Ikea. No pressboard for us, only real wood. Our cars do not get good gas mileage. Watching him try to squeeze into anything other than a Suburban is a pretty entertaining sight. And do not even get me started on the laundry. A few of his items, and the washer is full. My four children will be giants as well. At 5'4" I will be the shortest and smallest by far.
Which brings me to the human engineering. I found this MIT review called "The Shrinkage Solution." It is about a decades old proposal that we should consider engineering humans to be smaller. In 1967, at the same time the Western world was fearful of overpopulation, civil engineers Robert Hansen and Myle Holley suggested that we use technology to make people shrink with the idea that smaller people consume less and take up less space. Hansen and Holley wrote:
We wish here to comment on one kind of human change—a change of physical size—which apparently would be far less difficult to achieve than the modifications we infer to be potentially feasible through genetic alchemy. Indeed, it is our understanding that controlled, substantial modification of size may require only the judicious application of findings in the area of endocrinology.
Can we afford not to consider, in all its aspects, the question of human size?
A reduction in man's size might be compared to an increase in the size of the earth.
Consider, as but one example, the relation of man's size to the facilities provided for his transportation. Smaller man could mean smaller vehicles, either smaller highway rights of way or greater capacity for existing highways, easier provision for off-street parking ... Similar benefits of smaller human size become apparent in buildings.
This may seems like a ludicrous idea. But remember at the time this was written the West was panicked about overpopulation. The Population Bomb, a book by Paul Ehlrich that warned of food shortages as early as the 1970s, came out in 1968. As reported by Mara Hvistendahl in her book Unnatural Selection, western population control advocates, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, Planned Parenthood, the guy who made Dixie cups and even Disney poured money and propaganda into Asia convincing them that they needed to control their population or their children would suffer and the world would starve. Some also argued that it was morally acceptable to abort their girls to achieve population goals. Now Asia is faced with not only an aging population, but one where there is a dearth of women.
Why should we care about a decades old proposal to engineer humans to be smaller? It is a warning. Then it was overpopulation, now it is "climate change." True believers that humans are destroying the planet will suggest anything to "save the environment." From a global one-child policy, to volunteer extinction, to a virus that wipes out 90% of the human population, draconian ideas to control the virus of humanity lurk everywhere. Be mindful that the environmental movement of today hides a real hatred for humanity and may embrace all kinds of craziness to rid the planet of our over consumption. Evidenced by the MIT reviewer ending his piece with Hansen and Holley's question:
But need we prejudge the issue? Or should we seriously study the question?
It is not lost on me that it would be my family that would be the most worthy of "study."
One of the movements that scares me the most is the radical environmentalism that views humanity as a blight on the planet and that openly and not so openly desires the elinimation of mankind to better the rest of the earth. I believe the idea that we should prize animals and nature over human life is more prevalent than the average person realizes. It is a dangerous precedent to value human lives less than that of others in the animal kingdom. There was another culture that did just that. It was Nazi Germany. I was reminded of the animal loving Nazi's when I read this article about Hitler's attempt to create an army of talking dogs:
Dr Bondeson, an author of a number of history books, claims the Nazis viewed dogs as being almost as intelligent as humans and believed that only physical limitations prevented them from interacting as equals.
"In the 1920s, Germany had numerous 'new animal psychologists' who believed dogs were nearly as intelligent as humans, and capable of abstract thinking and communication," Dr Bondeson told The London Times.
"When the Nazi Party took over, one might have thought they would be building concentration camps to lock these fanatics up, but instead they were actually very interested in their ideas.
According to Dr. Bondeson, after the Jews were taken away to concentration camps, the concern was for the pets left behind:
"Part of the Nazi philosophy was that there was a strong bond between humans and nature - they believed a good Nazi should be an animal friend.
"Indeed, when they started interning Jews, the newspapers were flooded with outraged letters from Germans wondering what had happened to the pets they left behind. They seemed to think nothing of human rights, but lots about animal rights."
There is nothing wrong with protecting the environment and the animals that share the planet. There is something wrong with assuming that our lives are less worthy than the life that surrounds us.
Phelim McAleer, who made the documentary Not Evil Just Wrong about the "true cost of global warming hysteria," has pointed out that while conservatives are concerned with what goes on in people's bedrooms, left-wingers are focused on what goes on in every other room in your house. He says:
The left-wing groups are obsessed with what goes on with my fridge, what goes on with my car, what goes on in my garage, what goes on in my living room, what kind of television I have, and with what is in my light bulbs. I'm saying if you value freedom, get out of my light bulbs, get out of my kitchen, get out of my life!
But now we can say that left-wing environmentalists DO want to control what goes on in your bedroom in a much more intrusive way than any conservative could ever dream. Some want to enforce a Chinese one-child policy across the globe which means forced contraception, forced abortion, forced sterilization. Talk about "reproductive rights." Talk about telling you what you should or shouldn't be doing in your bedroom. The arrogance is astounding.
Ted Turner has gotten on the one-child band wagon and recently pushed for a global one-child policy where people from developing countries can "sell their fertility rights" to make money. From theGlobe and Mail:
Climate change and population control can make for a politically explosive mix, as media mogul Ted Turner demonstrated Sunday when he urged world leaders to institute a global one-child policy to save the Earth’s environment.
