What are you US Christians going to do about this?

[dcyates]

A century ago, Americans were far more free that today. You could live your life without being forced to be aware that the federal government even existed. This is the million-dollar difference.

I agree. Government intrusion in our lives is both greater and, by-and-large, deleterious, as well. But greater government presence isn't always a bad thing, given that one of the legitimate functions of government is to protect us from one another. For instance, racism may still exist today, but it was far more rampant and blatant back then than it is now. And I've happily noticed that the incidence of lynching has decreased considerably since then. Wife and child abuse still goes on far too often, but at least now when it's revealed there's a concerted effort to punish the perpetrator rather than regard it, as it was then, as largely a 'family-matter' and therefore 'none of our business'.

The air/water/land was cleaner.

Well, this depends on where you were. A century ago, pollution was unchecked and mostly unthought of. Sewage was considered treated if dumped in either the river or the street. And whether the air/water/land was cleaner or not, it mattered little as far as people living at the time were concerned. Personal hygiene was practiced, when at all, on the face, neck, and hands up to the wrists. People would bathe, at best, infrequently. Even Queen Victoria boasted that she used to bathe, "once a year, whether I need it or not." Back then, sweeping up the house meant sweeping piles of dirt into the corners of the room.

Even poor people could afford 40 acres of land.

Land may have been cheaper then but on a per capita basis far more people today are landowners than was the case a century ago. The average wage was a little more than a dollar a day, and that's if you had a job. Moreover, even when jobs were available, as often as not unless you were distinctly WASPish you may not have been given one. Even the elderly today can still remember signs in store windows reading, "Work for hire. Irish need not apply." My own father was strongly discouraged from playing with one particular boy as a child; it was only later that he learned this was because the boy was Ukrainian.
Nevertheless, those who did own land and hence worked it were, naturally, farmers. The majority of the people were agricultural workers and do you know what time cows get up in the morning? Working from before dawn until well after dusk was a virtual given. And people complain about being too busy now! And actual working conditions?!? Don't get me started!

There was practically no illegal immigration (the 21st-century answer to slavery).

I'm not sure I understand. Are you for or against illegal immigration?

Family Christmas parties were huge.

My family Christmas parties are still huge. And, although I know we've become far too materialistic nowadays, I still always felt pity for my grandmother whenever she would tell us how she and her siblings were thrilled to receive nothing but an orange in their shoes each Christmas morning.

The government respected Christianity. Moral behavior was expected of people.

Granted. This has not gotten better.

I'd say about the only thing better today is what technology has produced. Granted, this is no small thing.

Oh, it's more than just technology that's improved. In fact, going over my response above, very little of it has to do with increases in technology. A century ago, there was no health-care. Neither was there much health. This was only partially due to increases in technology. Louis Pasteur's germ theory of disease was virtually all but unheard of. Thus, people then frequently died of such minor ailments today as strep throat, pneumonia, plus God only knows how many other relatively trivial infections. Men customarily wed multiple wives, not by way of philandering but because of deaths in childbirth. The children died, too, as any walk through an old graveyard attests, our ancestors often had more dead children than we have live ones. And the typical old-fashioned diet was so bad even the most 'culinarily' adventurous among us today would very likely turn our noses up at it.
Moreover, women not only couldn't vote, they weren't even legally recognized as persons. Same with blacks. As well, not many received anything resembling a formal education back then. (Even though it seems the current public school system is trying their darndest to take us back to that level of comparative ignorance by obstinately refusing to teach our kids such basics as how to read, write, add, subtract, etc., opting instead to instruct them in how to put a condom on a banana.)

Anyway, I could go on and on, but I think I've gone on quite enough. Thanks for the correspondence, Poke.

 

[Maccie]

Well! Well! I've read all the replies from those of you in the US, and I've come to various conclusions:

1. Few of you agree there is such a thing as global warming

2. Even if there is, you simply don't care

3. There is plenty of room for you all in the US, so you can just move out of the cities into more land.

4, Even if there is such a thing as global warming, there is remarkable ignorance about what it is and how it will affect you.

Well, you are entitled to your opinions, and I am not going to try and convince you of anything. But there are millions of people on this earth who will suffer incredible hardships if global warming does take place. Countries like Bangladesh, for instance, will become almost uninhabitable. Glaciers will melt (and are already melting) depriving those below them of essential water for crops. Permafrost will melt, and houses and the infrastructure of any towns and cities built there will suffer. (If any of you live in Alaska, you will know what I mean). Deserts will increase and spread. Sea levels will rise, and all coastal towns and cities will be at risk. And I could go on.

