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.

samedi de cette façon

> Buster's Ice Cream Stop, 8.30am Saturday. Coffee, warm ham & cheese croissant, and a most perfect vantage point, don't you think?

This is strange. Wonderfully strange. I've had this habit, in the past several months, of sleeping until noon or so after staying up very late the night before. Then suddenly I find myself awake early in the morning. Is it time for some change?

There is what I refer to as an ice cream café around the block from me. I've rarely ever gone there, regrettably so. But this morning I found myself enroute, gingerly walking with my book to go in, order my coffee and warm ham & cheese croissant, and plant myself at one of the best spots in the place (as the photo clearly shows), a tucked away corner next to the counter that afforded a good view out the window. I love mornings like this where it's still overcast, maybe even a bit foggy, and you can smell the dew and feel the nippy crispness before the sun breaks an hour or two later. The crowd at this time was mostly young attractive married couples with their babies, older couples with their BMWs or Mercedes parked right at the curb, serious cyclists in their tight spandex gear freshing up with coffees after their constitutional early morning group ride, and the occasional hipster geek type. It was mostly whites and Asians who, from what I can glean, most likely had university degrees and were reasonably successful in their lives.

I surprised myself by actually getting back to reading my book (after a couple months not touching it), Christopher Hitchens' The Portable Atheist, a rather fat anthology of writings from great minds like Mark Twain, Salman Rushdie, Spinoza, David Hume, Anatole France, H.P. Lovecraft, Richard Dawkins, Elizabeth Anderson, Sam Harris, George Orwell, H.L. Mencken, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Carl Sagan. This stuff is as stimulating for me as the hot cup of coffee I sipped along with it. Now I want to go the public library and hunt down some more Carl Sagan (thankfully the library is literally across the street).

< Then some time after I came home I said 'Fuck it!' and ran out to the French café half a block down and ordered up a light yet 'pouffy' lunch to bring back - albacore tuna with spicy seed mustard, herbs and red onion, lettuce and tomato on a fresh baguette, celery rémoulade with cornichons on the side, Orangina on the rocks, and for dessert, sea salted almonds in milk chocolate.

It was early enough that the place wasn't packed at all and everyone looked very approachable. Europeans live in the area so it wasn't surprising that a goodlooking young couple briefly sat near me by the window while waiting for their order. I detected what sounded like a French accent from the man, and the woman was so very cute and tall and willowy like a model, but she was very different in atmosphere from your typical flippant and trendy L.A. flake (like I stated, most everyone here looked like they had a university degree or two under their belt).

I was then aware that this, all this - the neighbourhood, my book, the dewy overcast morning, N. back at home just around the block - was precisely why I moved here. I could thrive here, though in a way different from how I did in Chicago. I could cultivate a quiet, culturally dimensional intellectual and emotional life here. And I am, I've been, even if only incrementally. The surroundings have changed, the details changed, but I'm the one who is adapting, all while grounded in the fundamentals of who I've always been.