Mr. Turner spoke at a luncheon where economist Brian O’Neill from the U.S.’s National Center for Atmospheric Research unveiled his study on the impact of demographic trends on future greenhouse gas emission, a little-discussed subject given its political sensitivity.
Mr. O’Neill’s study concluded that a rapidly rising global population is contributing to an acceleration of emission growth, and that widespread availability of family planning could reduce the amount of emissions reductions required in 2050 by as much as 30 per cent.
Mr. O’Neill acknowledged that discussion of climate change and population is a political minefield.
Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be solthed so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.
Selling your "fertility rights" for profit. It there a more crass attempt at degrading the the gift of procreation?
At this time, I find nothing more threatening to the sacredness of human life than the idea that humans are a virus on this planet that need to be eliminated. To this end, governments around the world will institute the most Draconian policies and subjugate the people, taking away one of their most fundamental natural inclinations: to have and love children. And they will do it in the name of saving the planet, with no real evidence that it will. A few men can wreak as much havoc on the environment as many.
What radical environmentalists do not seem to understand is that humans are part of the environment as well. Getting rid of humans doesn't "fix" the environment, it only changes it.
Many times, I find truth in fiction; warnings that should not be disregarded. In the movie Children of Men, man no longer can have children. A biological phenomenon has halted our procreation. Suddenly the world is only populated with adults and war breaks out. Without children, man is hell-bent on self-destruction. One child is born in the midst of the chaos and the sound of a newborn's cry halts a gunfight in its tracks. Profound.
Children are the best man has to offer. They are the best thing we produce. Nothing else is as precious. Nothing else inspires us more to be our at our best. Take away the children and I believe you take away the best part of humanity.
I posted a few weeks ago about how radical environmentalism hides a hatred for humanity. Here is a disgusting example of how not-so radical environmentalism can also be a cover for misanthropy. This "no pressure" push of the 10:10 Project to have everyone reduce their carbon emission by 10% is the worst case of environmental scare tactics I have ever seen.
I guess it was supposed to be funny. Instead it is a scary look into the subconscious of some main stream environmentalists who no doubt would like to "blow up" people apathetic to their cause. I bet they are still scratching their heads wondering what everyone finds so offensive.
James Delingpole of the Guardian UK said it perfectly:
With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness.
WARNING this video is graphic and disturbing. Do not allow children to watch and do not watch if you are upset by blood and gore.
The movement of late that concerns me the most is radical environmentalism. It is not the zealous concern for the environment that disturbs me; it is the humans vs. the planet mentality that is sometimes hidden behind that concern for the environment.
James Lee, killed holding the Discovery Channel hostage, was a true believer in the misanthropic radical environmentalist agenda. His demands of the Discovery channel reveal a hatred for his fellow man, namely children, disguised by a concern for the environment. From MSNBC.com:
[Lee] is reputed to be behind the website, SaveThePlanetProtest.com, essentially a one-page screed against Discovery, urging the company to expose civilization "for the filth it is" and to puts its focus on "how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution...."
The SaveThePlanetProtest website list of "demands" is prefaced by this statement: "The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY."
Among the chilling demands: "All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions.
"In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it."
I think "parasitic human infants" says it all.
Lee was certainly a crazy man to take innocent hostages, but I do not think his sentiment is all that unique. I believe a milder form of his misanthropy exists among more mainstream environmentalists.
Recall a study published recently that found that those identifying themselves as "green" were more likely to steal and less likely to be kind. The authors of the study were surprised. I was not. It makes sense that people who embrace the "green" movement also believe that humans are a blight on the planet. If in their minds we are THE problem, it makes sense that such people would engage in misanthropic behavior. They are good to the planet and so do not have to be good to their fellow man who is screwing it up.
In other words its the "Green" Golden Rule: Do unto to your neighbor what you believe they are doing to the planet.
This misanthropy hiding behind environmentalism is as disturbing as it is unnecessary. We can take care of the planet without calling for the end of the human race. We can look at protecting the environment as a way to better creation AND humanity at the same time. Pope Benedict IX said in his message for the World Day of Peace:
Respect for creation is of immense consequence, not least because “creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works”, and its preservation has now become essential for the pacific coexistence of mankind. Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace and to authentic and integral human development – wars, international and regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, and violations of human rights. Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us. For this reason, it is imperative that mankind renew and strengthen “that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying...”
A greater sense of intergenerational solidarity is urgently needed. Future generations cannot be saddled with the cost of our use of common environmental resources. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries; for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family. Universal solidarity represents a benefit as well as a duty. This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future, a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community”. Natural resources should be used in such a way that immediate benefits do not have a negative impact on living creatures, human and not, present and future; that the protection of private property does not conflict with the universal destination of goods; that human activity does not compromise the fruitfulness of the earth, for the benefit of people now and in the future. [my emphasis]
CatholicVote.org says it’s time to use Earth Day to celebrate nature’s greatest gift – human life.
