In popular discussions of ecological issues, which as a non-expert is all I’m privy to, it seems to me that each potential solution is judged as a solution to the whole problem. For example, the question in biofuels seems be whether they can solve dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuel emissions on their own. Of course, they will never meet that standard. It’s hard to tell just how much they can do. I’ve seen enough to make me wonder.
But I have always thought that with the proper atmosphere (intellectual, not physical!) entrepreneurial activity would produce solutions, probably in many small pieces, that would allow technology and sound ecological policy to coexist. This article from MSNBC.com seems to me to point at one idea that has potential. The savings in energy costs could be substantial over the life of a building.
I think this also suggests that the idea of charging for environmental impact, provided such charges can be realistically established, would be beneficial as it would make the economic incentive both greater and more immediate. Saving on your own power bill is one thing; being charged for your impact on the environment of a city would be much more substantial. Some think it would be unfair and put an excessive burden on business, but if the costs were realistically calculated, then somebody is already paying. Shouldn’t it be the person who is having the impact?
With an economic incentive, creative people will find ways to reduce that impact, and that creates an industry rather than destroying industry. With some suggesting that ecological responsibility will ruin our standard of living, and others suggesting we ruin it for the benefit of the environment, perhaps we can find some really creative people in the middle who will make it all work together.
That’s one non-expert’s hope, at least!
Way back in the prehistory of this blog I posted an entry about fear and human-animal hybrids. Yesterday I got the latest edition of this type of fear in my Breaking Christian News e-mail. In it was a story headlined Prayer Alert: Ethical Outrage as Scientists Create “Human-Sheep”. Now I’m always mildly skeptical when I see an article that doesn’t so much report the event as it reports the outrage of the reporter to the event.
For example, consider this quote, part of a preface to the story from reporter Teresa Neumann:
I will never forget my feelings of disbelief and revulsion when I read Toffler’s assertion that in our lifetime we would not only witness the advent of human cloning, but fully human-animal hybrids as well. Those feelings returned with a vengeance yesterday when I read that researchers in America have just “created” a sheep with half-human organs. Who does man think he is? Where will this lead? What must God think? What should our response be? Do we run to the caves and cower in shame, calling for the wrath of God to come quickly upon the earth, orlike Abraham or Jonahdo we plead forgiveness and ask God to change the hearts of man, thus changing the society we live in? Let us pray…
So much, I guess, for objective reporting. Personally, I think I will pray for those Christians whose fear and revulsion somehow allows them to think that man is getting too close to God. I’ll let you all in on a secret–getting to the point of assuming God’s power is quite a distance away from us humans.
The link from the BCN story is to CBN which takes essentially the same approach. Again, the primary story is about the debate:
A bio-ethical debate is raging at a Nevada university, where scientists have created the world’s first sheep with half-human organs.
For a more news-oriented report, see this story in The Mail.
We often use God as a convenient label for what we don’t know, and as long as that’s not all he is, I don’t have a major problem with that use. But when God becomes the label for our fears, then I believe we have a problem in our faith walk. Somehow God has made it through the crusades, the inquisition, and the mutually assured destruction policy with nuclear weapons. I doubt he’s particularly threatened by a few human organs grown in sheep. It does make me think about a nice horror movie based on the idea of killer sheep with superhuman intelligence, chasing sheep dogs and farmers from their land and taking over the world. Baaaaaaah! Sheep Rule!
There’s a continuing residue of thinking from the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) that often makes Christians believe that we might get too close to God and bring on his wrath and destruction. Perhaps we should apply a little logic. Any tower in the ancient near east would be considerably less lofty than the Empire State Building, or the Sears Tower, or the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers fell, but it was evil human beings using natural weapons that accomplished their fall.
Interestingly enough, the builders of the Tower of Babel were also not so much trying to usurp God’s power as they were trying to get protection from God’s wrath. Their fear was driving them.
There is the very valid question of safety, but safety concerns do not come from the possibility of offending God by mismanaging his universe. There is a concern with the possibility of viruses. I have no knowledge in the relevant areas, but I found this blog entry that discusses a few of those issues. My plan here is not to lay all fears to rest, but rather to suggest rational discussion leading, I hope, to appropriate safety measures. Fear will produce retreat; wisdom will produce caution. Progress means risk–it’s worth taking just a little.
I found this Washington Post article interesting. GM has a reputation for producing gas guzzlers here, but as a leader in fuel economy over in Europe. Why is this?
“We could sell the OPC here and make money because gasoline is near $6 a gallon,” Lutz said. “If we had $6 gasoline in the United States, we could sell it there at a profit, too,” he said. But he said it is unlikely that Americans would buy a little car at $30,000 “when they’re paying $2.50 for gasoline.” “We need $6 gasoline” in America to make sense of the Corsa OPC in that market, Lutz said. [Lutz is GM’s vice chairman for global product development]
Auto manufacturers can do it with the proper motivation. In this country we seem to have an imperative to force fuel prices lower any time they threaten to rise. Then we simultaneously try to force companies to produce more fuel efficient cars. Neither the consumers nor the manufacturers have the motivation.
One of my least popular personal ideas is simply that gas prices should be higher in this country. Frankly, it would inconvenience me if they were, but it would be good for our economy and for the environment in the long run. One of the reasons we do not have the type of efficient mass transit that folks have in Europe is simply that it is not economical, even when subsidized.
Two things would serve to appropriately raise the price of gas. First, don’t react with panic to rising prices with such politically expedient but stupid ideas as releasing petroleum reserves. Second, cover a reasonable amount of the environmental impact through gas taxes. I know I’m bound to hear about gas taxes being too high already, but I don’t agree.
The Evangelical Ecologist has an excellent post on the value of skepticism in the appropriate place, and also touches on where it is appropriate.
He says:
There is an important distinction, then, between aggressively promoting environmental stewardship as a God-ordained moral ethic (which it is), and aggressively promoting a particular area of human-derived environmental science as a moral ethic (which it is not).
I think he makes a couple of excellent points in this post. I’ve been trying to find time to link to some of his stuff since I first found the site a few weeks ago, but I haven’t had the time. Go over and check it out.