Obviously, this doesn't bother any of you one little bit. Either it isn't true, or it won't happen to the USA, which is somehow sacrosanct.

Many of you on these Boards are very young, and probably, with the carelessness of youth, just can't imagine it happening to you. But you will perhaps marry and have children. Maybe you will be concerned for their future. I don't know. Maybe you won't.

It makes me very sad, though, to see such a sense of isolation and selfishness amongst those of you in the USA who have replied.

 

[Bernergirl]

Now, I typically consider myself moderate politically - neither liberal, nor conservative, but a bit of both depending upon the specific issue.

I agree that the global warming doom prophecies are fear-mongerers, but is there such a thing as global warming? I don't know. I don't trust the information given to me, but my knowledge pool does not cover that kind of global data. I haven't seen serious snow in years, up here in the Northwestern States, but I live in a valley between two mountain ranges - on the other side of one is the coast, on the other side of the other is a vast desert. Does this make any difference? Speculatively, perhaps. Actually, no idea. I do know, however, that it probably wouldn't hurt me too much to ride my bike more and make sure the aluminum cans in my dad's garbage can make their way to the recycling.

The responses about things steadily getting better as far as people never having lived such wealthy lives and such... that just makes me sad. I don't care how many US or Canadian Christians recycle, I pray that God moves more of us to spend time abroad (and not just in Europe) and see what our wealthy lives cost African countries, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc. etc... We are so blessed to live in a country where we have clean drinking water and food to eat. Let's work harder (on a personal and not merely governmental level) to make sure that more recieve the same basic necessities.

Lissa

"Lead me, O LORD, or my enemies will conquer me. Tell me clearly what to do, and show me which way to turn." - Psalm 5:8 (NLT)

 

[Poke]

For instance, racism may still exist today, but it was far more rampant and blatant back then than it is now. And I've happily noticed that the incidence of lynching has decreased considerably since then.

I think there is more racism and murder today than a century ago. But, we digress.

 

[intricatic]

1. Few of you agree there is such a thing as global warming

2. Even if there is, you simply don't care

3. There is plenty of room for you all in the US, so you can just move out of the cities into more land.

4, Even if there is such a thing as global warming, there is remarkable ignorance about what it is and how it will affect you.

Well, you are entitled to your opinions, and I am not going to try and convince you of anything. But there are millions of people on this earth who will suffer incredible hardships if global warming does take place. Countries like Bangladesh, for instance, will become almost uninhabitable. Glaciers will melt (and are already melting) depriving those below them of essential water for crops. Permafrost will melt, and houses and the infrastructure of any towns and cities built there will suffer. (If any of you live in Alaska, you will know what I mean). Deserts will increase and spread. Sea levels will rise, and all coastal towns and cities will be at risk. And I could go on.

Obviously, this doesn't bother any of you one little bit. Either it isn't true, or it won't happen to the USA, which is somehow sacrosanct.

Many of you on these Boards are very young, and probably, with the carelessness of youth, just can't imagine it happening to you. But you will perhaps marry and have children. Maybe you will be concerned for their future. I don't know. Maybe you won't.

It makes me very sad, though, to see such a sense of isolation and selfishness amongst those of you in the USA who have replied.

Selfishness?

If global warming is a reality, it stems almost entirely from urbanization and industrialization. This is the consequence of social government trying to bring society together into large urban centers. How does Europe and the UN feel about centralized urbanization? Maybe we should increase urbanization in the areas that are going to be most effected to save the silly rural folks who will be most dirrectly in harms way?

But this is assuming that it is a reality and not just a pseudo-scientific fantasty dreamed up by bureaucrats who want to take advantage of tax funding and the public's trust.

 

[Maccie]

I am genuinely surprised at how many of you do not believe in Global warming, assuming it is hype by the scientists for their own, or the governments benefit! Is this a US thing? A Christian thing? Or what?

What would it take to persuade you that there is a threat of climatic change that will affect us all? Maybe it won't affect those in the USA too badly, - you have a lot of country to move into. But are you not concerned about the rest of the world?

I have found 3 links which, as far as I can see, are by reputable oranisations. Does reading any of these make you change your mind and take the subject seriously?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html

http://www.climatehotmap.org/index.html

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

 

[MethodMan]

I am genuinely surprised at how many of you do not believe in Global warming, assuming it is hype by the scientists for their own, or the governments benefit! Is this a US thing? A Christian thing? Or what?

