Not just whales, but endangered birds and so forth. Why bother?
Now look, I'm not in favor of wanton destruction, but I think every decision we humans make about how we manage our planet should revolve around what's best for us. If it's best for us to protect some certain type of endangered animal, I want to know why.
Pure aesthetics? That's fine, I can understand that, but I don't think it's a valid use of public funds. If you think gnatcatchers are pretty birds and don't want them to die, go buy up the land they live on and leave it in its natural state. Form a group, collect money, and save the animals yourself. (Whales may be a bit harder, but I'm sure something could be worked out. They're easy to tag and track, so they could be bought.)
In comment on my earlier post, John Callender comments and quotes Henry Beston who writes:
We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.But again I say, who cares? From a purely irreligious point of view, it's absurd and counterproductive to care about animals that are being weeded out of the biosphere for being uncompetitive. As a Christian, the passage is factually wrong because God explicitly placed mankind above the rest of his creation and charged us to bring it under our dominion.
Giving nature inherent value apart from its utility to mankind is ridiculous and irrational. As I wrote, it's perfectly valid to want to save something because you find it aesthetically pleasing, but it's really monstrous to use governmental force to protect animals at the expense of other humans.
In my opinion, the real motivation behind most environmentalism isn't a love of nature, but a hatred of humanity. Mr. Beston's reference to "mysticism" reveals the essence of environmentalism: it's a religion -- a religion devoted to elimination of civilization as we know it. We must use this planet and its resources wisely, but we're fools if we allow the insidious cult of environmentalism a voice in the debate.
Update:
John Weidner has more on environmentalism. HT: Bill Hobbs.
In dominion, we are charged with a task of being trustees, not destroyers. Though we are of a higher order than the rest of creation, God created nature not just for our use but for his enjoyment. How we treat nature indicates a measure of to what degree we glorify and praise God.
That said, I oppose radical environmentalism that stands over and against the development of civilization.
I was going to make the same point about misinterpreting "dominion" to include the right to trash creation, but Joel beat me to it.
I don't usually agree with Joel, but I do on this. Michael, you asked who cares. If I read my scripture right, God cares. (See Matthew 10:29)
I fully agree with Joel. I've been very active in the past with environmental groups and also fully agree with Michael's assessment that their primary motivation is hatred of mankind and civilization.
Regardless of these groups warped motivations and "no-compromise" methods, there are still some places (and the animals that live there) that are worth protecting. It is a measure of our prosperity and achievement as a people that we can set places aside and say, "this is worth preserving".
It's also good for tradition. Just as we feel it is important to preserve Mt. Vernon, we should also preserve some of the remaining "wildness" that is so valuable to American Heritage.
I think I was pretty clear in writing that I don't think we should trash things for no reason.
And Heather, it's hard to argue that God cares more about sparrows than people in a verse whose premise is that they're sold two for a penny for the purpose of sacrificing.
I said that there aesthetic reasons to keep nature around, and so forth, but all those reasons should be based purely on human utility.
Environmental Theology: A Judeo-Christian Defense:
Amen, Heather!
Heather(s): I said that we should use creation wisely, but I strongly disagree with any theology that gives nature any inherent value beyond its express purpose as a place for mankind to live.
Humans are eternal beings, while animals and plants are not. All of creation will be consumed by fire someday, and God will create a new heaven and a new earth for us to live on.
We do have a responsibility to be good stewards of creation, but only insofar as we must keep it usable for mankind.
Michael writes:
"Now look, I'm not in favor of wanton destruction, but I think every decision we humans make about how we manage our planet should revolve around what's best for us..."
Death. Dumb. Blind. How can you be so ignorant?
Do you not know how you can change the world by moving just one grain of sand?!?
For those who have ears hear me...
Latinopundit has missed the boat, big time: given that we invetiably change the world, the question becomes, "In what way do we want to change it?"
If you believe that we must save and honor God's creations, then you must put human priorities first, as the race of man seems to be the crowing glory of God's labor. Whenever you place an animal's existence above a human's, you are devaluing one of God's supreme works. Yes, we are to care for the earth as stewards, but that is not an invitation for mass suicide!
