Is faith in ideology less blind, fanatical and dangerous than relgious

[Scott Mayers]

Because it's in our nature to do so. Human beings have learned that trekking pays off and put a lot of faith in it.

It's fine to watch Star Trek or Star Wars. But the reality far outweighs any function to actually travel to other planets or places. If one wants to preserve their genes for some potential other planet, send out a jar of DNA to space and hope that should it come across another civilized entity who could interpret us with similar intellect and drive, they may opt to regenerate us. At least this would be the only sincere thing to do unless you could hope to find some empty planet for the dozen or so inhabitants of the ship you brought with you to live and expand on.

Its an absurd waste of money that could be spent to repair other real political concerns here on Earth. (At least at this time) So trips to Mars, for instance, would even be a dumb idea. But if all the Billionaires want to do so, kudos to them. But they should be required to leave their wallets behind just in case they don't make it back. We could all use a break.

[eyeball]

I agree, we're probably in the only place that will ever sustain us already but you wouldn't know it from the way we're trashing the place.

Which brings us back to the original question in the OP, the answer to which is clearly no because blind faith in anything is dangerous especially when the faith can actually be put to test as we're doing with our planet with our economic beliefs i.e. that we can just keep growing as if the world were infinite.

I don't think ideology really has much to do with anything it's all the same pale blue dot as far as that goes.

[SRV]

So does this change how you think about whether religion is or is not a functional cause of harm on others?

In large part I agree with you here. It seems to me that both religion and ideology are too often invoked to justify and impose the interests of its proponents, be it on religious grounds or ideological. Both lend themselves to abuses of power, often oppressing and dispossessing outsiders --those deemed to be other and less deserving or entitled than the adherents to a particular ideology or religion. Both ideologues and dogmatic religious fanatics justify systematic dispossession and cultural genocide, both supposing themselves to be in possession of some universal truth that entitles them to subject others and the resources of others to their rule. And, as you point out, it depends on the moral principles, and I would add, the relative power over others wielded by the religious fanatics and/or ideologues (often religion and ideology are wedded in some unholy matrimony). There are indeed religious and ideological actors whose ethics or moral principles inspire them to use religion and/or ideology for the greater good. But I would argue that there are more peoples and cultures being wiped out today in the name of development than religion, and that the premise that banning religion will somehow protect the most vulnerable is misguided, since there are more cultures being destroyed and resources co-opted in the name of development than in the name of religion. And since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the predominant global ideology is free market capitalism, which, despite evidence to the contrary, insists that the benefits of economic growth will eventually trickle down and benefit those at the bottom of the hierarchy as well as those at the top.

[SRV]

100 years ago 90% of the people worked producing food because there was no other choice. Food was expensive and took a large part of household budgets (see http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/1900%201950%202003.png)

Technology changed that picture. As the cost of food came down there was money to pay for luxuries like mass produced 'Christmas Ornaments' which in turn creates employment in mass production. The same trend has happened with manufactured goods which are now cheaper than they ever have been which frees up money to pay for services/virtual goods which creates employment.

The evolution is a repetition of what happened in the past - not something new.

There is still a significant percentage of the world's population whose food security depends on producing their own. It is easy to forget that. It is easy to assume that everyone's security depends on a good job with good pay and benefits. Those who depend on direct entitlement --growing their own food, using local materials to build their own houses etc.-- are being pushed off of their land to create room for agri-industry, mines, hydroelectric dams and other mega-projects. Now we can add climate refugees to that number. Typically this kind of economic development only creates jobs for about 20% of the people it displaces, while the other 80% join the millions of dispossessed economic refugees.

This has created a huge pool of cheap labour that has allowed 20% of the world's population to keep on consuming 80% of its resources despite moving production off shore. Members of that top 20% are largely unaware of or indifferent to the cost of this economic development model, although the on-going refugee crisis may make growing inequality harder to ignore.

Edited December 22, 2015 by SRV

[SRV]

The belief that God has prepared another apparently infinite world for us also takes the ethical pressure off to behave better towards this one.

I share that concern.

[SRV]

That would include the belief we can grow indefinitely on a finite world.

Unfortunately the cultures being wiped out by the predominant global economic development model seem to be the only ones that understand that no economy can be sustained without sustaining the natural world --the water, land, air, flora and fauna we all depend on.

[TimG]

Typically this kind of economic development only creates jobs for about 20% of the people it displaces, while the other 80% join the millions of dispossessed economic refugees.

Care to provide cite to support this claim? That is not what happened in any industrialized country from Britain to China.

This has created a huge pool of cheap labour that has allowed 20% of the world's population to keep on consuming 80% of its resources despite moving production off shore.

In the past population growth would be kept in check by disease, war and famine. Modern technology has permeated the world to the point where even the poorest are seeing life expectancies climb and infant mortality drop.

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en

Members of that top 20% are largely unaware of or indifferent to the cost of this economic development model, although the on-going refugee crisis may make growing inequality harder to ignore.

The only real option is to help poor countries develop a modern market economy that can support their own people. There is simply not enough wealth in the world to rely on a charity driven model. Edited December 23, 2015 by TimG

[SRV]

For example, when measured by the well being all of all citizens, communism has been shown to be a complete failure as an economic system and capitalism has shown considerable success.

Look at Venezuela if you want to see what extreme anti-capitalist ideology does to a society. Even people living on the street in Vancouver have a better standard of living than the average Venezuelan today.