What would it take to persuade you that there is a threat of climatic change that will affect us all? Maybe it won't affect those in the USA too badly, - you have a lot of country to move into. But are you not concerned about the rest of the world?

I have found 3 links which, as far as I can see, are by reputable oranisations. Does reading any of these make you change your mind and take the subject seriously?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html

http://www.climatehotmap.org/index.html

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

No - Especially after the post op-ed.

 

[intricatic]

I am genuinely surprised at how many of you do not believe in Global warming, assuming it is hype by the scientists for their own, or the governments benefit! Is this a US thing? A Christian thing? Or what?

What would it take to persuade you that there is a threat of climatic change that will affect us all? Maybe it won't affect those in the USA too badly, - you have a lot of country to move into. But are you not concerned about the rest of the world?

I have found 3 links which, as far as I can see, are by reputable oranisations. Does reading any of these make you change your mind and take the subject seriously?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html

http://www.climatehotmap.org/index.html

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

Most studies on supposed ecological impact that global warming is going to have, or supposedly is having now are funded through political channels. Where do you think these guys get their information from?

BTW: Yosemite is a national park. National Park = politically funded. Please note the .gov in the URL.

As an aside, I live in Florida, so it would be absurd to say that no ecological changes are taking place. The question, though, is how much of it is due to human influence, and how much is merely a part of a living ecosystem doing the same thing it's done for countless centuries? Then the responsiblity, if it's found to be because of human influence, lies dirrectly on government's shoulders - especially social government that encourages urbanization.

 

[Maccie]

I guess we look at things differently in our neck of the woods.

Hope you can keep your feet dry in years to come down in Florida!!

 

[intricatic]

I guess we look at things differently in our neck of the woods.

Hope you can keep your feet dry in years to come down in Florida!!

How are we looking at it differently? We have the same scientific studies available to us, the same practical ability to observe things. What I don't understand is how environmentalists can cling to an idea like reducing greenhouse emissions, but still support urbanization projects that negate any good that any policy of lowering said emissions will do. It's almost as bad as the environmentalists here in the states, who mostly live in huge, sprawling cities on the east and west coast. It's like shooting themselves in the foot. It's no surprise to me that Kyoto has been a failure thus far.


It's not hard, actually, our house is the only one in the neighborhood that's never sustained serious structural damage from a hurricane - but this house is the only one in the neighborhood that wasn't torn down and rebuilt twenty years ago - it's been here since the '40s. This piece of property is probably the least valuable in a 30 mile radius, but it's the only one that's able to withstand hurricane force winds, or so it seems.

 

[wildthing]

i would suggest that you look at this study www.cnic.org/nle/crsreports/climate/alim-20.efm

I really don't think an op ed article is anything to hang your hat on. I don't think that an Al Gore movie is anything to put your faith in either.

Climatic changes is normal and should be viewed as that. I remember in 70-80 when Uk had alot of snow and the enivornmental scientist thought it was a coming of another ice age. Climate will change and people need to be dynamic enough to make those changes. History is full of evidence of changes. One of the key events to the French Revolution of the late 1700 was a climate change that effected crops.

We live in dynamic planet and things will change. when changes do not occur then I think we should worry. Look at geoloic history we see beds of sediment being laid down on top of other layers sediment. An area that was thought of as dry land was actually a seabed.

I think it's sad when people worship the creation in stead of the Creator. And it sadder still to see "christians" fall in to step with the "enivornmetalist". Creator has allowed these dynamic changes to occur. it is the "enivornmetal scientist" that's having problems with them

 

[dcyates]

Well! Well! I've read all the replies from those of you in the US, and I've come to various conclusions:

1. Few of you agree there is such a thing as global warming

I didn't say there isn't any global warming. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the global average surface temperature increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the span of the 20th-century.
0.6 DEGREES!
Oh my gosh! Run for the hills!

2. Even if there is, you simply don't care

I'd care more if we were the cause of it, but as I noted in an earlier post, our climate has always been changing, and presumably always will. It's a natural process.

3. There is plenty of room for you all in the US, so you can just move out of the cities into more land.

Yup. There's plenty of room for everybody. And not just in the U.S.

4, Even if there is such a thing as global warming, there is remarkable ignorance about what it is and how it will affect you.

No, there's remarkable hysteria over what it is and how it will affect us--much of it completely unwarranted.

