The Pope's environmental encyclical has been released, discuss here.

setmefree · Jun 19, 2015

(What a) Wonderful World
Song by Louis Armstrong
I see trees of green, red roses, too,
I see them bloom, for me and you
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world.
I see skies of blue, and clouds of white,
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world.
The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky,
Are also on the faces of people going by.
I see friends shaking hands, sayin', "How do you do?"
They're really sayin', "I love you."
I hear babies cryin'. I watch them grow.
They'll learn much more than I'll ever know
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world
Yes, I think to myself
What a wonderful world

mark46 · Jun 19, 2015

gurneyhalleck1 said:
Before anyone gets too much of a tingle in their leg about Patriarch Bartholomew's statements, remember he is not some kind of "Orthodox Pope" who represents all of Holy Orthodoxy. He is a patriarch. One of many.

Personally I am ok with fighting global warming and climate change. But the big elephant in the room is population. If everyone goes out and has seven kids, that seems to run counterproductive to the pope's words. On one hand we're called to have large families and use NFP (which not only my wife and I found awful and ineffective, but I know many others who have had such experiences), and be open to life constantly, on the other we should leave a small carbon footprint. No to contraception, yes to fighting climate change. Yes to putting as many bodies as possible on the planet, but no to the carbon footprint they leave. I'm confused....

I'm confused with your comments.

UNDEVELOPED WORLD
There is no issue of large carbon footprint. Even India pollutes at about 10% of what the US does, in terms of CO2 per capita. Most of the underdeveloped countries have a much smaller carbon footprint. Large families are needed where life is short. As countries have developed, the population numbers go down. There is no problem of overpopulation causing too much of a carbon footprint in the developing world.

DEVELOPED WORLD
One of the major problems in the developed world is that there the birth rates are too low, and the populations are aging. This is a sever problem for Japan and for almost all of Europe. For these countries, more children are needed. Many countries now have have many incentive to have children. There is no problem of overpopulation causing too much of a carbon footprint in the developed world.

As an aside, the US does not have a population problem because we are blessed with such large numbers of immigrants (legal and illegal), as we have been throughout most of our history. Immigrants tend to have a higher birth rate.

BOTTOM LINE
Overpopulation was considered the critical world problem 50 years ago. The analysis was flawed. It turned out that as countries developed, their birth rates went down. In fact, it turned out that there is an underpopulation problem, or perhaps a lack of allowing sufficient immigration problem.

mark46 · Jun 19, 2015

gurneyhalleck1 said:
Before anyone gets too much of a tingle in their leg about Patriarch Bartholomew's statements, remember he is not some kind of "Orthodox Pope" who represents all of Holy Orthodoxy. He is a patriarch. One of many.

I thought that Patriarch Bartholomew was a bit more than just one of the patriarchs. Isn't he very well thought of? In his role as Patriarch of Constantinople and Ecumenical Pope, should his views be considered as more than just the opinion of one patriarch?

I understand that there is no Orthodox pope. After all, at Rivenna, the Orthodox (expect for the non-attending patriarch of Moscow) agreed that the Patriarch of the West is protus, the highest of equal patriarchs.

Root of Jesse · Jun 19, 2015

MikeK said:
If individual buy-in worked, we could safely get rid of the FDA and NRC and let our nuclear and food and drug industries self-regulate. That, of course, is at odds with the Pope's sentiments and, I think, common sense. The government can do what self-serving industrialists who have to provide value to their shareholders every quarter will not.

Let's try using the principal of subsidiarity? Individual buy-in works in cases where individuals have a choice, such as to recycle plastics, or not drive the 1.5 miles to the bus stop. When you're talking about FDA, NRC, etc. you're dealing with corporations, and they have to buy in, too, as a corporate entity. Government need not be a nanny, though. I don't think anything I've said goes against the Pope's sentiments.

Root of Jesse · Jun 19, 2015

RKO said:
The good old conservative cop out... How is individual buy in working for say, abortion?