“Our goal is to use Earth Day to get Americans to think more deeply about what it means to truly respect the Earth and creation. Prevailing environmental attitudes too often view humans as the enemy of nature. We believe the human person is God’s greatest creation, and the Earth’s greatest resource. Building up a culture of life is the single most important way to build a culture that respects the environment,” said Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org Education Fund.
“The members of CatholicVote.org wanted to bring this balanced Catholic view of the environment to the streets,” said Burch, “and that’s why we’ve advertising on over 50 buses in Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle.”
“Respect for the God’s creation has a long history in Catholic teaching, long before it became popular with our secular culture,” said Burch.
In honor of Earth Day, I give you this quote from Janet E. Smith's Uncovering a String of Lies about the deceptions surrounding chemical contraceptives:
I keep hoping someone will do a study of the carbon footprint of contraceptives. Production costs are considerable, as is the cost for packaging and distributing and disposing of contraceptives. The estrogens, in particular in some forms of the pill, are having serious negative effects on the environment. Well-known are the reports of a serious disproportion between male and female fish when a water supply has too much estrogen in it. And what other effects might there be of excess estrogen in the environment? Some have conjectured that premature puberty in young girls and the increase in infertility among males may be traceable to excess estrogen in the water supply, or perhaps even in their mother’s systems as they were gestated.
For my part, I believe all those who use natural family planning should get a tax credit for environmentally responsible behavior.
A least that is the conclusion of researchers in Canada that found that "green" consumers were more likely to steal and less likely to be kind. From The Guardian UK:
When Al Gore was caught running up huge energy bills at home at the same time as lecturing on the need to save electricity, it turns out that he was only reverting to "green" type.
According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the "licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour", otherwise known as "moral balancing" or "compensatory ethics".
Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the "halo of green consumerism" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. "Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours," they write.
The pair found that those in their study who bought green products appeared less willing to share with others a set amount of money than those who bought conventional products. When the green consumers were given the chance to boost their money by cheating on a computer game and then given the opportunity to lie about it – in other words, steal – they did, while the conventional consumers did not. Later, in an honour system in which participants were asked to take money from an envelope to pay themselves their spoils, the greens were six times more likely to steal than the conventionals.
The authors of the study were surprised. I am not. It makes sense to me because many people who embrace the "green" movement also believe that humans are a huge blight on the planet. In their minds we are THE problem. It makes sense that such people would engage in misanthropic behavior. They are good to the planet and so do not have to be good to their fellow man who is screwing it up.
In other words its the "Green" Golden Rule: Do unto to your neighbor what you believe they are doing to the planet.
Synthetic estrogen is a main component of birth control pills. It is held a break through for women and a personal choice. Of course the litmus test for a "liberal good" is that it doesn't do anyone else harm. Well, it seems that birth control hormones are harming the environment. From National Catholic Register:
BOULDER, Colo. (National Catholic Register) – When EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado studied fish in a pristine mountain stream known as Boulder Creek two years ago, they were shocked. Randomly netting 123 trout and other fish downstream from the city’s sewer plant, they found that 101 were female, 12 were male and 10 were strange “intersex” fish with male and female features.
It’s “the first thing that I’ve seen as a scientist that really scared me,” said then 59-year-old University of Colorado biologist John Woodling, speaking to the Denver Post in 2005.
They studied the fish and decided the main culprits were estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth-control pills and patches, excreted in urine into the city’s sewage system and then into the creek.
Woodling, University of Colorado physiology professor David Norris, and their EPA-study team were among the first scientists in the country to learn that a slurry of hormones, antibiotics, caffeine and steroids is coursing down the nation’s waterways, threatening fish and contaminating drinking water.
Since their findings, stories have been emerging everywhere. Scientists in western Washington found that synthetic estrogen – a common ingredient in oral contraceptives – drastically reduces the fertility of male rainbow trout.
Doug Myers, wetlands and habitat specialist for Washington State’s Puget Sound Action Team, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that in frogs, river otters and fish, scientists are “finding the presence of female hormones making the male species less male.”
Not surprisingly, there is a lack of public outcry:
What the Boulder scientists discovered, however, is that few people care.
Or, if they’re worried, they’re in denial.
“Nobody is getting passionately concerned about it,” Norris said. “It makes no sense to me at all that people aren’t more concerned.”
When the story of his finding hit Denver and Boulder newspapers, Norris anticipated an immediate response from environmentalists, who define the politics of Boulder and are known to picket in the streets demanding ends to questionable farming practices, global warming and pesticide treatments.
To the professor’s surprise, however, the hormone story was mostly ignored.
Two years later, environmental groups have failed to take up the cause of saving Boulder Creek and its fish from hormone pollution.
So, no mention of birth control pills at Live Earth. I'm shocked! Here is my favorite quote:
Harden said the growing knowledge of estrogen-polluted water may expose the cultural double-standards that protect birth control from the scrutiny given to other chemicals and drugs.
“It’s going to start looking funny,” Harden said. “The radical environmentalist won’t eat a corn chip if the corn contacted a pesticide. But they view it a sacred right and obligation to consume synthetic chemicals that alter a woman’s natural biological functions, even if this practice threatens innocent aquatic life downstream.”