Well, you are entitled to your opinions, and I am not going to try and convince you of anything. But there are millions of people on this earth who will suffer incredible hardships if global warming does take place. Countries like Bangladesh, for instance, will become almost uninhabitable.

Let's face it, Bangladesh is virtually uninhabitable right now. (But in truth this has nothing to do with either their climate or the land, so I digress...)

Glaciers will melt (and are already melting) depriving those below them of essential water for crops.

Just a second. How are glaciers melting depriving those below of water for their crops? Wouldn't the melting of glaciers mean more water? I thought that was the problem to begin with; that the alleged melting of glaciers was going to result in an overabundance of water.

Permafrost will melt, and houses and the infrastructure of any towns and cities built there will suffer. (If any of you live in Alaska, you will know what I mean).

Do you really think it's all that great living on permafrost? It's not. Most people would far rather be living in a milder climate where things were not permanently frozen. As a Canadian living in a relatively cold climate, I don't think Alaskans would object too loudly if things got warmer there.

Deserts will increase and spread. Sea levels will rise, and all coastal towns and cities will be at risk.

The truth is, melting polar ice caps would no more raise sea-levels than ice cubes melting in your drink makes your glass overflow.

And I could go on.
Obviously, this doesn't bother any of you one little bit. Either it isn't true, or it won't happen to the USA, which is somehow sacrosanct.

What? Who has displayed even the least little bit of nationalistic jingoism anywhere on this thread?

Many of you on these Boards are very young, and probably, with the carelessness of youth, just can't imagine it happening to you.

But given your comparative maturity, surely you remember the litany of ostensibly imminent planetwide dangers that were supposed to kill us all. Not one of these apocalyptic scenarios have come true.

In 1962, Rachel Carson, in her bestselling book Silent Spring alerted us to the horrible dangers of the synthetic pesticides, especially DDT, and that these were ruining our ecosystem. With ominous sounding chapter titles like "And no birds sing" and "Elixirs of death," carson made a powerful emotional argument that, not only was DDT going to kill us all by giving us cancer, it was also supposed to kill all the birds by thinning their eggshells.

Didn't happen. Not only are birds flourishing but there wasn't even a spike in cancer rates after the height of DDT use. Her book has since been debunked by scientists (although that didn't stop Al Gore from writing the introduction to the 1994 reissue), but not before the book sparked bans on DDT use, which had been effective in killing malaria-carrying mosquitoes in Africa and Asia, which in turn led to the preventable malaria deaths of nearly 90 million people, mostly children--so far.

In his 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich warned us of the apocalyptic conditions that would inevitably result from the overpopulation of the planet. The first words of Ehrlich's prologue are, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world's death rate...." He thus prophesied mass starvation and environmental disaster as the planet ran out of food and was swamped in garbage. His best-case scenario consisted of the U.S., by 1974, stopping all food aid to "India, Egypt, and some other countries which it considers beyond hope." There was also to be "mild" food rationing throughout America. Ehrlich declared that the pope will be compelled to approve birth control and abortion. Famines and food riots would "sweep Asia." Same thing goes for Africa, Latin America, and the Arab world, plus ubiquitous plagues and warfare. Russia would experience a lot of internal problems. "Die-backs" would continue until 1985. What was left of the world would then set a global population goal of 2 billion for the year 2025 and 1.5 billion for 2100.

He was right about Russia.

In Ehrlich's worst-case scenario, famine, plague, war, and all those sorts of things will have repeatedly visited Asia, Africa, and Latin America by the late '70s. Thermonuclear holocaust would ensue and everybody dies.

Needless to say, this didn't happen.
(Ehrlich also advocated for abortion-on-demand and that everybody should get rid of all their household pets--no more "useless mouths to feed," he said.) In fact, in the nearly 40 years since his book, the world's population has almost doubled, but, by and large, food production and global standards of living are the highest they've been in history.

During the 1970s we were told to prepare for a coming new ice age. I personally remember watching that old TV program that ran in the '70s, In Search Of, hosted by Leonard (Mr. Spock) Nimoy, where they broadcast an episode detailing how we were all supposed to be headed for another ice age. As well, in the July 1975 issue of International Wildlife, in an article entitled "In the Grip of a New Ice Age," Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, wrote: "The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."


Didn't happen.

After we narrowly averted the next ice age--by doing absolutely nothing about it--we were then told in the early 1980s that the real imminent and catastrophic danger was: acid rain. From all the sulphur dioxide in car exhaust and manufacturing emissions, et cetra. Kids were given to nightmares over all the lakes and trees that would be scorched by toxic raindrops.

