Do you ever look at a question and think, well what the heck does that even mean? The question causes you to think about it, and then you question the question and then you are like, well, what the heck!? all over again. Well, while I was meandering through the blogs I caught the blog prompts for this week, and the same "what the heck?!" question was haunting my life: from class to blog. So, I figured I'd give it a stab and try to make sense of it, or at least not make sense of it so it makes sense that it doesn't make sense (does that even make sense?).This question, on Blog Prompts, consists of asking us to make a list of legitimate authorities that could change or inform issues and policies regarding climate change. So, my little personal list consists of the economy (because it rules a lot of decisions), religion (because some religious people follow whatever their religion sees as correct), and the president/congress/ all those political people (because they are important to people).
So, while I'm thinking through these, I'm realizing that other than scientists, no one really cares, so no one would really care too much about climate change. Honestly, is the economy going to move to purely "green" things to sell and trade with other countries? Well, our economy will be practically non- existent if we do that. Though environmentally friendly things are great, they are expensive, and only a few people can actually afford going green.
So, moving to the next group because the economy would bag going green pretty quick. Religion makes no sense to me whatsoever. How could religion help the environment? What, are priests/rabbis (that's really all I can think of for those things) going to do? Call down on God/Buddha/ ??? and then God/Buddha/??? is going to say "Help the Environment!". Like, I know there are sacred things in the Bible (and I'm Catholic so I'm not against religion at all)and such that involve the environment and stuff, but as a priest/whatever, you can't just say "well, God says No to climate change!". What did you just float up to Heaven for a night and have a nice chat? No, probably not, I mean, unless some great miracle occurred. So the validity of a preacher preaching about how God does not want climate change is not very legitimate if you ask me.
Next I thought of Political Figures. Yup, the climate is pretty important, but I think their minds are more filled with Health Care, Terrorism, Wars, Economy, and all that important stuff. I mean, if the environment was the primary concern of the world (wouldn't that be nice?), then yeah the Government could totally help. But, climate can easily be shoved in the back burner if something more interesting comes up.
So, after thinking about how these groups affect the public and peoples views on important things, I thought wow climate change would be pretty insignificant without scientists.
After going through this long epic process, I thought back to the question. And I got back to my normal "what the heck!?" response. Other than science!? Well, if science was non-existent or was paid less attention to than everything else, hmm... how would we even notice global warming? Without scientists, who would take charge to even recognise it? Then how does this question even make sense. What the heck.
Posts
Excellent post as usual, Molly. However, there is something I need to correct (no offense). Buddha shouldn't be grouped with God. He is important, but he's not the Eastern counterpart of God. The closest concept of that would actually be Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma), the Ultimate Reality in Hinduism, although Brahman and God are still vastly different. Buddha never once claimed to be godly, but rather just a man who achieved enlightenment.
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge, Buddha is only "worshipped" by the Mahayana Buddhists. (John, am I right about this? Help! My memory is foggy!)
Anyway, sorry. I know that wasn't the intention of your post, and if I apologize double if you already knew what I said. It's just that in my encounters it seems that many people don't understand the nature of the Buddha, so I try to correct that when possible. (I'm shamanistic-pagan myself, but many of my beliefs overlap with Buddhism.)
ANYWAY... onto the actual heart of your post, because it really made me think: I can't counter it! You made solid points and backed them up.
At first I was thinking that religious figures could influence the masses. Perhaps they could, given if they are important enough, like the Pope. And perhaps then, with some quotation of stewardship from the Bible or some other sacred source, the devout would be more likely to act on environmental stewardship. I think that could work for a while, although ultimately people might return to their previous lifestyle for the reasons you listed (like the fact that green products are expensive).
But wait... what about "An Inconvenient Truth" which opened up the eyes of so many people? Was that revolutionary due to the content itself or because it was presented by Gore, a renowned political figure? Would the documentary been as provocative if it starred a scientist? I think it would have been seen as more accurate, but just as powerful... hmm... maybe?
Now I'm getting a headache trying to figure this out.
I think in the end it really just gets down to the scientists, like you said. Scientists are viewed as authoritative, knowledgeable, and truthful. They are not associated with political corruption or religious bias.
NOTE: I came across a website with Bible passages to promote environmental stewardship. I think they may be of interest to you. Here.
I actually didn't know that about Buddha ( I was just trying to think of as many religious figures that people follow. Since I'm Catholic I follow God so that is all I really know. I know of other religions a little, but not enough to get into very much.), but I'm glad you corrected that because I didn't really know what I was talking about, I just knew Buddha was seen as a religious figure. So thank you, no worries don't be sorry I'm glad you corrected that.
ReplyDelete