![[icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/79406083/8357750) |
Ron's Rumentations - Why my Dad thinks I'm nuts
|
| | Security: | | | Subject: | Why my Dad thinks I'm nuts | | Time: | 10:26 pm | | Current Mood: |  amused |
|
| Some of you are going to think this post is political. You should understand going into this that I don't consider this issue a matter of politics, because, to me, it is so important to all of us that it transcends politics.
So, today I was talking to my Dad. He's a Southern minister, and basically feels that anything embraced by the GOP platform is next to gospel. Also, he's aware that I plan on voting for Obama this election.
In our conversation to day, he said, "You're only voting for Obama because you think he's going to more closely follow what you believe to be the correct policy on the environment."
Me: "Yup."
Dad: "I don't know where you get this over-emphasis on the environment. Most people who are 'that way' are like that because they have kids or grandkids and are concerned about their futures. You don't have either. Don't you think this focus on a single issue is pretty weird?"
Weird? Probably, in the sense that it doesn't follow the societal norm of the region in which I live. However, the fact that it is 'weird' doesn't make it wrong.
My Dad is right. Although I am very interested in many issues that I would consider political, I am basically a single issue voter. I will vote for whatever candidate I feel is most likely to advance policies that will provide adequate protection for the environment. And I reject the idea that I have to have kids or grandkids to care about the future. We are all part of a larger body called humanity. Even if I never have kids, sheer narcissism would give me a stake in future generations. I love myself enough that I want to see beings like me continue to thrive on the face of the Earth. Additionally, while I may not have kids or grandkids right now, I would certainly like to have them someday.
I've said that the environment is the most important issue to me, but I need to explain the basic belief system that underlies this concern. There are two primary reasons why I am so focused on environmental protection, and those reasons are really based on opposite characteristics of my personality.
First, there is a rational basis for my beliefs. The rational part of me does a cost/benefit analysis of the environmental situation as it sits today, particularly with respect to greenhouse gases and global warming, and just cannot justify NOT erring on the side of environmental protection. I'll use the Learned Hand formula for liability to illustrate my point. This algebraic formula is B=PL, where B is the cost of implementing precautionary measures, P is the probability of occurrence, and L is the magnitude of harm if precautionary measures are not taken. Generally, if B > PL (i.e. the cost of implementation is greater than the product of the probability x the magnitude of harm), from an economics point of view it would not be efficient to require an actor to implement precautionary measures and, as a society, we should not do so. However, a basic knowledge of algebra should tell you that there will be instances where, even if the probability of occurrence is very low, if the magnitude of harm is astronomically high, as long as probability is above zero, PL will outweigh B and precautionary measures must be taken. It seems obvious to me that the environment is one of those instances. I would submit that the probability of significant harm occurring to the environment is actually extremely high based upon the generally accepted wisdom of the vast majority of the world's scientists. I would also add that the vast majority of those scientists agree that human beings are the most significant factor in the exponential increase in global warming over the last century. However, even if the probability was extremely low, the magnitude of harm is almost infinitely high. At the outside, we're talking about an entire shifting of the global ecological balance that would result in the inability sustain the current human population, ultimately resulting probably billions of deaths, perhaps even in the virtual annihilation of the human race. With the stakes that high, I just don't understand how a rational human being could justify NOT doing everything within their power to fix the situation as much as possible. I understand that it might be comforting to bury your head in the sand and pretend like the problem doesn't exist, or that it's not controllable by human beings, or that we've gone to far to stop it. However, understanding it doesn't make it rational.
Second, I have a faith-based reason for my concern for the environment. As a Christian, my scriptural text tells me that God made man stewards of the earth. Actually, the Bible goes even further. After telling me that I am a steward of the Earth, it goes on to tell me how a steward should behave. In numerous parables, we find that a good steward should not only protect his master's property, but increase it where possible. It seems to me that we have, as a human race, done with the environment exactly the opposite of what the Bible tells us a good steward should do. As a matter of fact, we've done even worse than the bad stewards in the parables. If the world was a "talent" (currency), we've not returned our master two talents through our stewardship. We've not buried the talent and returned it to him. We've not squandered the talent so that he didn't even get that back. What we've done is spent the talent, burned down the master's house, impregnated his daughter, and killed his sheep. As a Christian, I feel that we ought to be able to do better. Really, this faith-based reasoning is what leaves me to wonder at the fact that so many people who consider themselves religious support policies that are directly harmful to the environment. I just can't understand.
