Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:42 am
JM21760, you make some good points, but I'm a little lost on your "Cat" analogy in some respects. The Cat too eats animals and often kills for "sport", if you will. Even if they are not hungry they will kill a rodent or a bird, just because they like to do so. It just seems you are blaming humans for this trait when in fact many predatory animals do so. I'm not a hunter myself, but I'm not anti-hunting and I certainly eat meat, but I prefer to turn a blind eye to how my hamburger patty got on my plate. I love fishing (although I rarely keep the fish I catch). I love stalking big trout and fooling them with a fly, there is something inherently exciting about this to man, whether it be stalking a trout or an elk. From my Christian perspective, God did make humans differently. We are the only creatures made in "His Image", which means we can reason and plan and manage and create and know right from wrong. So we are in essence above the Cat. But that said, God gave us a big (and wonderful) responsibility to take care of His creation, both animals and their habitat, including ours. If we weren't "above" the Cat in the first place, then we couldn't care for them, we would merely compete with them and place no value or concern on their well-being. I don't think a Cat cares about the survival of other species, it just does what it does. We can and should care about the Cat, we have the capacity to do so, although we don't always do a very good job at it.
As for global warming, I read both sides and I respect the science from both sides and I do believe there is a warming trend, but I am not convinced (nor am I not NOT convinced, ha ha!) that it is caused by humankind. It's a passionate subject, no doubt, so I think much of it goes beyond science. When I worked at REI I spoke at great length with a climatologist from UC Davis, and he definitely falls into the camp of a more liberal, environmentalist worldview, and he studies this extensively (both historically and current) and he was completely convinced this global warming is a natural cycle, which really surprised me coming from him. I just don't know what to make of it. I feel if we are to err, when it comes to the environment, we should perhaps err in favor of the environment rather than err on the side of business. A good example of this was the big fish kill in the Klamath River a few years ago... there was good science saying we needed higher releases to ensure survival of the Chinook run, while there was good science from the NAS saying the releases sought by the Bush Adm. was adequate. Well, a worst case scenario occurred and the low releases favoring the farmers, along with hot weather and not much rainfall, is what triggered the huge fish kill. No one wanted the fish to die like that, not even the farmers nor the Bush Adm., but they errored on the side of taking their chances with low releases (with science backed by the respected NAS but opposed by many other science/gov organizations), which in most cases would have been fine, but it didn't work out. With global warming the consequences are much more severe than one river's fish kill. I guess there's consequences to be paid with either choice. I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions!
As for global warming, I read both sides and I respect the science from both sides and I do believe there is a warming trend, but I am not convinced (nor am I not NOT convinced, ha ha!) that it is caused by humankind. It's a passionate subject, no doubt, so I think much of it goes beyond science. When I worked at REI I spoke at great length with a climatologist from UC Davis, and he definitely falls into the camp of a more liberal, environmentalist worldview, and he studies this extensively (both historically and current) and he was completely convinced this global warming is a natural cycle, which really surprised me coming from him. I just don't know what to make of it. I feel if we are to err, when it comes to the environment, we should perhaps err in favor of the environment rather than err on the side of business. A good example of this was the big fish kill in the Klamath River a few years ago... there was good science saying we needed higher releases to ensure survival of the Chinook run, while there was good science from the NAS saying the releases sought by the Bush Adm. was adequate. Well, a worst case scenario occurred and the low releases favoring the farmers, along with hot weather and not much rainfall, is what triggered the huge fish kill. No one wanted the fish to die like that, not even the farmers nor the Bush Adm., but they errored on the side of taking their chances with low releases (with science backed by the respected NAS but opposed by many other science/gov organizations), which in most cases would have been fine, but it didn't work out. With global warming the consequences are much more severe than one river's fish kill. I guess there's consequences to be paid with either choice. I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions!