There was an article in State of the World a decade or so back that showed a connection between indigenous people practicing their own religion and the pristine nature of their environment, a positive connection. Did someone else see that article?
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Richard Sent: Wed 12/7/2011 6:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Regarding Rachel's comments, there are certainly many examples--both historical and contemporary--of people working toward more environmentally responsible behavior within the context of religion. I include below some sources for those interested in learning more about the historical relationship between religion and the environment. Here are just a few recent examples: The work of Catholic priest and scholar Thomas Berry. Berry described himself as an ecotheologian. In his work, he presents a spiritual view of the earth from a Catholic perspective. He was also a great cultural critic. Evangelical Climate Initiative. This is a statement issued in 2006, expressing belief in anthopogenic global climate change and calling for policital action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the US. It was signed by 87 Evangelical leaders, including several university presidents, the head of the Salvation Army, and a bestselling author. I'm focusing here on Christian examples, but there are many non-Christian ones as well. Rachel makes a good point when she suggests not turning this discussion into a religious debate. Much early scholarly work in this area focused on which religions were greenest. That conversation has evolved into a more productive one about how to emphasize the green aspects of whichever religion one is focusing on. To me, it boils down to presenting a message in a way that will be meaningful to your audience. Rachel is quite right that for many, a religious context can be an effective way promote environmentally responsible behavior. Some of the sources I mention below describe efforts to do just that. Cheers, Richard Sources for further reading: *Burkert, Walter. Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions*. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996. Rappaport, Roy A. *Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity*. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Taylor, Bron. *Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future*. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2010. Connie Barlow's work on The Great Story: http://www.thegreatstory.org/index.html Berry, Thomas. See wither Dream of the Earth or The Great Work On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > Rachel and Ecolog, > > When one tries to look beyond the origins of religion, especially the > major ones which remain dominant today, one can even find signs that > religion could be rooted firmly in some original ecology, back when social > units resisted the original insults that culture imposed upon society and > the earth. One need go no further than the Eden myth, and to understand > that in those ancient times metaphor and analogy, not to mention riddles, > were used to pass on social mores including conservation.* In the > establishment of culture, cultivation was the first big blow to ecosystems, > and what followed--the "great" civilizations--compounded that original sin > of rejecting what Nature/God had provided, leaving that Eden, and "going > forth and multiplying." Scriptures are full of contradictions, and no one > can know how many authors were involved before the collection of written > texts, their assembly, and their distortion by cultures and kings down > through the ages, and continuing today. > > Rachel, I think you should continue to pursue this idea further, and give > us more of your ideas. Ecolog folks, I hope you will all read Rachel's > comments more closely, and likewise construct your replies responsively and > specifically to her points before, if I may be ironic, sermonizing. > > WT > > *This persists to this day in some groups, for example, the Miwa around > what is now Yosemite National Park in California, USA. When collecting wild > onions, for example, they not only did not dig them, they harvested only > one leaf per plant. THAT is sustainable interaction with the earth! It was > a common rule among some so-called "primitive" groups to pass up the first > plant or animal encountered, taking the second, then alternating such that > no more than fifty percent of any stand or herd would be taken, and > typically far less. Other groups throughout the history of humankind have > violated such mores, as the value of waste and greed overtook good sense. > Each were probably initially hedges against famine, and evolution ruled. > The jury of evolution is speaking with respect to the consequences of greed > and waste, metaphorically the departure from the "Eden," the natal habitat > of humankind, but the evidence against culture doesn't look so good. > "Religion," like science, is a form of social mores which has been > perverted by humans, with both rationalization and moral direction changing > to suit the bias of the moment. Both are imperfect in their expression, and > both have value worthy of attention. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rachel Ford" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:33 PM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul > Ehrlich > > > 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].**EDU <[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<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/<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<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<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 >> >> > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1415 / Virus Database: 2102/4059 - Release Date: 12/05/11 >