Did I speak to how it's working? I said it's more important. Consider the 55 mph speed limit. How'd that work? It made millions of drivers criminals. But if people bought in, it would have worked.

Regarding abortion, isn't it better to convince one person not to have an abortion rather than preaching to 10s and 100s from the sidewalk by shouting?

MikeK · Jun 19, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Regarding abortion, isn't it better to convince one person not to have an abortion rather than preaching to 10s and 100s from the sidewalk by shouting?

It is, but I think legislation against abortion is also worth pursuing. Same for environmental concerns, a multi pronged approach should yield the best results.

pastor marty · Jun 19, 2015

MikeK said:
3 minutes? That took longer than I was expecting. I'd like to add "by-by-but other countries pollute more than we do, by some measures!"

The Pope could have written this Encyclical on any subject he liked, or he could have not written an Encyclical at all. The significance that he chose this important topic to instruct the flock on should resound with every Catholic, that what we are doing today is not good enough - this is a call for change. Maybe I'm naive, but I am hoping that maybe those who have to date downplayed the importance of these concerns will be corrected. There are certainly changes I need to make regarding the kind of consumer I've been and my process for making business decisions.

Here's hoping Catholic politicians in my country, right and left, will enact and enforce policies that respect the environment and, by extension, human life, even if it means decreased profits. If we all demand it and demonstrate our willingness to vote them out of office if they don't, they will.

Kudo's 4 maintaining yer' cool when confronted by mindless negative (non-helpful) rehash of old news.Here's my headline, "Pope makes honest,positive attempt to get non-cooperating planet to acknowledge global threat'.

Root of Jesse · Jun 19, 2015

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimm...mental-encyclical-13-things-to-know-and-share

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Let's try using the principal of subsidiarity? Individual buy-in works in cases where individuals have a choice, such as to recycle plastics, or not drive the 1.5 miles to the bus stop. When you're talking about FDA, NRC, etc. you're dealing with corporations, and they have to buy in, too, as a corporate entity. Government need not be a nanny, though. I don't think anything I've said goes against the Pope's sentiments.

The problem is that when a big corporation is faced with doing the right thing or doing the thing that will make them the most money, they almost always go for the most money. In fact, in risk management, people are taught that if a product has the potential to hurt people, but the cost to fix the problem is more than the lawsuits you will face, you are better off just risking that it hurt people and pay them off later. There are corporations that actually set aside money to pay off people in these situations.

Root of Jesse · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
The problem is that when a big corporation is faced with doing the right thing or doing the thing that will make them the most money, they almost always go for the most money. In fact, in risk management, people are taught that if a product has the potential to hurt people, but the cost to fix the problem is more than the lawsuits you will face, you are better off just risking that it hurt people and pay them off later. There are corporations that actually set aside money to pay off people in these situations.

I believe that most corporations would balance the two, and I won't deal with a corporation that doesn't do the right thing consistently. And, if a company has been shown to do what you suggest, they fall into that bucket, too.

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
I believe that most corporations would balance the two, and I won't deal with a corporation that doesn't do the right thing consistently. And, if a company has been shown to do what you suggest, they fall into that bucket, too.

I suggest you don't dig too deeply into big organizations then. The bottom line is the most important thing in most cases.

Root of Jesse · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
I suggest you don't dig too deeply into big organizations then. The bottom line is the most important thing in most cases.

The bottom line is what corporations have to worry about, but making profits responsibly is important, too. I know there are CEO's who've been fired because of lack of profits, and there are CEO's who've been fired because they chose the irresponsible path, too.

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
The bottom line is what corporations have to worry about, but making profits responsibly is important, too. I know there are CEO's who've been fired because of lack of profits, and there are CEO's who've been fired because they chose the irresponsible path, too.

Usually illegal actions, though or ones that came to light and the company bailed because the person's presence would cost them. So, bottom line.

