[coberst]

Can we save our planet by reasoning together?

Stewardship-- the conducting, supervising, or managing of something... the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care...

Stewardship is a word used often in the Bible and was at one time used often in England. It was used in England because the youth of the landed aristocracy was taught that they were responsible for the care of the family properties in such a way that they passed on to the next generation an inheritance equal to, but more appropriately larger than, that received. Each generation was not the owner but was the steward for the family estates. Any individual who squandered the inheritance was a traitor to the family.

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the evolved nature of greed and selfishness? I cannot imagine any rational motivation of sufficient strength to divert the natural instincts of a whole people for an extended time. Therefore, the motivation force must be emotionally based.

A compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality is insufficient to creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.

[orbsycli]

stewardship comes with responsibility.
responsibility comes right about now.

humans are evolving, growing up.
say goodbye to greed, to violence, and arrogance, as a whole.

a wave of light, we are riding.
should take a good couple hundred years for everyone to wake up.

check out the global stewardship foundation. In theory they have some fantastic ideas for our future.

[coberst]

Global capitalism is the road to perdition.

It seems to me that the logic of capitalism leads us to the destruction of the planet, at least to the extent as to make it uninhabitable to humans. I understand that cockroaches thrive on radiation.

The logic of capitalism is to maximize production and consumption. To follow this logic is to destroy the planetary ecosystem in order to feed the need for raw materials required to maintain this drive to maximize production and consumption.

Constantly increasing the degree of automation, which is another aspect of the logic of capitalism, constantly pushes humans into a more alienating life style. As automation increases the meaning for existence for humans becomes an ever increasingly difficult illusion to maintain because work is the principal means for developing self-esteem.

[jackson33]

to the thread; you are suggesting that mankind can steward over nature. then as some one suggested, under what rules or opinions would this project follow. a third of the worlds people feel this should be by religious cleric, another third by governments which take from and give back for desire and the rest in some form of every one is self responsible. each is by the way, totally convinced of their view and no compromise possible.

Coberst; the logic of capitalism, is that every one can live in standards they choose. free market, the essence of capitalism does not hamper the individual in any way and each person can achieve his/HER own destiny. this in turn creates competition, or folks that think they can do something better in many cases with success. in the US and i would think much of the world this is called small business. 70%+ in the US and governed by the same rules as the ones i feel your attacking. those you opposed are for the most part are then owned by individual stock holders or controlled by the customers it produces for or serves offered.

automation, is an invention of need. like it or not there are not now or will there ever be enough people to do the jobs now done by such inventions. i heard someplace that if ATT or the total telecommunication system were forced to operate under 1950 conditions, every man, woman and child on the planet would be required and then this at best would be 25% of current efficiency.

as for human self esteem, which i call responsibility; you might look at this from a socialistic view point, which says all people regardless of effort should be entitled to the same things.

[Zythryn]

I disagree with the idea that capitalism leads to death of the planet.
First, we can't destroy the planet. We can destroy ourselves, and much of the life on the planet, but the plane will be fine.
However, taking the subject as exageration...
Capitalism does not lead to harm to the enviornment. In a free market, there may be damage to certain local areas, however this will be corrected. What we are facing, and what is so harmful to our enviornment, is that we are not dealing with a free market.
Our government subsidizes companies that are doing the harm. These subsidies make the product (oil in this case) artificially low in price. This makes it more difficult for new, innovative ideas to gain acceptance.

Let's just say the oil industry gets 2 Billion in tax breaks/subsidies a year. I just put 200 sq feet of solar panels on my roof at a cost of about $20,000 dolars. The 2 Billion dollars in tax breaks/subsidies to oil, would have bought about 20 Million sq feet of solar panels.

Yes, I agree our government is broken, as the corporations have undue influence over our law makers. However, our government is not a true capitalistic system. So blaming capitalism doesn't work so well.
However, I am not sure a true capitalistic system would work better.

[hug]

The question of why humans sometimes (or often) do things even though they know that those things aren't good for them is a very interesting question. People see it and do it (to different degrees) every week. The question is not just, why don't we think of the fifth generation if the future as seriously as we would think of the well-being of our own children. It's even "closer to home" than that: Why don't people adopt habits for themselves, currently, or for their children, currently, that would be healthy and beneficial, even though those people know that those habits would be healthy and beneficial? I have some thoughts on the subject, which I won't go into now. But, I'll mention a program that I've seen once or twice while switching news channels late at night when trying to get away from the A.N. Smith coverage. It's that MSNBC program about "preditors". If you'd like one very real-life candid-camera-type glimpse at why some people do amazingly dumb-and-harmful things, knowing full well that those things are not good, watch that program.

This is a very interesting subject, and I'd be happy to continue participation if we think we can make some progress on the subject. That said, I think that we should recruit some psychologists or psychiatrists from the psychology area, for interesting input and diversity of thought.

[coberst]

hug

What do you think about this claim I made in the OP?

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

Do think there is a moral justification for such a claim? Are we morally responsible to do something of this nature?

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by coberst

hug

What do you think about this claim I made in the OP?

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

Do think there is a moral justification for such a claim? Are we morally responsible to do something of this nature?

It is a hard proposition to disagree with.

We just need to shoot all the people who don't agree

Including all poor, subsistence farmers that degrade the soil and environment merely to eat.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

It is a hard proposition to disagree with.

We just need to shoot all the people who don't agree

Including all poor, subsistence farmers that degrade the soil and environment merely to eat.

Whoo! You are a great help!!

[Zythryn]

I agree with the idea that we are morally obligated to leave the enviornment in as good or better condition than when we came to be (note my signature).
However, outside of a few people able to see past their immediate needs (which is very rare) almost no one forgoes immediate needs, even wants for what will be needed tomorrow.
It is basic evolutionary survival which we haven't grown past. It is more important to escape the tiger chasing me now than worry about where to hunt tomorrow.
Add to that the marketing of people that have an interest in the status quo, and it becomes even more difficult. People have to see it is affecting them NOW or at the very least, that it will affect them and not just affect their grandchildren.