Didn't happen. Eventually, researchers--and time--proved the doomsday predictions wildly overblown.

But before we could breathe a sigh of relief, we were alerted to a new apocalyptic threat with which to contend. In the early 1990s there was suddenly a huge hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica (like anybody lives there anyway) and we were all going to develop skin cancer. Actually, it turns out it wasn't quite so sudden: scientists noticed it on satellite images as early as 1979, but panic set in when it appeared to grow, coincidentally right around the time that Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, spewing huge amounts of chlorine into the atmosphere. Still, westerners were more than willing to accept full responsibility for the stratospheric rupture. Based on misinformed media hysterics resulting from two inconclusive press releases from NASA, we blamed our decadent air conditioners, Styrofoam cups, and hairsprays for releasing chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), which allegedly damaged the ozone layer. In 1992, U.S. Congress passed laws demanding industry to phase out all CFC use. Nevertheless, between 1996 and 2001, the hole grew bigger. Then in 2002, it started shrinking. And after that it grew. (I think I heard most recently that it's shrinking again, but don't quote me on that.) It turns out no one can say with any certainty what's going on, or what's causing it.

And now we've got global warming. But it's THIS one that is REALLY going to kill us all, right?
Somehow, I seriously doubt it.

But you will perhaps marry and have children. Maybe you will be concerned for their future. I don't know. Maybe you won't.

I'm married and have three kids, the youngest of which is only two months old. If I'm worried at all about their future, it's not because of the overheated hysterics of environmental alarmists. Or alarmists of any stripe, for that matter.

It makes me very sad, though, to see such a sense of isolation and selfishness amongst those of you in the USA who have replied.

It makes me sad that you're spending your remaining years (and I honestly hope you have many more happy, healthy years to come) worried and anxious over media-fed doom-mongering.

 

[dcyates]

Now, I typically consider myself moderate politically - neither liberal, nor conservative, but a bit of both depending upon the specific issue.

I agree that the global warming doom prophecies are fear-mongerers, but is there such a thing as global warming? I don't know. I don't trust the information given to me, but my knowledge pool does not cover that kind of global data. I haven't seen serious snow in years, up here in the Northwestern States, but I live in a valley between two mountain ranges - on the other side of one is the coast, on the other side of the other is a vast desert. Does this make any difference? Speculatively, perhaps. Actually, no idea. I do know, however, that it probably wouldn't hurt me too much to ride my bike more and make sure the aluminum cans in my dad's garbage can make their way to the recycling.

The responses about things steadily getting better as far as people never having lived such wealthy lives and such... that just makes me sad. I don't care how many US or Canadian Christians recycle, I pray that God moves more of us to spend time abroad (and not just in Europe) and see what our wealthy lives cost African countries, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc. etc...

Up to this point I was in general agreement with you. How does our assuredly wealthy lives "cost" African nations, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc. anything? Wealth is not limited, with only so much to go around, like a pizza, where if we in the 'Western' nations eat more than our share, then the rest of the world is left only with the Domino's box. Wealth can be created and can grow. Say you've got four sticks and a swath of fabric. You could only get so much for them, and left on their own are virtually worthless. But if you formed those sticks into a frame, and stretched that fabric over it, then you've got a canvas. Paint a beautiful image on the canvas and those same few sticks and swath of fabric are suddenly worth far more. Wealth was created.
So how does our wealth adversely affect those other countries? (BTW, Taiwan is quite a wealthy country in its own right. And Indonesia isn't doing all that badly, either.)

We are so blessed to live in a country where we have clean drinking water and food to eat. Let's work harder (on a personal and not merely governmental level) to make sure that more recieve the same basic necessities.

Now I'm back to agreeing with you (not that you should care).

Lissa

"Lead me, O LORD, or my enemies will conquer me. Tell me clearly what to do, and show me which way to turn." - Psalm 5:8 (NLT)

 

[Bernergirl]

Regarding international commerce and our wealth vs. international wealth... wealth may not be limited, but debt is limiting. It limits the money the country's government can invest in public education, health care, sanitation... which in turn limits the amount of wealth the country's work force can create...

 

[dcyates]

Regarding international commerce and our wealth vs. international wealth... wealth may not be limited, but debt is limiting. It limits the money the country's government can invest in public education, health care, sanitation... which in turn limits the amount of wealth the country's work force can create...

