earth hugging fundamentalist retardation?

^ "Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide, argues that most atheists are in no position to attack religion if they support environmentalism, which he claims is becoming an almost cult-like religion of its own." | iPhone friendly YouTube version

Mr. Plimer definitely raised my eyebrows. After reading books by outspoken and prolific 'brights' such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens (all of whom are categorically lumped as radical atheists), and after my own personal falling out with Catholicism (where I agree with Bart Ehrman's summation of Christianity's seeming incompetence at logically explaining God's apathy towards profound human suffering and tragedy), I watched this clip of Mr. Plimer's proposal. It just makes sense.

In the NPR interview with Terry Gross, Bart Ehrman, who wrote the book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question: Why We Suffer, as well as Misquoting Jesus, had a few thoughts to share. He is also chairman of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A former priest, now agnostic, Mr. Ehrman hints at a 'spiritual hole' left when one chooses to walk away from religious faith. Staunch atheists Mr. Harris and Mr. Dawkins argue that the hole can easily be filled by very tangible secular values based on one's understanding of life experience and scientific evidence and observations - God has nothing to do with familial love or the beauty of a sunset. Instead just give the damned credit where it's due: family itself, and our own innate talent to emote based on our aesthetic appreciation and awe of natural phenomenon. In other words, secular values created by us as human beings, to be enjoyed on that merit alone.

But according to Mr. Plimer, once again our ignorance and the consequent fear it brings causes us to cathect yet another religion. Anthropologically superstition and supernatural beliefs were created by us as a species to try to allay our fear of unexplainable goings on in the universe. Today as our disillusion with a Judeo-Christian deity grows, thus gradually leaving a gaping hole in its wake, that hole is being filled by a new kind of manufactured belief - frantic earth hugging. Or as it is more commonly known, Environmentalism.

So far there are conflicting arguments among scientists around the world about the actual causes of global warming. We do know that man-made pollution and senseless exploiting of natural resources, made possible by a huge surge in the human population, industrialization, and rampant consumerism, are causing damage to our environment, and that bickering and pointing fingers aren't really helping to even at least tamp down the global hemorrhaging. And we know, too, that it's always good to be mindful of how and how much we use our natural resources, to be moderate in our consumption, and that we need to re-assess the infrastructure of our industries, habitats, communities, and personal lives to waste as little as possible.

However there's a difference between being realistically, common sensibly responsible and being an extremist ignoramus about it. How many of us, for example, know that recycling aluminum is more expensive and energy consuming than just making things from the original ore being mined?

But there has yet to be an across-the-board consensus supported by irrefutable scientific data that shows what's actually causing global warming, whether man-made or entirely natural, and whether it's fixable. Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com has a lot to say about this:

I believe the United States was clearly right in its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, because of its fundamentally nonsensical exemptions. In short, the Kyoto Protocol restricts nations based on how wealthy they are, not based on how much greenhouse gas they produce! The United States would have had to adopt economy-strangling restrictions, while China, which will surpass the United States as the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases by 2010 at the speed at which an IndyCar passes a hobo pushing a shopping basket, remains exempt from any restrictions. India, the world's third largest producer of greenhouse gases, is also exempt.

Blanket proclamations like the Kyoto Protocol are not the way to approach the problem with any workable practicality. In fact, 13 of the 15 European nations who did ratify Kyoto have been unable to comply with its requirements.

I agree with Mr. Dunning's inference that, as a species, keeping our shit in check must absolutely be a worldwide effort, and no nation, not even the tiniest ones, should be exempt if we want efficacy. But the stupid, juvenile arrogance of upcoming countries like China and India is as pathetic as the arrogant extreme liberals demanding impractical conditions and time-lines for carbon emission reductions. Some advocates of industrial, economic, and commerical growth of those upcoming countries have even gone so far to say, in effect, "Well, the U.S. and Europe had their chance to be big, it's our turn now!" Does that sound like a mature and responsible global citizen to you?

^ The entire program: "Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?" (1hr. 40min.)

"While the world's religions have inspired stunning acts of creation, they also have been implicated in some of the darkest deeds in human history.

If God cannot be blamed for such moments of evil, His priests and prophets at least have a case to answer.

So what might they say? That religion is unfairly blamed -- and that we should look to other factors? Admit that there are problems but argue that on balance the good outweighs the bad? That there is no alternative; that people need religion like they need air?" - Intelligence Squared

Anyway, I ramble. Environmentalism is at its core a very noble cause. But as with any kind of cause or belief system it has that peril of easily slipping into dangerous radical fanaticism when unchecked. I've watched YouTube clips of crazed tree huggers sobbing uncontrollably at the death of even one plant by human hands (warning: that video is extremely hard to watch in how those people willingly descend into sheer moronism). Believe me when I say that I honestly can't tell the difference between their behaviour and that of televangelists or Baptist preachers causing their flock to burst into fits of screams and cries toward their god, or of anti-abortionists planning bomb attacks on abortion clinics.

< Yes, it's possible for us all to be responsible stewards of our natural planet without resorting to the stupidity of fundamentalist left leaning beliefs and pseudoscientific nonsense.


I am an atheist, and one who respects the beliefs of others as long as they don't force them on me or mess with governmental legislation to force others to live according to their beliefs. I have good friends who practice their faith and I admire them for it precisely because they respect my stance. They're good people, they do good things.

But like anyone with a reasonable demeanor based on rationality I will remain an atheist until there is undisputable scientific proof of the existence of any kind of superior omnipotent being out there, whether or not it even wants to be worshipped. That, too, applies toward any new kind of religion or dogma that encourages the projection of one's ignorance, insecurities and fears onto real concerns with potentially detrimental consequences, no matter how noble its intent.

Mr. Plimer's words are a warning to us to stay in check, an echo of Winston Churchill's wisdom for the ages:

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

Yeah, I know the value of trees, but that does NOT oblige me to have to embarrass myself and throw my arms around one and try to force others to do the same. And even if the trees had feelings, I don't think they would want to be embarrassed like that, either.