ObjectivismOnline.net Logo  
HomeForumAbout UsWeb LinksWikiPhoto GalleryFliersMember BlogsArt GalleryCalendarEssays

The Objectivism Online Meta-Blog

A pro-reason, pro-capitalism Objectivist Meta-Blog

Objectivism Meta-Blog
Archives :: Submit a post :: Atom Feed :: RDF Feed :: Admin Login

« Wilson and "Scientific Humanism" | Main | Who Has The Oil? »

November 26, 2007

Stewardship

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is probably the most prominent political advocate of Christian environmentalism today. He'll be joined by more people in short order, however -- particularly as younger Christian fundamentalists raised on the environmentalist propaganda taught in schools rise to power and influence.

Huckabee is interviewed on environmental and energy issues in Salon: Huckabee: God wants us to fight global warming. Here's the introduction:
"The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence," [Huckabee] proclaims on his Web site. "We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term." The goal may sound admirable, but even if it's achievable -- and many experts doubt that it is -- Huckabee's plan for getting there is light on specifics. Rather than spell out what steps he would take, he talks of creating a market environment that encourages innovation, and he praises just about every energy source you can think of -- nuclear, "clean coal," wind, solar, hydrogen, biomass, biodiesel, corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other untapped domestic areas, and, yes, conservation too.

A conservative Republican and devout Christian, Huckabee believes he has a biblical responsibility to protect God's planet from climate change, even though he's not convinced that climate change is largely human-caused. But mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions make him squeamish.
Here's the only philosophic exchange in the ensuing interview:
What makes you the strongest Republican candidate on the issues of energy and the environment?

For one thing, I'm one of the few people who's actually talked about the fact that as Republicans we have done a lousy job of presenting the case for conservation. We ought to be the leaders, but unfortunately we've been the last people speaking out on conservation.

Not only as a Republican, but as a Christian it's important to me to say to my fellow believers, "Look, if anybody ought to be leading on this issue, it ought to be us." We can't justify destroying a planet that doesn't belong to us, and if we believe that God did create this world for our pleasure and wants us to enjoy it, then all the more reason that we should take care of it.
Christian "stewardship" environmentalism seems particularly dangerous to me. The reason isn't just that Republicans are adopting bad Democratic policies. They've done that so often, including on environmentalism, that another instance hardly newsworthy.

My major concern lies in the philosophic differences between Christian environmentalism and leftist environmentalism. Leftist environmentalism is nihilistic in its essence: it's hatred and destruction of humanity for its own sake. While its intellectual leaders are often genuine nihilists, its mass appeal largely depends on the wish of preserving nature for ultimately human ends. That's misguided in various ways, but it's not wholly philosophically corrupt.

In contrast, Christan environmentalism is not based on nihilistic hatred of humanity. Instead, it envisions humans as the exalted steward of God's creation. That difference could give it tremendous staying power and mass appeal, even in its most pure form. That's because it appeals to positive values, however mangled by supernaturalism. In the classification scheme of Leonard Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis, Christian environmentalism seems to be a form of "Misintegration" rather than "Disintegration." That's a significant shift.

Of course, that difference won't make this new form environmentalism kindler or gentler in practice. Whether of a supernatural or nihilistic variety, environmentalism will require the sacrifice of actual human values and human lives.

That doesn't bode well for those of us who value human life.

Originally posted by Diana from NoodleFood, ReBlogged for Meta Blog

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.objectivismonline.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/931


Objectivism Online Recent Forum Posts
  • In her handbag - The Fountainhead
  • Lisa Cuddy on House M.D. as Dagny Taggart
  • Objectivist ethics and professional ethics
  • A Good Rule
  • Amazon Tax Spreads to Other States
  • Is it irrational to care what strangers think about you?
  • Lierre Keith Attacked by Anarchist Vegans
  • Non Objective art
  • Bill Maher
  • "In any given set of circumstances, there is only one action poss
  • Is it a denial of existence?
  • How do you define evil and malevolence?
  • Broken units, broken men
  • Taxes/Funding the Government
  • Javelin Argument for Infinity
  • ObjectivismOnline needs a new home ASAP!
  • Becoming More Technologically Competent
  • Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?
  • Equality
  • Email Notification of Replies


  • Latest Essays
  • Rick Warren: Master Assimilator for the Christian Collective
  • Billy Graham and the Christian Crusade Against Truth and Freedom
  • Sean Hannity and the Tactics of the Enemy
  • Rush Limbaugh: Voice of the Religious Threat in America
  • Barriers to Entry in the Canadian Labor Market - by Alexander Marriott


  • Latest News
  • Announcing the Egosphere!
  • Announcing the Premium Forums!
  • New Amazon Search Box
  • New Objectivism Wiki!
  • Syndicate Us!


  • The Objectivism Wiki: Recent Changes



    February 2010
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4 5 6
    7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    28            


    Meta-Blog Archives
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • February 2003
  • October 1998


  • Recent Meta-Blog Entries
  • GOP Joins Thought Police
  • Mayor Bloomberg: The Gun-Toting Nanny
  • Quick Roundup 497
  • A Clear Agenda of Repeal
  • Brook on the Estate Tax
  • Hearts of Darkness
  • More on Gay Marriage
  • Quick Roundup 496
  • A World without Nuclear Weapons?
  • Not Unintended Consequences



  • Google






    Who's Online
    We have 3 guests and 3 members online
    Random Image
    No Images
    Random Quote
    Login Form





    Lost Password?
    No account yet? Register

    Warning: Parameter 1 to modules_html::module() expected to be a reference, value given in C:\www\ObjectivismOnline\includes\Cache\Lite\Function.php on line 92
    Newsfeeds





     
     
    Powered by Joomla | Designed by David Veksler