Good comment, Bernergirl. Although I know this isn't strictly related to the topic of the OP, since that post did address how the U.S.--both the wealthiest and greatest wealth-producing nation on the planet--is allegedly supposed to collectively respond to the purportedly global problem of climate change, I think it should be at least somewhat acceptable to extend this to how the U.S. is allegedly supposed to collectively respond to the global problem of poverty. So...

The only problem with your point is that, take Africa for example. Since the sub-Saharan countries of Africa gained their independence from their European colonial overseers back in the 1950s, they have been the recipients of over $5 trillion in foreign aid. (Now, I'll confess, I read this a while back, and I may not have the figure exactly right, but rest-assured, whatever the figure was, it could only be described as colossal in size.) Despite this, the citizens of these nations are no better off (and in some cases, are comparatively worse off!) than they were under colonial rule.
I'm honestly all for helping those who can't help themselves. (Heck, I'm physically disabled and so rely on government aid, so I know whereof I speak.) But the overarching question is: Why is Africa so needy in the first place?
Did I previously answer my own question? Is it because they were former European colonies, and were exploited as such?
That can't be. The U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were all former colonies, as well. And Virginia was far more effectively exploited by the British than were any of their former African holdings.
"Oh sure, but that was hundreds of years ago," I can hear someone objecting. "They've had time to recover, whereas African nations won their independence a mere 50-odd years ago. Besides, racism may have played a part. The colonies of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were made up predominantly of white, western European settlers, whereas the Africans, obviously, were not."
Okay, fair comment. But how does that account for a place like Hong Kong? They are a former British colony that England gave up as recently as 1997. Yet the per capita GDP of Hong Kong is almost that of the U.S. And they're not white, either.

Africa's poverty certainly can't be blamed on a lack of natural resources. The continent of Africa is tremendously resource-rich--indeed, among the richest. And besides that, let's face it, there isn't too much that couldn't be abundantly grown in Africa either.
As well, neither does an almost complete lack of natural resources necessarily spell economic privation. Otherwise, why is the aforementioned Hong Kong so wealthy? Why is Japan, which can boast the world's second largest economy, behind only the U.S., so rich? Why is Switzerland? What is Lichtenstein's primary natural resource, the citizens of which possess the world's highest per capita GDP? All these places have almost no natural rescources whatever and yet are filthy rich compared to most sub-Saharan African countries.

Neither can internal and international conflict be the culprit. Both America and England suffered through terrible civil wars. And is there in all of history a continent more ravaged by international conflict than Europe? Both World Wars were fought there, for goodness' sake, just in the last century.

Political corruption? Africa certainly has its fair share of that. But so does practically everywhere where there's a government. It's been sufficiently proven that Canada's former Liberal government--replaced just this past January--stole or wasted literally billions of taxpayer dollars, and yet they were posting multi-billion dollar surpluses with each federal budget at the same time. Besides, not even the worst instance of political jobbery can impoverish an entire nation. No matter how many shoes Imelda Marcos had in her shoe closet, it wasn't the cause of the Philippines' relative poverty.

Lack of culture? Can't be that. The average shopping mall in North America is said to be virtually bereft of culture, while simultaneously rife with wealth. Yet in Soviet Russia, where chess was a spectator sport, they were boiling stones for soup.

Lack of technology? Not even something as self-evidently wealth-producing as technology can be the ultimate answer. Many African nations possess some of the most up-to-date technology in the world, except it's virtually all evidenced in their respective military weaponry.

Aside from all this, forgiving the international debt of the African nations as a means to helping her impoverished citizens makes the huge assumption that any of the monies saved will somehow make it to them. If giving money directly to these nations over the last five or so decades hasn't improved their lot, why should we believe giving money to them indirectly, vis-a-vis debt forgiveness, will have the desired effect?

 

[Captivated]

Even Queen Victoria boasted that she used to bathe, "once a year, whether I need it or not."

Adding nothing to the debate but the perfectionist in me couldn't let this go. This quote, quite possibly apocryphal, applies to Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603), and not to Queen Victoria (1837-1901), whose response to the slight would, I imagine, have been "we are not amused".

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Americans represent 5% of the world's population but drive almost a third of its cars, which in turn account for nearly half the carbon dioxide pumped out of exhaust pipes into the atmosphere each year, according to a report.

Instead of getting all het up over other people's sexual gender preferences, how about actually doing something about slowing the global warming threat? How about parading with posters in car parks, etc. instead of harrying those you consider to be homosexual, or liberal Christians.

