A Curiosity About Ecology

One of the things that is curious about the whole ecology and global warming thing is how many evolutionists speak out because of how we are destroying our world.

On one hand, I can see creationists on that bandwagon, because the world is a gift, no, it is a trust of Jehovah.  The universe was not created especially for our enjoyment, but for His; however, in Covenant He has authorized us to be His agents in governing it, and thereby to also experience the goodness of this charge.  Because this is a stewardship, a trust, we do not have the right to be irresponsible toward its maintenance, nor to selfishly abuse the wonders that are available.  Creationists must speak out against what mankind, in its rebellion against God, is in its greed doing to the animals, plants, land, sea and atmosphere (as well as to each other).

But what is the evolutionist’s goal and for what reason?  So we are to act responsibly in regard to our environment – but just who is it that we are to be responsible to?  Well, we should try to make the world livable for future generations.  But why?  Annihilation awaits, no matter what is or is not done – the destiny of this solar system, this galaxy, this universe will be nothingness.

In other words, big deal that we are saving the world for a future generation, because there will come a time when there will be no future generation to save for – perhaps not the next one, but eventually that is what awaits humanity.  Since annihilation is the end product, why prolong the agony?  It would seem that the current idea of taking whatever one can get for oneself would a better fit to this approach to science.  Evolution does not seem to have a compelling enough long-term incentive which would justify making sacrifices and limiting now our personal enjoyment of this world.

After all, is there really a powerful enough reason to convince the snowmobiler to put off his enjoyment, to not to burn the gas (exhaust fumes, limited resource) to bring his snowmobile to the mountains, and then to burn the gas to run the snowmobile around the slopes?  Or for the ATV rider to not go off-trail? (just a few examples of asking how convincing is the idea of altruistic self-sacrifice for an outcome that will be eventually doomed anyway.)
It is imperative to get ultrasound testing early on to ward off potential kidney problems. However nothing could be further from the truth as all men above the age of 18 can suffer from ED. see here buy levitra uk It is common knowledge that women are left completely unsatisfied if the man suffers ejaculation before time. Technology has made our cialis without prescription slovak-republic.org lives quite easy and you find it easy to learn.
In a dog-eat-dog world, no other animal stops to contemplate that if it eats this prey, that it may be harming the future of its own offspring.  No other animal is concerned whether it will create the extinction of a certain species.  It is true that nature has certain checks and balances for under normal conditions, but if global warming-ice age is indeed a natural cycle, quite possibly the scenario can be that a species as, for example, the pine bark beetle, can wipe out its own food supply – without a thought, without guilt –, thereby also spelling out its own doom.

This is simply the way evolution is.  So why should humanity be any different?  Why should it try to single-handedly hold back the dam that eventually will crush it, either as evolution moves on to a “new and improved” species, or the universe literally runs out of energy?  If indeed evolution moves on to a “new and improved” species, why should we owe this “improved” version any advantage for survival, especially if it might require our own extinction – hey, this is survival of the fittest, and if we are fit enough to recognize the danger to ourselves, why shouldn’t we destroy the competition? – and, again, why should we care about the survival of some future species, if everything is doomed anyway?

What is curious is how a sense of responsibility weaves its way throughout this – it suggests a metaphysical character: it is really “wrong,” for example, for us to abuse the atmosphere and the oceans.  But perhaps one of the reasons why taking action, for example, limiting carbon emissions, is so difficult to carry out is because there is no evolutionary basis that can be pointed to as to what makes “right” right and “wrong” wrong.  What is pointed out by some scientific sources as a “bad” practice is countered by some industries and even nations as essential to survival.  Hmm.  So are we in the realm of the survival of the fittest or not?  Can evolution, as it has been applied to cosmic, biological, and social sciences also be applied to the survival instincts in regard to industries and what they could or should do to preserve themselves?  Actually, why should it not be applied here as well?  Who is going to play “god” here and set the rules?

That sense of responsibility is bothersome.  Although evolution rejects the idea of God and accountability to Him, and yet it cannot escape the sense of wrong and guilt.  Ecology basically says “don’t do that” – which we often hear as a criticism of religion; however, at least when religion handles wrongdoing and guilt, it usually provides a place to go to find reconciliation for what is broken, the strength to make amends, and the assured hope for a future that includes eternity.  Evolution can only point to a vague benefit that, eventually, turns out to be no benefit at all.

Leave a Reply