Greening the church
A recent gathering on LDS faith, thought and culture discussed whether the church would join a new green wave among organized religions.Mark D. Thomas, a panelist at the Sunstone Symposium, says the LDS Church is evolving environmentally and its massive City Creek Center project downtown is a clear sign. City Creek Center was lauded in a recent Sierra Club report.
Thomas, an LDS member and a business consultant, says:
I have a notion in the next few years you will see some surprises. . . . With a small effort, we may save ourselves.That's a sweet platitude, but because over-population is the root of most, if not all, environmental problems, from traffic congestion to endangered species—the church's nod toward "green" construction (and drought tolerant landscapes at Temple Square) pales before its pressure on members for large families.
And changing that will require a very large effort.
11 Comments:
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance has done a lot of work with communities of faith, including a sizable group of environmentalist Mormons in Utah County. There have been several conversations about how the LDS faith and taking care of the Earth can meld .
Here's a link: www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FaithandtheLand
But it's true, unless we talk about population control, much of it is meaningless.
Over population is not a problem. A complete and total lack of geo-political planning is the problem. Fewer people would only help in so much that there would be fewer selfish and stupid mega consumers around. A more elegant solution is for everyone to be responsible for his or her total effect to this planet. This is as highly unlikely to occur as is population control.
It's funny how liberals, including Glen here, are for such population controlling measures such as abortion, but do so under the guise of personal freedom. What it really seems to be is that they are worried that there won't be enough precious resources for them personally.
The liberals have become so seflish that the thought of having offspring or even spouses scares them in to having to be responsible for any other type of human life.
This myth has been repeadetly debunked. It's more typical the Earth will crash in to the sun logic from liberal media.
Look, I am all for conservation of resources, but not so the current people on the plant can enjoy more and have less competition for rthose resources.
Last time I checked 6.6 billion people is indeed over population. The US, while having only a small fraction of the world's population, gives off 25% of the pollution. With countries like China and India striving to live the way we do, thereby polluting they way we do, the large numbers of people become a bad thing. It's fairly obvious that overpopulation is a problem. I didn't even get into food and people starving in third world countries.
People starve in third-world countries because of political influence, not because of any terrestrial limitation on food production.
If we're talking about overpopulating the world, though, wouldn't the non-LDS practice of sleeping around, knocking girls up and bolting, and leaving single mothers to raise children have a more negative impact on the welfare of the planet?
Worried about food production? Is that the main concern with overpopulation?
OK here is a solution: stop growing hops, tobaacco and coffee beans. Those non-vital and non nutritive plants account for something like 40% of the agriculture in the world. We waste valuable farmland making hops for beer (do you know anyone besides horses that eat hops?) and tobaaco that not only poisons people but poisons the ground.
So there is a LDS conservative solution to your namby-pamby-liberal, the sky-is-falling-and-the-world-is-too-crowded-problem.
Oh, and your welcome.
What's that you say non LDS and liberals? It can't be done? Well then I guess we'll just go with your solution: abortions.
Without political AND RELIGIOUS interference (read propaganda), most responsible people would probably choose to protect the environment limit family size. Most would choose to consider the effects of their actions on their families, communities, and with any luck, the whole of humanity rather than just themselves. Protecting the very environment that supports human life and happiness would be integral to community planning, family planning, political planning, business planning, etc. and would not be considered selfish. It would be consider essential to having a good life.
It would not be considered religious, political, or any other -ism. It would be good common sense.
OK. I'll give up my coffee beans when you give up your red meat. How's that? Because cattle are doing their own number on the planet with overgrazing and methane gas.
Also, Anon 5:02 I'm a liberal who won't sit by and let you define my beliefs and behavior as something injurious and despicable. How dare you make a blanket statement that liberals are too selfish to have a spouse and children. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
I've got a husband and two kids. Love them like crazy and we all take care of each other. Stop making such rash statements, ok?
Trylogic, gave up red meat a while ago becuase my heart is bad, so I am already ahead of you. As far as the methane gas, that's a myth that has been debunked. Cow flatulence is not burning a hole in the ozone. However if it was, a giant final BBQ would certainly settle it.
Sorry if my comments offended you, but when you look down on my four kids and feel that is overpopulation, but you and your two kids are fine, where is the line? It's a load of bull.
Right Glen. China's one child policy is doing wonders for the environment. Never seen clearer skies than over Beijing.
Green is just a buzz word. And it doesn't matter if climate change is man-made or natural, because everyone can get on board with lower prices, liberal or conservative. Am I wrong?
Post a Comment
<< Home