I am sick of finding threads over and over again about homosexuality. Don't you guys ever think of anything else?

You can read the report at www.guardian.co.uk/usa

Since science gave is the internal combustion engine (by God's crace and providence) it has been used (along with other things) to raise us to a far higher plain of physical existance than ever before in human history.

Its days may be coming to an end in this century. Fuel cost will continue to climb and this will make alternative fuels economically viable and these will began to replace the hydrocarbon based fuels that we use now.

It is not a "sin" to drive an SUV or a pickup truck (which is what I drive), homosexual thoghts and activities are sins.

THis has become an issue because some "Christians" are more inclined to agree with the secular, politically correct, anti-biblical teachings, of this post modern world, than they are the Word of God.

Global warming (and cooling) has been going on for millennia and God is in control of the whole thing. Yes, we are to be good stewards and we will replace the internal compustion engine in time.

Things are not sinful, but the human heart and human actions are sinful.

I too wish all the talk of homosexuality would go away and we could ALL agree with the Scriptures and say that such action (like all other sexual sin) is sin and needs to be repented of and turned away from, but I don't see that happening any time soon. So these threads will continue.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[SolomonVII]

... Why is Africa so needy in the first place?
Did I previously answer my own question? Is it because they were former European colonies, and were exploited as such?
That can't be. The U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were all former colonies, as well. And Virginia was far more effectively exploited by the British than were any of their former African holdings.
"Oh sure, but that was hundreds of years ago," I can hear someone objecting. "They've had time to recover, whereas African nations won their independence a mere 50-odd years ago. Besides, racism may have played a part. The colonies of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were made up predominantly of white, western European settlers, whereas the Africans, obviously, were not."
Okay, fair comment. But how does that account for a place like Hong Kong? They are a former British colony that England gave up as recently as 1997. Yet the per capita GDP of Hong Kong is almost that of the U.S. And they're not white, either.

Africa's poverty certainly can't be blamed on a lack of natural resources. The continent of Africa is tremendously resource-rich--indeed, among the richest. And besides that, let's face it, there isn't too much that couldn't be abundantly grown in Africa either.
As well, neither does an almost complete lack of natural resources necessarily spell economic privation. Otherwise, why is the aforementioned Hong Kong so wealthy? Why is Japan, which can boast the world's second largest economy, behind only the U.S., so rich? Why is Switzerland? What is Lichtenstein's primary natural resource, the citizens of which possess the world's highest per capita GDP? All these places have almost no natural rescources whatever and yet are filthy rich compared to most sub-Saharan African countries.

Neither can internal and international conflict be the culprit. Both America and England suffered through terrible civil wars. And is there in all of history a continent more ravaged by international conflict than Europe? Both World Wars were fought there, for goodness' sake, just in the last century.

Political corruption? Africa certainly has its fair share of that. But so does practically everywhere where there's a government. It's been sufficiently proven that Canada's former Liberal government--replaced just this past January--stole or wasted literally billions of taxpayer dollars, and yet they were posting multi-billion dollar surpluses with each federal budget at the same time. Besides, not even the worst instance of political jobbery can impoverish an entire nation. No matter how many shoes Imelda Marcos had in her shoe closet, it wasn't the cause of the Philippines' relative poverty.

Lack of culture? Can't be that. The average shopping mall in North America is said to be virtually bereft of culture, while simultaneously rife with wealth. Yet in Soviet Russia, where chess was a spectator sport, they were boiling stones for soup.

Lack of technology? Not even something as self-evidently wealth-producing as technology can be the ultimate answer. Many African nations possess some of the most up-to-date technology in the world, except it's virtually all evidenced in their respective military weaponry.

Aside from all this, forgiving the international debt of the African nations as a means to helping her impoverished citizens makes the huge assumption that any of the monies saved will somehow make it to them. If giving money directly to these nations over the last five or so decades hasn't improved their lot, why should we believe giving money to them indirectly, vis-a-vis debt forgiveness, will have the desired effect?

The one thing that you did not bring up is they type of economic system that is in play in Africa.

Africa of course is a huge continent. It would be difficult to generalize. But it might be worthwhile to take note that Zimbabwe, once more than self-sufficient in food resources, is now starving once the landowners were driven off the land by the Mugabe government, in order to achieve an equitable society.