Root of Jesse · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
Usually illegal actions, though or ones that came to light and the company bailed because the person's presence would cost them. So, bottom line.

Ah, I see, one of those who believes that any corporation is completely evil because they want to make money. Never mind.

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Ah, I see, one of those who believes that any corporation is completely evil because they want to make money. Never mind.

No, you're reading it entirely wrong. I think corporations are net positives in the world, but I have no reason to believe that they will do things that hurt their profits if it isn't enforced in some way.

Remember corporations in the 1800s when there were lax labor laws and they worked people to death in mines including children? Wasn't their problem, according to them. People could do something else... except, of course, the corporations had made leaving almost impossible. That wasn't some kind of fluke happening of the 1800s. Corporations are heartless entities. That isn't good or bad. It's just something we have to recognize when it comes to the environment and such. Higher profits now are almost always going to be valued over something like the environmental impact later without someone standing there to enforce standards.

Root of Jesse · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
No, you're reading it entirely wrong. I think corporations are net positives in the world, but I have no reason to believe that they will do things that hurt their profits if it isn't enforced in some way.

Remember corporations in the 1800s when there were lax labor laws and they worked people to death in mines including children? Wasn't their problem, according to them. People could do something else... except, of course, the corporations had made leaving almost impossible. That wasn't some kind of fluke happening of the 1800s. Corporations are heartless entities. That isn't good or bad. It's just something we have to recognize when it comes to the environment and such. Higher profits now are almost always going to be valued over something like the environmental impact later without someone standing there to enforce standards.

Well, the heart of corporations is the people, friend. People, individuals, as I said before, who take it upon themselves to make a difference. You're right, corporations are heartless, but when you build a corporate identity, you give the corporation heart. Individual responsibility is what puts heart in a corporation.
The 1800's is a far cry from today. The world, from farmers to those who went to work in cities, worked sunrise to sunset every day, went home to milk and bread for dinner, meat was special on Sundays.
Maybe the problem is Wall Street, which can kill a company that's not performing well enough for their investors?

Root of Jesse · Jun 19, 2015

pastor marty said:
Kudo's 4 maintaining yer' cool when confronted by mindless negative (non-helpful) rehash of old news.Here's my headline, "Pope makes honest,positive attempt to get non-cooperating planet to acknowledge global threat'.

That's not a headline, nor is it news. The Popes of the 20th and 21st centuries have always done that.

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Maybe the problem is Wall Street, which can kill a company that's not performing well enough for their investors?

I can agree with that. The problem is money and the fact that plenty of people who are high up in corporations are willing to step on other people in order to gain that money. When the company does well, those people get big bonuses and raises. This isn't an attack on the rich, mind you, but just the fact that there are a lot of greedy, power hungry people in the world and if they all come together to be the executives of a company, why should they care if a waterway gets polluted if their profits got up?

My wife was laid off last year by a company that posted record profits. Her entire division was laid off and outsourced to another company and, from the paperwork she saw, it saved the company something like 10%. They didn't care about those workers, they cared about the money. Not that I don't think they had the right to lay her off as they can do that at will, but that doesn't mean what they are allowed to do is a moral decision. Lots of people haven't recovered from being laid off because they dumped 400 people into a job market where they were the #1 employer.

Tallguy88 · Jun 19, 2015

LivingWordUnity said:
Can you give an example of a law against abortion that you think was "at any cost"? What kind of law discouraging abortion do you think would be reasonable? Would you at least support a law that would require an ultrasound?

Not an invasive ultrasound.

ebia · Jun 19, 2015

If a corporation was pouring toxic pollutants into your family's only supply of drinking water, would you want to wait for "individual buy in?

The Pope's environmental encyclical has been released, discuss here.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Traditionalist Catholic

Active Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Dispassionate

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Dispassionate

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Dispassionate

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Dispassionate

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Dispassionate

We shall see the King when he comes!

Senior Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency