The pope's encyclical, overpopulation and overconsumption

robp

Desmo wrote: »

A cow has a much greater effect on the climate than a car and the productivity miracle relies heavily on fossil fuels. And what for? A global pyramid scheme to fuel economic success?

There are all sorts of surprises in living with a smaller footprint. How many people realise that having a pet dog is typically as bad as owning two SUVs. I don't think we have to give up meat forever but we do need to hugely reduce our use of meat and consume more responsibly.

robp

A lot has been said about Pope Francis' Encyclical "Laudato Si". So I think it is worth summing this up. Francis is calling for action. Urgent action. For example immediate commitment to less fossil use. Arguably he is rooting the call of "Laudato Si" in the Judaeo-Christian tradition of a cosmological view of the universe. He (I think) is saying that this view is something that is long established but neglected. But that is seen in Genesis, St Irenaeus, St Aquinas and so brilliantly in St Francis of Assisi. It is from the idea that this universe is a creation. If you have a keen sense of the creator then you have an equally keen sense of how everything is interconnected and how we all ontological siblings (in St Francis’s language Brother Sun and Sister Moon). In this view we are not here to master or control nature for its own sake. So this encyclical is a plea for stewardship. Although we must be deeply grateful for advances from science and technology if spirit of science and technology decouples us from our place in the order of the environment they are destructive.

Zoo4m8

robp wrote: »

There are all sorts of surprises in living with a smaller footprint. How many people realise that having a pet dog is typically as bad as owning two SUVs. I don't think we have to give up meat forever but we do need to hugely reduce our use of meat and consume more responsibly.

Interesting..how is owning a dog as bad as owning two SUVs ?

Jayzesake

robp wrote: »

Although we must be deeply grateful for advances from science and technology if spirit of science and technology decouples us from our place in the order of the environment they are destructive.

Interesting post, although I disagree with some of your points. If you think back to Galileo, his scientific advances demonstrated that the sun and everything else doesn't actually revolve around us, which was contrary to the church's position, i.e. that man is at the centre of the universe. So they threatened to burn him at the stake until he said he was wrong and they were right. Science is nothing more than an understanding of how things around us, our universe, works. There is no danger in that in itself, only in the fact that we as a species are often not mature enough to use it wisely.

We humans inherently tend to see our own species as occupying the centre of the universe: it's just the way we're hardwired I reckon. We are extremely self-obsessed, hyper-social animals, with most people relating their lives totally to comparisons with those of other people, and what they do and think (and wear, and drive, and earn, etc., etc.). For this prevailing way of seeing the world, everything, including all non-human life, exists only as a kind of a backdrop for us. It's called anthropocentrism (the opposite of which is biocentrism).

We really need to move in another direction, because this way of relating to the rest of our fellow 'Earthlings' has brought total devastation. I recently read somewhere that 95% of animal biomass on the planet (taking into account all animals over about 10kg, if I remember right) is accounted for either by human beings or our domesticates (cattle, sheep, goats, etc.), which are really just extensions of our species, from a wildthings perspective. The other approx. 5% is wildlife. That statistic just blew me away. (I'm sure some will now want to argue the validity of that exact stat., but it gives the general idea of the situation.) We have pushed and pushed and pushed, and are still pushing full throttle to drive out all wild things and make this entire planet serve only our needs.

The pope's encyclical is encouraging because it gives hope that the prevailing ethos across all sections of the global human population, that it's all just ours to do what we like with, might be beginning to change on a meaningful level.

recedite

Jayzesake wrote: »

So do you think it's time I stopped beating up on myself about my mispent irresponsible youth now?

I wouldn't comment on that, but there is nothing at all irresponsible in having 2 or 3 children and bringing them up well.
Having a lot more kids than that, and leaving the older ones to rear the younger ones, which is essentially what used to happen, and what would still happen if people still followed the Popes teaching, is a different matter and not a positive thing for society or for the environment.

Jayzesake

Jayzesake wrote: »

So do you think it's time I stopped beating up on myself about my mispent irresponsible youth now?

recedite wrote: »

I wouldn't comment on that

Just pulling your leg, recedite!

robp

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

Interesting..how is owning a dog as bad as owning two SUVs ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11time_to_eat_the_pets.html

Its based on work by Robert and Brenda vale.

I don't think they have to be so expensive. Traditionally pets were fed on scraps and probably had a very small footprint but modern pets are not fed on scraps anymore.

Zoo4m8

Hmmm, gratified to see previously in this thread that a cow is more polluting than a car (sort of confirmed something I'd always suspected) even if it is a general purpose car....
Then to see that a dog is such a drain on the environment really made my day..I know a terminally smug couple who have two dogs one of which is a Mastiff, who give me some stick from time to time about my , em, transport arrangements, now I'll just (smugly) direct them to the Vale's book..
Seriously, couldn't open the link but did a bit of digging. I hope I'm correct in saying their argument is based on a vehicle running ethanol and even at that their reasoning appears suspect, I couldn't be bothered wading through their seemingly endless figures but judging from some reviews I'm not alone in my caution.
Anyway it's all grist for the mill and their angle on the debate makes for interesting if slightly incredulous reading..

Desmo

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

Hmmm, gratified to see previously in this thread that a cow is more polluting than a car (sort of confirmed something I'd always suspected) even if it is a general purpose car....
Then to see that a dog is such a drain on the environment really made my day..I know a terminally smug couple who have two dogs one of which is a Mastiff, who give me some stick from time to time about my , em, transport arrangements, now I'll just (smugly) direct them to the Vale's book..
Seriously, couldn't open the link but did a bit of digging. I hope I'm correct in saying their argument is based on a vehicle running ethanol and even at that their reasoning appears suspect, I couldn't be bothered wading through their seemingly endless figures but judging from some reviews I'm not alone in my caution.
Anyway it's all grist for the mill and their angle on the debate makes for interesting if slightly incredulous reading..

What it does all add up to is more people consuming more materials (driving more cars or having more pets or eating more meat etc.) and putting more strain on a planet that is showing serious signs of stress. The catholic church has always been vehemently against contraception for daft ideological reasons and just now we need some pragmatic and reasoned responses to global problems rather then theological ones.

recedite

robp wrote: »

How many people realise that having a pet dog is typically as bad as owning two SUVs.

Here's a link that actually works, debunking that nonsense.
The dog thing is based on energy consumption of a (large) dog compared to a car, and the amount of land needed to grow enough food to provide that energy.
Its not concerned with methane/ CO2 emissions and global warming, which the cow thing is based on.

Jayzesake

Desmo wrote: »

The catholic church has always been vehemently against contraception for daft ideological reasons and just now we need some pragmatic and reasoned responses to global problems rather then theological ones.

Agreed, but as I said earlier here the very positive aspects of the recent encyclical should be welcomed by all those of us who are concerned with the rapidly deteriorating state of the planet's life support systems. Particularly given the timing, just in advance of the Paris conference on climate change in December. We need all the allies we can get, and 1.2 billion is a number that shouldn't be knocked, even if there remain very important differences on other issues, such as contraception etc.

recedite

Here's the sort of thing that is likely to actually have some effect.
Unlike some vague platitudes from the Pope.
And no doubt the church will oppose the above measure.

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

Here's the sort of thing that is likely to actually have some effect.

I agree with you on that, and yes, the church - as well as the left - probably will oppose this type of thing. They, like 99.99% of people, see things from a primarily anthropocentric viewpoint, and take their cue from that.

But at the risk of becoming repetitive, overpopulation isn't the only, or even the main, issue of concern. Collapse of biodiversity, runaway habitat loss, the loss of a stable climate - and the repercussions the latter will have on wildlife, as well as us, are the principal worries. Even if all these issues - together with many others, including overpopulation - are of course directly linked. The encyclical directly addresses the global human assault on the natural world, both in the biosphere and the atmosphere, and urges 1.2 billion followers - about one sixth of the world population - to change their approach in this regard. And I repeat, this has happened in the immediate run-up to the crucial global conference on climate change in december, which many see as our last chance to avoid disaster.

The importance of this may may be lost on some, but not on the tea party faction of the U.S. Republican Party, who are livid, seeing it as a direct challenge from one of the biggest blocs in the world to their business-as-usual ideology regarding the exploitation of what they call "natural resources", or "natural capital". They may be fruitcakes, but they've copped the implications of the encyclical to a tee.

It is utterly beyond me how anyone concerned about the state of the natural world could see this development as irrelevant, just because the church hasn't changed its position on contraception. The English tories have an atrocious record - recently at least - on everything to do with wildlife and the environment, and yet you recedite (rightly) applaud the measures in your link because they may have some positive effect by slowing population increase. To me that seems contradictory to your very negative view of the pope's encyclical, to say the least.

recedite

I'm not negative towards the Popes talk, I'm indifferent (until I see some action)
I suggested earlier that he could introduce some environmental or energy conservation measures in the territory he controls; the Holy See/Vatican City.
Others suggested he could have a bigger influence by changing the church policy on contraception. As far as I can see, he intends to do neither.

I'm not a big Tory fan. I just pointed out that in this case (although probably not conceived for environmental reasons at all) the particular policy type would probably have a very real and positive environmental effect. That's the difference between talk and action.

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

(although probably not conceived for environmental reasons at all)

You're right: the motives appear to be purely a money saving exercise, combined with right-wing ideology.

recedite wrote: »

That's the difference between talk and action.

As I said here earlier, you never get action without it being preceded by a change in thinking (which comes in the form of talk). Putting solar panels on the roof of the vatican or being in favour of contraception are a very long way off being the only ways that the Catholic church can make a concrete difference, either positive or negative, to the state of the planet.

If the church says, as it has done for 2,000 years, that god made the natural world solely for humans to dominate, use and abuse as suits them, that gives free licence to all their followers to do just that without it going against their religious convictions. If, on the other hand, the church comes out and says that trashing the natural world is wrong (as it has done with this encyclical), all those followers are pushed into questioning their actions, and the impact that those actions have on the rest of the planet.

Bringing about positive changes in peoples' mass consciousness regarding the natural world is one of the most essential things right now, if the ongoing catastrophic damage is to be reduced or turned around.

Jayzesake

Here's an interesting article about how Catholic Peru, the country with the 4th most remaining tropical rainforest in the world, is deeply divided over the Pope's Encyclical:

http://news.mongabay.com/2015/09/perus-conundrum-a-popes-environmental-message-divides-his-people/