Your argument seems to be in line with a premise that we are on top of some imagined chain of Darwinian social evolution, and that the collapse of the Soviet Union means the end of history as was claimed at the time, and that in terms of social evolution capitalism was proven to be the best. Both systems --Soviet communism and free-market capitalism-- were based on an assumption that wealth was primarily the result of industrial production. The Soviet model was state-owned and controlled industrial capital, while the West believed in free-market owned and controlled industrial capital. I believe that both systems had a very narrow and misguided definition of social progress and the meaning of wealth and prosperity, and that the reality of finite resources and scarcity mean that neither of them are sustainable. On the contrary, in the long run both threaten the ability of this planet to sustain life and thereby undermine the basis of every economy --the land, water, air, flora and fauna we all depend on.

In fact cultures often deemed to be primitive, backward, underdeveloped --cultures we destroy in the name of capitalist development and economic growth-- are more advanced in terms of recognizing the need for preserving and protecting essential resources --the land, water, air, flora and fauna we all depend on. Both free-market and communist development are out of touch with reality, arrogantly thinking themselves to be superior because their technological achievements cause them to imagine themselves to be more evolved on some ill-conceived Darwinian chain of social evolution.

As for Venezuela, the failure of the left to hang onto power has to do with a number of things: the dramatic fall in the the price of oil, failure to get control of its own military and police, and the mobility of capital (The inevitability of capital flight has made the redistribution of wealth pretty much impossible in a world in which neoliberal economics sets the terms of trade for the entire planet.)

Edited December 23, 2015 by SRV

[TimG]

In fact cultures often deemed to be primitive, backward, underdeveloped --cultures we destroy in the name of capitalist development and economic growth-- are more advanced in terms of recognizing the need for preserving and protecting essential resources --the land, water, air, flora and fauna we all depend on.

I believe this is a myth:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200805/exotic-culture-never-was-part-iii

Archeological evidence shows that Native Americans were no more or no less protective of the environment than were any other groups on earth. A large majority of plant and animal species that ever existed on the American continents had been driven extinct by Native Americans long before Columbus set foot in the West Indies. Environmental protection is a luxury that became possible to Western societies only in the last several decades. Before industrialization and the current age of material abundance, all human groups had to exploit the environment to the maximum just to survive. No one could afford to be environmentally conscious, and Native Americans were no exception.

Both free-market and communist development are out of touch with reality, arrogantly thinking themselves to be superior because their technological achievements cause them to imagine themselves to be more evolved on some ill-conceived Darwinian chain of social evolution.

Except the facts show that capitalists societies are not only the wealthiest but also the best able to protect the environment when such protection is necessary. If stone age societies appear to have less impact that is more a measure of their technological limitations than a conscious choice. Edited December 23, 2015 by TimG

[SRV]

I believe this is a myth:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200805/exotic-culture-never-was-part-iii

Except the facts show that capitalists societies are not only the wealthiest but also the best able to protect the environment when such protection is necessary. If stone age societies appear to have less impact that is more a measure of their technological limitations than a conscious choice.

Your link reference calls in question the authenticity of Chief Seattle's speech, and points out that Iron Eye Cody, the man who portrayed the “crying Indian” was not Native American at all. You and your link are probably right. Both Chief Seattle's speech and Iron Eye Cody being a native are probably myths. But the Native American's concern for and protection of the environment are not based solely on these two myths, What we refer to as 'resources' they refer to as 'our relations'. When they 'harvest' one of their relations they leave tobacco in recognition of the sacrifice. I have followed and accompanied native people in their struggle to protect water, forests and land from logging, fracking and pipeline projects. Contemporary examples abound. I will cite a couple of them:

B.C. First Nation voters reject $1B for LNG project in 1st of 3 votes (CBC, May 07, 2015)

The first of three votes on a natural gas benefit offer worth over $1 billion has been unanimously rejected by a First Nation on British Columbia's northwest coast.

All of the more than 180 eligible voters at a meeting in Port Simpson stood up to oppose the plan to build a liquefied-natural-gas pipeline and terminal in their territory... Residents have raised concerns over the project's environmental impact, citing the site's problematic location and the threat it poses to the watershed.

First Nation aims to evict Imperial Metals over Mount Polley tailings spill"We do not want the mine developing or operating in that sacred headwaters," CBC, Aug 14, 2014

The Neskonlith band opposed the mine long before the Mount Polley tailings spill. "We do not want the mine developing or operating in that sacred headwaters," Neskonlith Chief Judy Wilson said in an interview Wednesday. "Our elders have stated very clearly that they do not want anything poisoning our water or our salmon."

Wangan and Jagalingou people reject $16 billion Carmichael mine to be built in central Queensland (ABC Austrailia 26 Mar 2015)

"The Mundunjurra, we call the giver of water. The water comes up and travels through that land, it feeds everything, it feeds the whole area of the Carmichael River to the Belyando River, out to the Burdekin and out to the ocean and it feeds all the surrounding areas of all the other tribes," W&J people lawman Adrian Burragubba told ABC RN Breakfast."So this is the starting point of life. We consider this as our place of where we come from, our dreaming.

I could go on. The point is not only do indigenous peoples have a long tradition of having looked after Pacha Mama (Mother Earth); they are still doing it!

You go on to say:

Except the facts show that capitalists societies are not only the wealthiest but also the best able to protect the environment when such protection is necessary. If stone age societies appear to have less impact that is more a measure of their technological limitations than a conscious choice.

I can Except the facts. Accepting them is what I'm having troublee with. If wealth is money (it isn't), and "able to protect" means throwing money at a problem "when such protection is necessary", I would say that it is necessary now, and native people are throwing their bodies in the way of further destruction. I concede that the dominant culture's technology has rendered them far more destructive to the environment than any other society, past or present.

Edited December 23, 2015 by SRV

[TimG]

I could go on. The point is not only do indigenous peoples have a long tradition of having looked after Pacha Mama (Mother Earth); they are still doing it!

