While there is a general emphasis of procreation in most monotheistic religions, not all forbid the use of contraception or family planning (e.g. Islam).
Religion does have great power to inspire people to do good. Where it fails to do so, it is because the institutions preaching religion or their supporters are in some way disadvantaged by it. Preaching against population growth may be against the interests of the religious institutions in the long term, but most institutions these days are much more interested in short term gains. In other words, if religious institutions and/or their political supporters had something to gain in the short term from preaching for a reduction in human population, they would do it. The main obstacle for the involvement of religion in preaching for a more sustainable world, as I see it, is the alignment of religious institutions with the political far right (at least in the US). The support for Christian organizations often comes from political advocates of economic growth and consumerist culture who in turn get their funds from Industry/corporations which would not benefit from a less consuming or more resource-efficient society. Aligning religion with environmental stewardship at a large scale would require more moderate or left wing political groups and perhaps industries that benefit from increased resource-efficiency (i.e., green energy or organic agriculture industry) to also get involved with religious organizations. Burak Pekin Purdue University http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~bpekin/ -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sarah Frias-Torres Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 4:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] religion RE: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Interesting thinking, adding religion to the mix.... One of the major problems explained in Paul Ehrlich's pioneering work is human overpopulation. As we have reached 7 billion, and still growing, any call for action should address such massive problem.The religions you mention in your email are all against birth control. Particularly, against women taking control of their own reproduction. Obviously, every religion wants to have more followers, and you get that either by converting those from other religions (a costly endeavor) or by having more babies. In fact, a religion that promotes birth control, and negative growth, will quickly become extinct (less and less followers will be born). Therefore, in my opinion, I don't think we are going to find any realistic support from religion (at least the 3 monotheistic religions I'm most familiar with). Achieving negative growth is against the self-interest of any religion. The action should come from using reason and logic, which are not the realm of religion. Remember that religion is based on faith, while the massive environmental challenges we face today are based on facts.If people, based on their religious faith, take pro-environmental action, great! I'm just curious to see how they've reconciled overpopulation control with the religious demands of having more and more babies. In that respect, I think we still have not earned the "sapiens" word we use when calling our species Homo sapiens sapiens. Note: I think I'm respectful of religion in my message, and I'm just stating the facts. Always open to dialogue. Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. Schmidt Ocean Institute Postdoctoral FellowOcean Research & Conservation Association (ORCA) 1420 Seaway Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida 34949 USA Tel (772) 467-1600http://www.teamorca.orghttp://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres > Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:33:31 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from > Paul Ehrlich > To: [email protected] > > Dear Mr. McNeely and Ecolog-L subscribers, > > I really like this thread, and I was thinking.... Nothing influences > people more than religion, and this has been used as a tool since, > well, pretty much all of recorded history! Think about the horribly > atrocities that have occured with the influence of religion? > Bloodshed, death, why not use it as a tool for saving the Earth? For > good? The ways it has been used for death, I think, are more > distortions of what is actually written (whether it be from the Bible > or Quran, or whatever!). My point is not that we are manipulating > text. My point is that it HAS been done, and it is very powerful. If > you look in these texts, you will see there are messages CLEARLY written > about saving our planet and protecting it. > > What influences the majority of Americans the most? The fear of going > to hell. That is why you see so many politicians talking about > religion even though they are really not supposed to... In fact our > country is so Christian that even though there is supposed separation > of church and state, our President says Christian prayers on national > television. > > So... we should (and by we I mean environmentalists, conservationists, > etc) become pastors, preachers, fathers, whatever you want to call it, > and start preaching the "we must be stewards of the Earth" approach. > Our Earth. God's Earth. Or at the very least we need to start having > sit-downs and chats with said reverends, fathers, etc. and speaking to > them about the sins our people are committing against this wonderful > Earth "God has blessed us with". Also, making the point that by > destroying the Earth, we are harming our fellow man (future > generations), both in our direct families and outside of our direct > families. Either way, God said that we should protect each other, did he not? > > Ezekial 34:2-4 - *Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of > Israel; prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD > says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! > Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe > yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not > take care of the flock. > You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the > injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the > lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. > > *Revelation 11:18 - *The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. > The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your > servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your > name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the > earth.