We're supposed to be wise in our stewardship, not self-abasing and cowardly. The fact that there are hard choices is not an invitation to procrastinate or whine - it is an invitation to make a stand and act on your priorities. (or for preference, God's.) And obviously, the priorities of the enviro-whakos is that they care more for God's pets than for God's children. They condemn themselves, and are proud of it.
Oh, Michael - not every Christian theology dismisses the earth and the animals. Mine, for example, is mostly silent, but implies that animals and plants and the earth itself have spirits, and will partake of paradise insofar as their limited moral capacity will allow them to. Which further argues for proper wise stewardship, not capitulation.
Wise, Mike? We are hardly wise.
Miss the boat? the story of Noah's Arc where God commanded him to obtain two of each kind of creature. Not two who Noah chooses but, two of all (and please, let's not get into religion or the validity of it thereof).If this was left up to you we would be short alot of creatures!
It is a cowards way to justify the easy way around rather than fulfill the hard and responsible way. Key word - Responsible.
LP: Don't be silly! If Noah hadn't saved all those animals, what we we eat? And what would our food eat, before we ate it?
It's obviously in our best interests to preserve a sustainable ecosystem that will continue to feed and clothe us.
I said we didn't have to get into the story...it was an example of a "higher wisdom."
Noah did not gather the animals - they were sent to him. We have no such assistance, and our options are more limited: we must choose between competing values, and they are both good. In your insistence that we save all creatures (which implicitly asserts that we can, and I doubt it), you are also implicitly saying that it is worth any amount of human suffering or inconvience to preserve any other species.
Oh, really? The resources that are used to coddle a pair of birds could also be used to buy safety equipment for timber workers, provide drinkable water for a poor village, halt a few drug shipments to a ghetto, or print a few more copies of God's word. Yes, caring for and preserving animals is important. More important than everything else? Doubtful, and that's why you missed the boat: you've completely dismissed the contect of your actions, specifically the opportunity costs.
The greatest commandment says nothing about animals. Neither does the second. They are concerned with mankind, though - and you would blithely ignore your fellow men in favor of lesser creatures. I'm all for being responsible and making the hard choices. Your position advocates ignoring the choices we have, and I find that completely IRresponsible.
I think I'll just let Mr. Burris take over this comment thread, since he seems more able to make my case than I am!
"God had told him to build a giant boat—an ark—and to gather a male and female of every kind of animal"
Ok, what Bible are you reading? Anyway, if Noah gathered them or not, if it was impossible or not is not really that important.
Save all creatures? It is a matter of being responsible. Look at the rainforest dissapearing for our resources. You say it is for the better of mankind b/c, we benefit so the hell w/ the Rainforests and all the creatures therein. But, ultimately, ultimately we are destroying ourselves.
This planet takes care of itself if we let alone. So save the animals as they relate to the earth, as they relate to the enviornment as they relate to us is the way to approach the situation. Then you would appreciate saving the animals b/c you realize it reflects on you and your world. But some people cannot think outside themselves...
LP: So, basically, you're agreeing with me? You're saying we should preserve the environment because it's in our best interests? That's an argument I can respect. Before it seemed as if you were saying that we should preserve the environment for its own sake.
This is cheesy and a spiritual cliche but, everything is connected.
And... so? "Everything is connected" is a fact (as long as you understand that we don't actaully have the understanding to completely back up that "fact" - it's just a consistent extrapolation of what we do know.)
What we're talking about is a value judgement. There are competing values, and this debate is over which value takes precedence. If we had the resources (and correct circumstances) to save all the animals *and* completely care for all people, that would be fantastic! That would also be a complete fantasy, because the world we live in isn't set up that way. Some of our choices will have to be between the people's welfare and animal welfare. So, Latinopundit, where do you stand? What choice will you make? When push comes to shove, will you feed the birds, or the children?
Human life is above all life. We can agree on that. The attitude that all life is secondary to Human life is the wrong attitude to take however. MHO...
(I know it sounds like a contradiction)