You seemed to have missed the point of the article. Modern natives have all of their needs provided by the capitalist state in which they reside so they can afford to play at 'protectors of the earth'. They are largely hypocrites because they have no interest in giving up the modern conveniences provided to them by the capitalist society the deride. In the past, life was not so easy and if natives had a smaller impact on the environment it was do to limitations of stone age technology - not philosophy. Of course, this also meant starvation and war if population exceeded the capacity of the land to support nomadic tribes of hunter gatherers.

I concede that the dominant culture's technology has rendered them far more destructive to the environment than any other society, past or present.

It has also provided better outcomes on almost all measures for its members. Like any tool it must be used properly but unless one can provide a credible argument that some other approach can deliver the same benefits then we cannot afford it discard the tool.

[Moonlight Graham]

You seemed to have missed the point of the article. Modern natives have all of their needs provided by the capitalist state in which they reside so they can afford to play at 'protectors of the earth'. They are largely hypocrites because they have no interest in giving up the modern conveniences provided to them by the capitalist society the deride. In the past, life was not so easy and if natives had a smaller impact on the environment it was do to limitations of stone age technology - not philosophy. Of course, this also meant starvation and war if population exceeded the capacity of the land to support nomadic tribes of hunter gatherers.

That's not quite true. Many native tribes had a lot of respect for their natural environment and animals, a lot more than we do. They worshiped the environment and animals as part of their religious beliefs too. I went to Canadian museum recently and saw a ton of historical Aboriginal artifacts and art etc., it was pretty neat. If you believe ie: certain animals have special powers and spirits, you're more likely to respect that animal. Not to say they'd never choose avoiding starvation over that respect, or that every native group was like that. Killing animals also doesn't mean you don't respect it, obviously.

Respect for the environment really has no basis in Western ideologies like liberal democracy, capitalism, and mainstream Christianity. We're more human-centered. Natives relied on and interacted with nature more than Europeans (especially the richer, more educated ones who lived in cities and influenced western philosophy), so I guess that may account for some of it.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

That's not quite true. Many native tribes had a lot of respect for their natural environment and animals, a lot more than we do. They worshiped the environment and animals as part of their religious beliefs too.

To be fair we are talking about a lot of different groups and some were probably more like than than others. The Aztecs, Olmec and Inca were more like European societies than the groups living in Canada. OTOH, hunter-gatherer economies cannot support large populations so it would not be possible to 'live in balance with nature' unless nature obliged by killing off excess humans on a regular basis which undermines the 'paradise on earth' myth. Lastly, there were likely variations within society as there are elsewhere. i.e. would you assume that the philosophy of medieval monks represented the entire society or just the cast of religious folks?

Respect for the environment really has no basis in Western ideologies like liberal democracy, capitalism, and mainstream Christianity.

Because environmentalism is a religion on its own. From the capitalist perspective the value of the environment only comes from the benefits to society (e.g. clean water, clean air are benefits). This also means that the loss of a species is not a concern unless there is a plausible economic value to the species.

There is no inherent moral superiority to the view that pre-human environment represents a pristine state that should be preserved at all costs. It is just another religious viewpoint.

Edited December 23, 2015 by TimG

[Scott Mayers]

I'm for a mixed system and believe that this is what SRV is supporting. However, I accept much of Tim's arguments in responses too.

Religion itself is a form of Nationalism or Culturalism to which I don't propose be destroyed, only taken out of the purview of government except where they appeal to all people as individuals without asserting some explicit favor or disfavor. Communism fails with the fact that it's ideology is still religious where they require a dictator as a medial stage to get to the ideal of communism. The U.S.S.R. was NOT a Communist country, by the way. It was this intermediate stage proposed by Marx because he couldn't figure out how you could remove government without some enforcement to impose the ideal of communism. He erred too in that he assumed that once a state could exist, it would be self-assuring and permanent without any dictator or other form of government. It requires sacrifice of those in an early stage to even get there and the personal biases of its dictator still creates some form of Nationalism where they tend towards nepotism for those they believe are their 'own'. Unions too become problematic through the soviet idea where the particular union losses its necessity. For instance, a particular soviet union might be a group of people who create and build some technology that would normally die out where new ideas compete against old ones and threaten replacing or even removing that group. But if you belong to that union and depend on it for your local existence, you would turn into a self-serving interest group who believes in maintaining the status quo in the illusion that since it provides employment, it is sufficiently reasonable to keep that union.

This is where I think those like Micheal Moore errs when he points to industries that leave his home town merely because it makes people jobless. You need the resource of the product or its manufacture to be viable. If a mine becomes empty, for instance, do you think it appropriate to still pay miners to continue mining even where there is no more ore? This is what happens in 'Communist' country a lot. It reduces to the nationalism in this respect.

I like Tim's references above. In particular, I too find it inappropriate to make the North American Native into some innate culture who preserves the environment. Everyone seems to pick and choose which factors apply and which don't in order to keep some form of nationalism alive with insanity. You should know, for instance, that ALL horses were killed off and went extinct by the ancient North American ancestors, for instance. The 'reserve' system also was inappropriate to represent anything remotely Native to their ancestors. They believed in 'ownership' too. But the type of things to which people had a right to their 'own' was based on their lifestyle. For the northern Americas, this was still tribal, meaning that they 'owned' routes, not fixed territory. It was merely accidentally 'communistic' in that among any group of tribes who were similarly transient, they didn't necessarily settle to agriculture as a means for sustenance. Obviously, such a lifestyle will clash with those who come and even simply build a house.

What occurred to those who would build a house in the 'path' of some tribe's route would be things even most if not all people, including Natives today, would NOT accept: Freely walking into one's home and help themselves to what they need. We call this stealing today! It wasn't perceived a crime because the routes themselves were understood as 'owned' by the Aboriginals. Reserves actually are merely limited 'pastures' that the settlers (of all races and ethnicities, even newly settling Aboriginals) had established as a means to negotiate some perceived midway to both senses of 'ownership'. But the tribal form is NOT capable of surviving rationally regardless. It had already begun in Central and South America in part and so it is delusional to think that we should permit the Aboriginal rights they had in some period before that no longer exists. Even the remote societies demand the modernization that makes them complacent to the tribal lifestyle. You can't have it both ways. Either you live transient in tent-like temporary homes using the traditional bow-and-arrows (not guns, as this is a modern tech) and without the horses that didn't exist either, OR you adapt to the modern life. You can't pick and choose which things you consider 'cultural' without accepting it all with exclusion of the privileges of the present.

[SRV]

To the OP,

I agree that religion isn't the sole (or soul?) cause of problems directly. You mentioned ideology though in a separate distinction as if all ideology has something in common to which only some religions do. The reverse is more the case because religion is merely one form of ideology. If we define "ideology" to mean any system of practice based on some idealized goal which is believed to work, and restrict this to politics alone, it would more appropriately be best to interpret the problem in all ideology (including religion) as having the property of MORALITY encompassed in the laws it uses to justify being enforced AND that to any such political ideology, they all deal with a common goal to determine how to make people ECONOMICALLY FAIR. Of course, in the last factor, "fairness" is also an intrinsic factor of morality.

I really appreciate your post! And, yes it has given me food for thought. You see religions as forms of ideology, not as an alternatives to or in competition with ideologies. And both are political insofar as they seek to exercise and control the distribution and use of power justified by their faith in their own conviction that their particular "truth" is the right and only one. That sounds about right to me. Thanks for that!

When I began this thread I was concerned by a growing number of people I encounter who shared a conviction that the incompatibility of differing religious beliefs are the primary reason for most of the war and violence on the planet today, and believed that the abolishment of religion would contribute greatly to justice and world peace. My analysis causes me to believe that the imposition of ideological convictions contributes more to war and violence than religion does, and that the abolishment of the latter would do little to promote justice and world peace. In short, I think those who focus on abolishing religion fail to see forest for the trees.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union Free Market Capitalism has asserted itself as the only viable economic system --the end of history on a Darwinian chain of social evolution, and being the most evolved, without rivals, considers itself to have the right and moral duty to recreate the world in its own image. It isn't anti-religious per say, and has shown itself more than willing to invoke God and peoples' religious beliefs (in God we trust), and the Devil (the Axis of Evil) to gain control over the world's resources. Western governments, in the service of a global corporatocracy, have found it more expedient to market their imperialistic war as religious. I don't think we should buy into that. I don't believe free market capitalism ever has or ever will result in the optimal allocation of the world's resources, nor will it manage those resources in a life-sustaining way.

I don't really have a one-size-fits-all ideology or religion to propose. They are all human constructs, and, to quote Leonard Cohen, "There's a crack in everything. That's where the light gets in" (Anthem). I believe that there are many different answers to the question "What does it mean to be a human being integrated in life on this planet?", and that we should respect and protect the collective and individual rights and value systems of all peoples and all cultures to control the use of the resources in their traditional territories. The cultures that are being wiped out in the name of development by the globalization and imposition of run amok neoliberal capitalism may have better answers and values systems than we do!

Edited December 23, 2015 by SRV

[SRV]

I'm for a mixed system and believe that this is what SRV is supporting. However, I accept much of Tim's arguments in responses too.

....You can't have it both ways. Either you live transient in tent-like temporary homes using the traditional bow-and-arrows (not guns, as this is a modern tech) and without the horses that didn't exist either, OR you adapt to the modern life. You can't pick and choose which things you consider 'cultural' without accepting it all with exclusion of the privileges of the present.

Again, I appreciate your post and insights. You are right, I am an advocate for celebrating, learning from, and protecting diversity. It would be stupid to burn our whole library after having found what for the moment is our favorite book. And I don't very much like the book that seems to have become the favorite.

I liked the mining the empty mine analogy, and your point that we err if preserving the status quo requires us deny new realities. I also liked your insights into cultural values and difference in how they view property etc.

I take issue with your last statement however. I will invoke a Wade Davis quote:

Change is no threat to culture. All cultures through all time have constantly been engaged in a dance with new possibilities for life. Change is the one constant in human history. Nor is technology in and of itself a threat to culture. The Sioux Indians did not stop being Sioux when they gave up the bow and arrow anymore than an American farmer ceased being an American when he put aside the horse and buggy in favor of the automobile. It is not change or technology that threatens culture; it is power, the crude face of domination.

Returning to or retaining traditional values does not mean native people must return to their former lifestyles before the arrival of the Europeans. That would be the equivalent to working an empty mine. Even if it were desirable it is not an option. And, as other posts have pointed out, native peoples are not a single homogeneous group that subscribed to a single set of values. Further south --in Colombia for instance, where I spend most of my time-- native people engaged in agriculture as well as hunting and gathering, and were not as transient as they were here in Canada. But they shared very similar understandings of economics which differ greatly from those of the predominant global culture in which they have been immersed. Again, they are not one homogeneous group, and some have assimilated much more than others. But on average, a greater percentage of native people than members of the dominant European culture believe that the basis of their economy is the water, land, air, flor and fauna in their traditional territory, and that these must be looked after. Even largely mestizo campesinos in Latin America have more in common with indigenous peoples in this regard than with the dominant culture. They belong to the land, not vice versa. By contrast the dominant European culture considers the harvesting, processing and marketing of these resources to be the basis of their economy. The former requires integrating and living in harmony with the ecosphere; the latter requires dominating, manipulating, controlling and ultimately selling the ecosystem. This difference of cultural values isn't obliterated by new technologies. It does, however, determine how they are used.

This is important for two reasons. First, our own governments have ceded control over national resources to global corporations. Attempts to limit or bar corporate access to these resources are met with law suits in international trade tribunals who will sue us for lost future profits if we pass environmental laws or introduce social policies that cut into their profits. We have lost sovereignty over our own resources. (Lone Pine Resources Files Outrageous NAFTA Lawsuit Against Fracking Ban) Secondly, native peoples --Canada's First Nations-- still have a legal right to control access to these same resources. Natives like the Mi'kmaq on the East Coast have never ceded territory and only signed friendship treaties, while in central Canada natives have retained fishing, hunting and logging rights over their traditional territories, and in the British Colombia 98% of natives have not signed any treaty at all! (Supreme Court's Tsilhqot'in First Nation ruling a game-changer for all )Natives have retained their sovereignty and a legal right to Canada's resources while Canadians have forfeited those same rights in favour of trade agreements.

The happy coincidence that natives have legal rights over much of Canada's territory and that many natives have retained or are in the process of recovering their traditional values is very hopeful! They are fighting to regain control over resources that corporations seek to exploit to the detriment of us all! They actively, often at great sacrifice, resist mines, tailings ponds, pipelines, gas-fracking operations, clear-cutting,etc., often rejecting generous offers for compensation. This phenomenon is not unique to Canada. It is happening all over the world! And I am very much in favour of and heartened by it!

Edited December 23, 2015 by SRV

[Moonlight Graham]

Because environmentalism is a religion on its own. From the capitalist perspective the value of the environment only comes from the benefits to society (e.g. clean water, clean air are benefits). This also means that the loss of a species is not a concern unless there is a plausible economic value to the species.

There is no inherent moral superiority to the view that pre-human environment represents a pristine state that should be preserved at all costs. It is just another religious viewpoint.

Environmentalism is just another philosophical viewpoint, with many variants. The tension between capitalism and environmentalism is somewhat as you said, where capitalism is primarily concerned with economic prosperity to humans at costs to the environment, and environmentalism is concerned with maintaining a sustainable environment often at costs to economic prosperity. It can be a bit more complex than that, but the whole thing everyone needs to decide where they draw the line on the tradeoffs between economics and the environment On one extreme end is economics/profits at any cost to environment, and at the other extreme end is preserving the economy at any cost to the economy. The best way is probably somewhere in-between, making sure we have a healthy economy but preserving it well enough so that it's not longterm or permanently ruined for future generations where it may negatively impact their health or economy.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

The best way is probably somewhere in-between, making sure we have a healthy economy but preserving it well enough so that it's not longterm or permanently ruined for future generations where it may negatively impact their health or economy.

The trouble is many the questions come down to risk assessment. For example, while it is true that nuclear power does produce waste that is toxic for a long time it is a relatively small amount of waste that can be managed. Where someone stands on nuclear power comes down to one's willingness to accept small risks in return for a benefit. To matters worse, the people expressing opinions on nuclear often know next to nothing about the power system and take it for granted which makes it hard for them to understand the benefits while opposing it because of perceived risks to the environment. Edited December 26, 2015 by TimG

[carepov]

...

In short, it seems to me that in the upper echelons of power people's religious and ideological beliefs are equally fanatical, blind and easily manipulated. A move towards a more secular society and world view will do little to nothing to promote justice, prosperity and peace. Cultures and human rights are not threatened by innovation and a lack of adaptability. They are threatened by an imbalance and abuse of power. Mutual respect for and appreciation and protection of diversity will do far more to promote justice, prosperity and peace for all than top-down religious, ideological or economic constructs!

You are using ideological constructs to argue against ideology!

IMO, the problem is not excessive ideology/religion it that most people have the wrong ideology/religion. The only way to unite and lead vast numbers of people towards a common goal is to construct a better story (ideology/religion) than the one they currently have.

[SRV]

You are using ideological constructs to argue against ideology!

IMO, the problem is not excessive ideology/religion it that most people have the wrong ideology/religion. The only way to unite and lead vast numbers of people towards a common goal is to construct a better story (ideology/religion) than the one they currently have.

Am I using an ideological construct? My opinion is that no ideology or religion or construct embodies the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I thought I was arguing for respect for and the protection of a huge and diverse body of opinion, beliefs, knowledge and insights, and against the proliferation and imposition of a singular one-size-fits and knows all world view! What seems like a 'better story' to some may not resonate with the life experiences and values of others. Finding what one for the moment one considers to be a better or even the best story does not justify burning everyone else's library. That would be a recipe for intolerance and conflict, not to mention arrogant. It would also be ill-advised. You might find a better story, or wish to modify your own after having heard other people's stories and/or after having had new life experiences and gained new insights.

Leonard Cohen on human constructs:

Anthem

...

You can add up the parts

but you won't have the sum

You can strike up the march,

there is no drum

To every heart, every heart

a love will come

but like a refugee.

Ring the bells that still can ring

Forget your perfect offering

There is a crack, a crack in everything

That's how the light gets in. [my emphasis]

Edited December 30, 2015 by SRV

[Scott Mayers]

I take issue with your last statement however. I will invoke a Wade Davis quote:

Change is no threat to culture. All cultures through all time have constantly been engaged in a dance with new possibilities for life. Change is the one constant in human history. Nor is technology in and of itself a threat to culture. The Sioux Indians did not stop being Sioux when they gave up the bow and arrow anymore than an American farmer ceased being an American when he put aside the horse and buggy in favor of the automobile. It is not change or technology that threatens culture; it is power, the crude face of domination.

Returning to or retaining traditional values does not mean native people must return to their former lifestyles before the arrival of the Europeans. That would be the equivalent to working an empty mine. Even if it were desirable it is not an option.

I disagree with your interpretation here. Culture will obviously evolve naturally (voluntarily). My concern is to having our constitution enable our governments to command culture non-voluntarily by their power to make law that favors specific cultural groups as if they were distinct beings apart from the rest of the population. Also, since these laws act to preserve traditions, they enhance a form of 'purity' to be imposed even on the select favored groups. Intermarriage or other cross-cultural progressive ideas would NOT be welcome in the fold.

And, as other posts have pointed out, native peoples are not a single homogeneous group that subscribed to a single set of values. Further south --in Colombia for instance, where I spend most of my time-- native people engaged in agriculture as well as hunting and gathering, and were not as transient as they were here in Canada. But they shared very similar understandings of economics which differ greatly from those of the predominant global culture in which they have been immersed. Again, they are not one homogeneous group, and some have assimilated much more than others. But on average, a greater percentage of native people than members of the dominant European culture believe that the basis of their economy is the water, land, air, flor and fauna in their traditional territory, and that these must be looked after. Even largely mestizo campesinos in Latin America have more in common with indigenous peoples in this regard than with the dominant culture. They belong to the land, not vice versa. By contrast the dominant European culture considers the harvesting, processing and marketing of these resources to be the basis of their economy. The former requires integrating and living in harmony with the ecosphere; the latter requires dominating, manipulating, controlling and ultimately selling the ecosystem. This difference of cultural values isn't obliterated by new technologies. It does, however, determine how they are used.

False. There is nothing biologically inherent about the North American Indigenous HUMANS to be somehow uniquely tied to the land while us 'Old World' humans are somehow assumed not to be. This is absurd. I already recognize that there is/was high variation in the original populations here. Now if you still insist this, then you are admitting that we have no hope. If those of us of the Old World (ancestrally) are inversely doomed to be somehow unattached to this same Earth with the same ideals that you grant the N.A. Natives, then you'd either have to simply accept this genetic factor just another rational to retain any of 'our' unEarthly natures. Why should European descendants interpret themselves as inferiors rather than embrace the same Nationalism(s) that our Multicultural system is enabling on others?

Nationalism breeds Nationalism in a never-ending cycle.

As to your other extra points, whether our Aboriginal community is supporting something that we or others share, it is still inappropriate to address these concerns as being of 'Aboriginally' owned. They and all of us would approve better if such organizations address environmental concerns without prefacing them with proprietary titles that indicate some innate authority these special people somehow naturally own.

Absurd counterexample: what if we proposed the a world environmental organization we'll call, the "Nazi Environmental Movement"? How well do you think this would go over? And don't think this so absurd if you accept the idea that the Indigenous have some special wisdom and authority over the Earth that we somehow lack. I am from this Earth too. And this land is MY LAND too! I know of no other.

[carepov]

Am I using an ideological construct? My opinion is that no ideology or religion or construct embodies the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I thought I was arguing for respect for and the protection of a huge and diverse body of opinion, beliefs, knowledge and insights, and against the proliferation and imposition of a singular one-size-fits and knows all world view! What seems like a 'better story' to some may not resonate with the life experiences and values of others. Finding what one for the moment one considers to be a better or even the best story does not justify burning everyone else's library. That would be a recipe for intolerance and conflict, not to mention arrogant. It would also be ill-advised. You might find a better story, or wish to modify your own after having heard other people's stories and/or after having had new life experiences and gained new insights.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are a follower and proponent of the ideology of liberal humanism, most notably guided by the idea of human rights as described in the UDHR.

I did not mean to imply that there should be a single ideology/religion that embodies the whole truth and nothing but the truth. People have multiple stories and even conflicting stories.

IMO it is futile to harp against religion/ideology as I understood you were doing in your OP. Instead we should promote the "good" stories and criticise the specific "bad" stories while we accept that "stories" will always be part of our human nature.

[SRV]

My concern is to having our constitution enable our governments to command culture non-voluntarily by their power to make law that favors specific cultural groups as if they were distinct beings apart from the rest of the population. Also, since these laws act to preserve traditions, they enhance a form of 'purity' to be imposed even on the select favored groups. Intermarriage or other cross-cultural progressive ideas would NOT be welcome in the fold.

My concern, on the other hand, is that our governments do have the ability to command culture that disfavours First Nations. The Canadian and other governments exercise that power in a way that, at best forces non-voluntary assimilation, and at worst wipes out cultures who fail to integrate into or make their resources available as commodities in the global marketplace. I am not advocating Canada and other nation states dictate if, when and how First Nation cultures should evolve and adapt and evolve --introduce legislation to preserve the 'purity' of First Nations; those are decisions that should be the sole purview of these nations themselves. An example of existing laws and practices that disfavour First Nations: Here in Canada and globally their is no requirement to obtain the Free Prior Informed Consent of First Nations in any country before FTAs are negotiated. FTAs include the traditional territory of First Nations. Another example: The Canadian mining industry does not seek FPIC either. The imposition of such development models may not quite meet the definition of cultural genocide; the objective is not to wipe out other cultures but rather to acquire access to their land and resources. Nevertheless, because the elimination of native cultures is a predictable, inevitable and avoidable consequence of land and resource grabs, it certainly qualifies as criminal negligence! The status quo threatens the survival of First Nations, and recognizing the nationhood of First Nations would help address that injustice. Our sovereignty and control over the environment has and continues to be undermined by the handing over of control to a global corporatocracy. We, the settlers, are now being colonized by a global corporatocracy. Recognizing native autonomy and land rights might undermine the power of that corporatocracy.

False. There is nothing biologically inherent about the North American Indigenous HUMANS to be somehow uniquely tied to the land while us 'Old World' humans are somehow assumed not to be. This is absurd. I already recognize that there is/was high variation in the original populations here. Now if you still insist this, then you are admitting that we have no hope. If those of us of the Old World (ancestrally) are inversely doomed to be somehow unattached to this same Earth with the same ideals that you grant the N.A. Natives, then you'd either have to simply accept this genetic factor just another rational to retain any of 'our' unEarthly natures. Why should European descendants interpret themselves as inferiors rather than embrace the same Nationalism(s) that our Multicultural system is enabling on others?

I have never said that First Nations or native people are more biologically or genetically disposed to look after the environment. I believe their respect for and appreciation of the environment (Pacha Mama or Mother Earth) is cultural and religious, not genetically programmed into their DNA.

Life experiences of First Nations taught them that nature can be both hospitable and hostile --a benevolent or vindictive force that must be reckconed with. She could not be controlled, and must therefore be respected, accommodated and worshipped as a Higher Power. People could exercise control over each other, their neighbours or other tribes, but not over Mother Nature. The dictates of Mother Nature had to be obeyed, and she had to be appeased and worshipped. There are many variants as to how they worshipped and showed appreciation, but for the most part nature was seen as an omnipotent power that could not be subdued.

The European settlers, on the other hand, were influenced by a Judaeo-Christian set of beliefs. None of the ten commandments handed down by Moises or even the laws set out in the entire book of Leviticus talk about protecting or respecting the environment. On the contrary! In Genesis Adam and Eve were told by God to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Instead of worshipping nature Europeans were ordered by God to subdue it. And that's what they did and continue to do! Today many have abandoned their religious beliefs, but these values live on in the globalization of a neoliberal economic model that seeks to exploit and commodify everything it comes across, regardless of on whose territory they 'discover' resources. The Catholic Papel Bull and the Doctrine of Discovery, along with the Protestant 'Manifest Destiny', have given way to corporate 'bull' and a 'moral imperative' to subdue and 'develop the underdeveloped' --i.e. all peoples and all resources on the earth.

Both of these beliefs and values systems are human constructs, and neither of them are programmed into the DNA. European settlers and their descendants, or settlers from anywhere else for that matter, can and do adapt a more wholistic worldview that includes respect for the environment. I am simply arguing that First Nations have less adapting to do in this regard than the rest of us, and therefore there is a lot we can learn from them,

Meanwhile, while we settlers are learning new things, we should appreciate, protect, encourage and learn from the wisdom of First Nations and decolonize the resources we have taken away from them.

Edited December 31, 2015 by SRV

[SRV]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are a follower and proponent of the ideology of liberal humanism, most notably guided by the idea of human rights as described in the UDHR.

I did not mean to imply that there should be a single ideology/religion that embodies the whole truth and nothing but the truth. People have multiple stories and even conflicting stories.

IMO it is futile to harp against religion/ideology as I understood you were doing in your OP. Instead we should promote the "good" stories and criticise the specific "bad" stories while we accept that "stories" will always be part of our human nature.

Oh! I was unaware that there was an ideology called Liberal Humanism. I'll look into it. I had heard of something called secular humanism, which some Christian fundamentalists I know perceive as a diabolical threat to Christian doctrine.

I don't want to harp against or even try to abolish existing religions or ideologies. I just don't want them to presume they have a right or duty to disrespect or abolish those who have a different narrative/story. That too is a form of book-burning and censorship.

Edited December 31, 2015 by SRV

[Scott Mayers]

I respect your ideas here as I too share a lot of them philosophically.

Politics with regards to ownership (Capitalism or Communism, as extremes) is hard to determine precisely how to deal with that could be satisfactory to all. But I assure you that the concept of ownership beyond what one can literally carry is an inevitable quality of all living things that settle in more localized areas. It is also not a product of even the Judaeo-Christian religion either. In fact, from Genesis, the whole identity of the Middle Eastern ideology (of most religions there) was about transitioning from a tribal to a settled lifestyle. In this sense, the depth of these early periods of settlement was carefully thought over as the transient peoples in this area competed with those claiming land as a right to one's own.

Religion is often only a political means to assert some authority of what they 'own' by placing the ultimate arbiter of natural authority in a remote unreachable entity. Our Queen represents the 'portal' to the English authority of 'ownership' privileges granted by a God in this way. This is because outside of any religious context, not even morality to any degree matters and thus requires arbitrary force to keep people willing to obey laws.

Our American Indigenous people are NOT immune to this and it had occurred with equal problems in the Central Americas as they were just going through their pyramid phase which is the first phase to transitioning to agriculture and settlement. To assert our Canadian Indigenous ancestors even had the degree to need real estate claims other than their contemporary needs to be free wherever they happen to be at in the moment makes any claim to a right to such kind of 'ownership' invalid as it was NOT something intrinsic to their culture. Today's children of these ancestors thus do not have the inherent right of 'culture' to own fixed lands based on them.

My concern, on the other hand, is that our governments do have the ability to command culture that disfavours First Nations. The Canadian and other governments exercise that power in a way that, at best forces non-voluntary assimilation, and at worst wipes out cultures who fail to integrate into or make their resources available as commodities in the global marketplace. I am not advocating Canada and other nation states dictate if, when and how First Nation cultures should evolve and adapt and evolve --introduce legislation to preserve the 'purity' of First Nations; those are decisions that should be the sole purview of these nations themselves. An example of existing laws and practices that disfavour First Nations: Here in Canada and globally their is no requirement to obtain the Free Prior Informed Consent of First Nations in any country before FTAs are negotiated. FTAs include the traditional territory of First Nations. Another example: The Canadian mining industry does not seek FPIC either. While this practice may not quite meet the definition of cultural genocide, given that the objective is not to wipe out the culture but rather to appropriate their land and resources, it certain constitutes criminal negligence! The status quo threatens the survival of First Nations, and recognizing the nationhood of First Nations would help address that injustice.

Yes, the government has the power to command BECAUSE we have Mutlicultural ideals that were derived from the same thinking that also 'favors' specific cultures now and to which you inversely also agree to. That is, if you have a concern that the government imposes hardships upon select peoples, it requires divorcing the right of Constitutional protections for ANY culture, religion, or ethnicity in law.

The justification for other societies in the world to dismiss the Tribal Aboriginal claims is because they do not consistently represent 'ownership' in the same ways. To grant a Tribal society the right to their original idea of 'ownership' would require that any Aboriginal should have a right to completely dismiss the 'ownership' that has evolved to include fixed lands, not merely routes. If you had to be literally sincere to the Indigenous 'culture' they had before modern society, we'd have to allow any Native to wander in your own home and help themselves to what they need where they feel they need it AND to whatever force they need to get it without penalty in 'our' modern laws. They should be allowed to hunt anywhere and would have to include a right to indiscriminately 'hunt' people even, should this be required. This is absurd and why modern 'ownership' ideals still compete with supposed contracts (Treaties) made in some blurred and misunderstood way. "Reserves" were a kind of means to reserve their 'routes' in tribal lifestyle where they did not intend to represent a fixed ownership. This blurring of agreements made thus cannot be appropriately reconciled. It DOES require the 'First Nations' to adapt to 'ownership' as the rest of the world does OR to die out.

It is absolutely incompatible to allow a pre-civilized lifestyle to coexist with a civilized one ['civil' here means settled organization as opposed to the tribal hunt-gather chaos of our natural animal lifestyles before such formal organizing.]

I have never said that First Nations or native people are more biologically or genetically disposed to look after the environment. I believe their respect for and appreciation of the environment (Pacha Mama or Mother Earth) is cultural and religious, not genetically programmed into their DNA.

I know you didn't say this but nor does anyone overtly. However, it is implicitly assumed because in our society, we are not allowed to 'own' a chosen culture with the same protection. That is, if I was adopted by an Aboriginal family, I would NOT have the same rights granted to Aboriginals. This can only imply that our genetic heritage is how Multiculturalism interprets this idea Constitutionally. Likewise, if an Aboriginal is adopted to a non-Aboriginal family, they are capable of making a claim to be an inheritor of the First Nation status.

Life experiences of First Nations taught them that nature can be both hospitable and hostile --a benevolent or vindictive force that must be reckconed with. She could not be controlled, and must therefore be respected and worshipped as a higher power. People could exercise control over their neighbours or other tribes, but not over Mother Nature. The dictates of Mother Nature had to be obeyed, and she had to be appeased and worshipped. There are many variants as to how they worshipped and showed appreciation, but for the most part nature was seen as an omnipotent power that could not be subdued.

This interpretation is still false. All our own ancestors everywhere believed nature had superiority over us....and we all still do! Abuses to our environment was equally a natural function to the Indigenous ancestors. Here in North America, they effectively wiped out horses, as a mere example. Just because their societies back then lacked the kinds of environmental abuses we have today does not make them any more wiser. Our present abuses are about mass psychology, like the "Bystander Effect" where being independently insignificant in greater populations make us less concerned about the environment as a whole as we feel unnecessary to deal with. These problems CAN be addressed politically. We'd have to address how, for instance, we grant the right of incorporation laws for business, not cultures.

The European settlers, on the other hand, were influenced by a Judaeo-Christian set of beliefs. None of the ten commandments handed down by Moises or even the laws set out in the entire book of Leviticus talk about protecting or respecting the environment.

This is one interpretation. I have personally been invested in learning of source scriptures as I believe they all have hints that these originally were more secular in origin and related to environmental concerns. Genesis evolved as a story that ended on the 'Jew' to have recognized that even their own initial 'good' intent to help out the Egyptians was also as selfishly in error and destructive. This is why they interpreted themselves as being punished by God (as Nature). There is too much ground on this to bother introducing here. But I have elsewhere. [i have two theories (conjectures) about religion that I believe explains it in a rational evolutionary sense.]

You cannot interpret the "Be fruitful and multiply" as to be about 'subduing' it in the derogatory nature you have inferred. This was equally what even North American Indigenous believed too. The land and reality by many regardless of where you were evolved in social development interprets the Earth as intended to be exploited for their needs.

Scott.

P.S. Like I said, I appreciate your thinking and ideals. Yet I also recognize, being an atheist and somewhat nihilistic, that no matter what we might present as 'fair' to each other is not even remotely a concern about nature regardless. Bacteria, as 'nature', will equally keep be unconcerned about nature as a whole as they will outproduce and exploit their environment without concern to the fact their very act also can defeat them. The world, in effect, doesn't even NEED ANY living thing to exist. We only impose meaning to life with respect to our own selfish desire to impose this upon Nature too, in an ignorant and arrogant fashion. Those in business who often compete against environmental issues are as much non-religiously sound in light of a nihilist interpretation. To them, unless there IS some God, what does it matter to even be concerned about some future society when we could exploit it now. It may not appeal to us. But this is more about our own way we have assigned morality based on our own experiences only.