Anyway, this is why my father thinks I'm nuts. Apparently, I should be more concerned about abortion or taxes. | comments: Leave a comment     |
| okay I haven't read the post yet, but dude you are scaring me. you've posted twice this week. are you sure you feeling well??? do you need a doctor or anything.....or are you really Ron? Quick who won the 1962 World Series? What's better Pepsi or Coke? Are you an alien?
will actually read your post tomorrow once the shock has worn off
oh btw..very happy to see you posting....yay for Ron posting WOOT. hope to see you post more (or at least more than me ;o) ) | | (Reply) (Thread) |
| Really, this faith-based reasoning is what leaves me to wonder at the fact that so many people who consider themselves religious support policies that are directly harmful to the environment.
I'm not innocent of transgressions against the environment myself, but I can agree 100% with your statement and take it further to say that most Christians, or religious people in general, don't even consider the environment as an issue at all-at least not the ones I have known/talked to. I worked with a gentleman last summer whose entire passion was being a good steward of the Earth, he was a very strong Christian. I learned a lot from him biblically about how God expects us to care for the land. It was and is something that is rarely if ever addressed directly in church, at least not in any church I have ever attended. And not once in any Sunday School/Bible Study has stewardship of the Earth been the topic/lesson.
My entire college career has been based on Natural Resources; the preservation of, consumption of, and conservation of. They are not mutually exclusive. Heck, without an environment, I'll be out of work (if not gone from the face of the earth).
It's a hard line to walk sometimes. No matter what the policy there always seems to be environmental implications one way or another. I guess a person has to think about where to draw the line. Wind-power generation for instance. This is gaining big legs in Colorado and turbine "farms" are popping up all over the Eastern Plains of the state. But the turbines are huge and scar the countryside; they are injurious to migratory birds, can even kill them; and even with wind-power the infrastructure has to exist to provide power when there is no wind-from coal powered plants. Wind-power can only store so much-it's not a self-contained system. I'm truly torn between my advocacy for wildlife and scenic byways, and the promise of *partial* clean power. Anyway, I know I'm getting way off topic with this.
As for the election, it boils down to what issue is most important to a person. But you know this. Your issue is the environment, for others, their issue may be abortion or taxes; religious or not (and I do believe some churches urge their congregations to select candidates based on the former).
My views on many issues ping pong back and forth between the two candidates. Come election day, I have to decide what issue will win out.
Now...sorry if that got more political or more in depth then was intended! You just got me to thinking about many things suddenly. :)
Edited at 2008-09-09 04:02 am (UTC) | | (Reply) (Thread) |
| Don't be sorry. I love it when anything I post invokes thought.
I agree with you that churches tend to consider the environment an issue. I just find it hard to understand.
It definitely is often difficult to weigh the environmental impact of particular actions. I think there are some broad areas where the decision should be fairly simple, though. For instance, reducing greenhouse gas emissions in manufacturing. There, the only real competing policy consideration is an economic one. I don't want to minimize economic policy considerations, particularly since I tend to look at the world in a cost/benefit paradigm, but I just think the environmental issue clearly has to win out here.
Thanks for the response. It was really insightful. | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| thank you; I'm glad it made any sense at all! I tend to get emotional about certain issues (environment, wildlife, natural resources) so sometimes forming a logical argument/train of thought is hard. :) I sometimes wish I had a more logical view of things as you seem too!
I would hope, with the declining face of environmental issues, that church leaders would start to pay more attention to, and give more lip service to, the environment and our responsibility to care for it for our own good, and the good of humanity in general. | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| | Sorry, I meant to say "that churches tend NOT to consider the environment an issue". | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Awesome explanation!
I guess that makes me nuts too!
BTW---New York Yankees in the 7th game over the San Francisco Giants @ Candlestick Park | | (Reply) (Thread) |
| Please know that I am totally standing up and giving you a round of applause!!!
I've been in a similar situation lately. I vote almost totally on the issues of Animal Welfare and Enviromental Issues. I'm not ignorant or callous to other issues but those are the ones that hit me in my heart. I can respect other people having other "hot topic buttons" but some of those same folks can't respect mine.
I've been so hurt by some of my "real life" friends calling me names because I'm obviously a tree hugging liberal idiot if I care about "just animals" or believe in global warming. I also do not have children yet but would like to someday. Even if I never personally have children I can't imagine not caring about the world that we are leaving behind for the generations to follow.
sigh..glad there are folks like you who can put things into words more eloquently than I can. Wish you guys lived closer I would have you come over and be my spokesperson when dealing with my unber conservative and GOP loyal Grandmother. :P)
(Reply to this)
| | (Reply) (Thread) |
| Thanks for the reply!
I'm sure dealing with your Grandmother is much like dealing with my Dad...or my whole family for that matter - that whole "it's a free country, so believe what you want, but you're stupid if you believe anything other than what I believe" thing. | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Ackkkk, are we somehow related?? lol...
Thats pretty much sums it all up doesn't it? | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Apparently, I should be more concerned about abortion or taxes.
And why aren't you???? CLEARLY they are what cause global warming! | | (Reply) (Thread) |
| I agree.
And this:
What we've done is spent the talent, burned down the master's house, impregnated his daughter, and killed his sheep.
is too funny, and sadly a pretty good analogy for what we've been doing to creation. | | (Reply) (Thread) |
| | Yeah, we've definitely been doing a number on the world. I just hope some sanity will slip in here at some point and people will wake up. | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Having one political "button" as it were isn't all that crazy. Especially when it's the environment. Policies and ideals change...we only have one world. Earth will continue on; just probably not with us on it if things steadily progress the way they're going. (Bacteria will rule the world...bwahahahaha!)
I think part of my "issue" with organized religion right now is not looking at the larger picture. Yes; you can argue about morality till your blue in the face....but if people are dying because there is no more clean air/food/water....does it really matter?
My brain about died when it say Algebra at 7:45 in the morning...I haven't had my coffe yet man! A little warning next time! | | (Reply) (Thread) |
| I'm pretty sure there's a world-wide conspiracy of bacteria. They're very, very sneaky.
Amen on the religion argument.
Sorry about the Algebra. Honestly, I'm pretty amazed that I didn't screw it up as tired as I was around midnight when I posted. | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| I agree with you.
My husband's family owns a small business and I am afraid having a democrat in office will increase the already heavy tax burden on small businesses. However, I believe the current (and generally Republican) stance on environmental issues is worse than negligent. So, I will support Obama based on this single issue.
My degree is in anthroplogy/archaeology and it makes me shiver to consider pre-historic and historic examples of the implications you discussed above regarding the inibility
of the environment to sustain a human populations.
| | (Reply) (Thread) |
| I totally agree with your single-issue voting tactics. I find it too overwhelming and subjective to try to focus on everything at once. I choose the issues that are most important to me, and vote for the party that most closely resembles my own beliefs. I suppose for some people, those issues might be abortion laws or taxes, but it's nice to see the environment topping more and more people's lists. It's pretty scary when you get right down to it.
Can I also say that I am so jealous of the election you folks are having south of the border? Up here, we just had a federal election called, but it seems a more than a little pathetic, to be honest. At least in the States you are on the cusp of potentially very exciting change. I'm watching the race closely! | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Sorry, what I meant was
inability of the environment to sustain human populations.
I actuallycan spell and use grammar properly. *Blushes*
| | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| | I know, it's frightening to think about the possibilities. I just can't understand why so many people are unwilling to think about these things, no matter how scary they might be. | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| I am basically a single issue voter
You know, I feel like many conscientious voters -- we few who are genuinely passionate about how we cast a ballot -- are swayed by a candidate's stance on a single issue or two. That's how I made my decision during the Democratic primaries, at any rate.
It actually makes me quite sad to see how disregarded environmental policy currently is, especially as a Christian. The Bible reminds us to care and cherish the gifts given to us by God -- to treat our bodies as temples, our neighbor as ourselves, etc. As "stewards of the earth", it only makes sense that we treat the environment in a similarly caring way.
What really baffles me, though, is the huge political rift dividing Christians of all kinds. Too much emphasis seems to be placed on unflappable party/candidate loyalty rather than on the set tenants of a shared religion.
Great post, though. I hope to see more in future! :) | | (Reply) (Thread) |
| | You know, you've hit on one of my hot button issues here. I have a real problem with the seemingly mindless dedication to political parties that I see in so many people today. I just don't understand the draw. Are people just so unwilling to take the time to actually look at the issues and decide what's important to them and where different candidates stand on those issues that they are willing to sell themselves to a "slate" of candidates that tells them how to think and feel? I wish I knew the answer. | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92) cee_m | | Link: | (Link) | | Time: | 2008-09-09 07:14 pm (UTC) |
|
| | I have never seen anyone give a faith based reason for defending the environment. Very nicely done. I agree on both sets of reasoning. I knew I liked you for a reason. :) | | (Reply) (Thread) |
| I thought it was my winning good looks and irrepressible charm.
;) | | (Reply) (Parent) (Thread) |
| okay i have read your post. ;) and i think I agree with you, I mean if someone tries to choose based on many concerns, I'm sorry but no one will be happy, so pick one that REALLY matters and vote.
also, I think you are an alien. one that may resemble Ron and perhaps even has fooled Janine, but know that Ron's LJ friends are on to you. ;) | | (Reply) (Thread) |
|
Ron's Rumentations - Why my Dad thinks I'm nuts
|
|