Not to say that a social safety net is a not good thing, but so far it has only been capitalistic economies that have been able to generate wealth. And while capitalism does not eliminate poverty, ot does create enough wealth that there is the sufficient surplus to soften the blow of poverty.
Moreover, more relevant to this discussion, it is only wiht the wealth generation of capitalism that sufficent surplus can be generated to provide us with the wealth to tackle environmental problems.
Kyoto, with all its reliance on government programs and penalties, has been a bust, for governments just do not generate wealth.

The US on the other hand, with its reliance on market forces, has paradoxically been the country that has reduced its CO2 levels. For when environmental degradation starts cutting into their bottom line, capitalists become very motivated indeed to change such a state of affairs.

Unlike Taiwan, or Hong Kong, or now even China, Africa especially has suffered from a lack of capitalistic initiative in its policies.

 

[SolomonVII]

Since science gave is the internal combustion engine (by God's crace and providence) it has been used (along with other things) to raise us to a far higher plain of physical existance than ever before in human history.

Its days may be coming to an end in this century. Fuel cost will continue to climb and this will make alternative fuels economically viable and these will began to replace the hydrocarbon based fuels that we use now.

It is not a "sin" to drive an SUV or a pickup truck (which is what I drive), homosexual thoghts and activities are sins.

THis has become an issue because some "Christians" are more inclined to agree with the secular, politically correct, anti-biblical teachings, of this post modern world, than they are the Word of God.

Global warming (and cooling) has been going on for millennia and God is in control of the whole thing. Yes, we are to be good stewards and we will replace the internal compustion engine in time.

Things are not sinful, but the human heart and human actions are sinful.

I too wish all the talk of homosexuality would go away and we could ALL agree with the Scriptures and say that such action (like all other sexual sin) is sin and needs to be repented of and turned away from, but I don't see that happening any time soon. So these threads will continue.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

As a father of young children, I am personally much more concerned about the social and cultural forces that will be effecting them than either the environment or global warming.

After all, the problems caused by technology may be solved by technology. Our technologically sophisticated socities contain within them all the capital necessary to tackle such problems, as such problems begin to take their effect.
As long as the economy is strong, dykes can be built, water diverted, skin protection applied, trees planted, etc. in order than the old problems becomes new economic opportunities.

On the other hand, the failure of our social systems to maintain strong family and moral bonds have taken millenia to develop. The spiritual void caused by socieites in pursuit of fulfillment through sexual means is soul destroying. It negates life's meaning, and destroys our basis for wanting to create a better world in the first place.
All societies are built up with family as the building blocks, and in turn, our sexuality is at the heart of family life. Traditoins to support this family and generate our sexuality toward family building have developed over the millenia.

My belief is that any civilisation that forgets this basic fact will not be lonf for thisa world.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm from Canada but I'm guessing our car to population ration is pretty similar. This is certainly something Christians should be more concerned with as we are supposed to be stewarts of the earth.

And all though I feel there is too much focus on changing the people OF the world, this kind of criticism likely will get people to ignore your post, and the seriousness of the issue.

I think it will be hard to completely reverse the population to car ratio. Unfortunately, infrastructure in American and Canadian cities was designed around automobile trasportation.

I think that what needs to happen is immediately start building up to replace fosil fuels with ethanol. ( I think there is confussion about what will be the best fosil fuel replacement... thus noone wants to pump up the infrastructure to provide any particular replacement) Not to mention forcing people to buy new cars, or do major work to get them working with new fuels.

Cars burn very clean today.

Satan knows the Word of God. He desires to create lies now that will over the years be branded in the minds of men. So, when God moves in the future, he will have a lie to cover what God has planned.

Revelation 16:7-9 (New International Version)
"And I heard the altar respond:
"Yes, Lord God Almighty,
true and just are your judgments."
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him."

​

Satan is now preparing the world for a lie to cover his plan. He will blame all those "conservatives" who refused to believe in global warming as his patsy.

Global warming is a hoax and a power grab. Its an attempt to take over national sovereignties of nations and begin forming a one world government mentality.

When Iceland was named it was much ice. When Greenland was named it was plush with Green. They would not be named the same things if they were to be named today. The world climate goes in cycles.

Just the other day the weather report stated that it had not been this temperature level for two thousand years. I can not imagine camels putting out all that much emmisions back then. Can you? Climatic changes are cyclical. Those who know this, see global warming scare as a tactic to grab power where no one had a right to power before. Its a baby step towards forming a one world government. Taking over national sovereignties.

In Christ, GeneZ