* > > What do you all think? > > I also read something very interesting and wonderful about a group of > Muslims who were VERY environmentalist-thinking (and acting), and it > was due to their faith. > > Environmentalists need to start thinking more pragmatically. I also > think this is a powerful scripture. It is related to environmentalism > because "rich" often means greedy and wasteful (though not always). > Mathew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through > the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." > > How about if people want to choose a faith to follow? They actually > FOLLOW IT..... > > Kindest regards to all! One people, one love.... > > Rachel E. Ford Melendez > > Note: Please be respectful and don't turn this into a religion > argument. I am not going to say what religion I follow if any. It is no one's > business. > All I am saying is that these messages are clearly written in the > Bible that MOST Americans follow. > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:49 PM, David L. McNeely <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a > > professional biologist. Could the importance of the coal industry > > to the endowment of Alice Lloyd and other economic entities in > > Kentucky have anything to do with this outrageous claim? How much > > credible science is needed to convince you? Does the fact that the > > world's leading climatologists and the National Academies of Science > > all disagree with you matter? Does the fact that the "conflict" you > > claim comes from fewer than 1% of all reports on the question, while > > those few reports lack credible analysis matter? > > > > Sincerely, David McNeely > > > > ---- Robert Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Science works to persuade when it provides real data, not weak > > > hypotheticals. Consider the issue of ozone vs CO2. Lots of real > > > data on ozone, nothing but political hackery on CO2, so we get > > > some action on ozone and nothing but conflict on CO2. However, we > > > are only as strong as our weakest link, so the CO2 argument defines us. > > > > > > Robert Hamilton, PhD > > > Professor of Biology > > > Alice Lloyd College > > > Pippa Passes, KY 41844 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bowles, Elizabeth > > > Davis > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message > > > from Paul Ehrlich > > > > > > Social and environmental psychologists have known for some time > > > now that knowledge does not change *behavior* and that > > > information-only campaigns rarely are effective. This is because, > > > as opposed to commercial marketing campaigns, usually you are > > > asking the public to give something up, step out of social norms, > > > or do something that does not reap immediate benefits to them. > > > This requires a completely different approach, including removing > > > perceived or structural barriers to sustainable behavior. > > > Ecologists should strongly consider collaborating with > > > psychologists on any outreach program in which a behavior change in the > > > public is the goal. > > > > > > See this paper in conservation biology: > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766. > > > x/full > > > > > > and this website: > > > http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/fostering-sustainable-behavior/ > > > > > > and this report from the APA: > > > http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx > > > > > > Beth Davis Bowles, Ph.D. > > > Research Specialist > > > Bull Shoals Field Station > > > Missouri State University > > > 901 S. National > > > Springfield, MO 65897 > > > phone (417) 836-3731 > > > fax (417) 836-8886 > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely > > > [[email protected]] > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message > > > from Paul Ehrlich > > > > > > ---- Steve Young <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Lawren et al., > > > > Unfortunately, I think you may be preaching to the choir. I'm > > > > not trying to be pessimistic, but if every ESA member were to > > > > follow through and commit to the 'doing something', instead of > > > > just 'talking more', what would that accomplish? Just going by > > > > the numbers, conservatively speaking, ESA membership is around > > > > 10,000 and according > > > > > > > to the Census Bureau, the current population in the US is > > > > 312,718,825 ( > > > > http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) So, what > > > > do we do about the other 312,708,000? > > > > I'm in the education arena and it is a question that I've been > > > > trying to figure out how to answer for a long time. I know > > > > advocacy is one way and something I work on all the time. Maybe > > > > this should be part of > > > > > > > the focus of the 'doing something' approach. > > > > Steve > > > > > > I believe when we help to educate others we are doing something. > > > I'm funny that way, I guess. > > > > > > The difficulty comes when our educational efforts fail, as they > > > seem to be doing on this matter. So, I need help in knowing what > > > to do that will actually work. So far as individual effort, I > > > already try to buy only what I need and to use old stuff. I > > > minimize my fuel use by driving a Toyota Prius, walking for local > > > transportation when I can, not using air conditioning though I > > > live in a very hot climate, wearing warm clothing and keeping the > > > house cool in winter ................ . But I have not been able > > > to persuade many others to engage in the same actions. Reading > > > and understanding the data that come in seems unconvincing to so > > > many. Science is only trusted when it reinforces already held > > > beliefs, even if less than 1% of those claiming to be scientists provide > > > the claims that reinforce. > > > > > > So, what can I do? > > > > > > David McNeely > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or > > > entity > > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or > > privileged material. If the reader of this message is not an > > intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received > > this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, > > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If > > you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and > > delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you. > > > > -- > > David McNeely > >
