To my readers in the ecotheology movement, (which takes up everyone from ECUSA to Quakers, religious anarchists and anabaptists, and reminds me mostly of the radical anabaptists of the 16th & early 17th c.) 
whom I've recently taken to affectionately calling the Collared Greens, 
I say this: why would you advocate for the destruction of the one thing that has shown itself capable of increasing the quality and quantity of human life (viz. energy affluence)? Even if you think we should lay off the fossil fuels (something I would advocate), why not put your energy into advancing nuclear power? If we hadn't had the environuts scaring us witless about it, we could have saved gigatons of carbon being spewed into the atmosphere - and provided electricity to some of the most remote places on the planet. Electricity means refrigerated food, non-dung-cooked food, medical equipment, and information availability for self-improvement. But no...we're too busy denying the real messiah and playing our own hand at taking his place... uggh!
whom I've recently taken to affectionately calling the Collared Greens, 
I say this: why would you advocate for the destruction of the one thing that has shown itself capable of increasing the quality and quantity of human life (viz. energy affluence)? Even if you think we should lay off the fossil fuels (something I would advocate), why not put your energy into advancing nuclear power? If we hadn't had the environuts scaring us witless about it, we could have saved gigatons of carbon being spewed into the atmosphere - and provided electricity to some of the most remote places on the planet. Electricity means refrigerated food, non-dung-cooked food, medical equipment, and information availability for self-improvement. But no...we're too busy denying the real messiah and playing our own hand at taking his place... uggh!It's a moral issue for "conservative" Christians, too. This falls squarely within our covenantal stewardship. We just tend to agree with the science over the long term than the stuff that comes from the past 20 years.
Come to think of it, we do that with our theology, too.
*The role of relevant scientific expertise is still a hot-topic when it comes to global warming. (Pun intended.)
1 comment:
I guess Collared Green is incrementally better than greenie-weenie. Still pretty stupid.
I do agree that conservatives do the same thing with science that they do with theology - fight tooth and nail against every improvement on the past, whether its ordination of women or the theory of evolution. So there is a lot of consistency there.
I like "energy affluence". That's an interesting re-frame of good ol' fashioned affluence. You show me affluence that doesn't produce massive externalized costs that the poor have to bear, and I'm on board. I haven't see it yet, but we'll see what you come up with in your quest to convert us to Free Market Jesus. In the meantime, I can't help but keep looking at things like a Texas-sized vortex of garbage in floating in the Pacific when you talk about "affluence" and how it is all good with no bad repercussions.
Post a Comment