UTT - Blog Post 20

You get in a huge argument with Nathan and Sara about how to properly celebrate Earth Day on April 22nd.  Go to this web address and write out a Christian approach to environmentalism.
http://celdf.org/downloads/FINAL%20UNIVERSAL%20DECLARATION%20OF%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20MOTHER%20EARTH%20APRIL%2022%202010.pdf

        Our Christian approach to Environmentalism is quite simple and can be broken down into two or three simple areas. Firstly, man was created to have dominion over the Earth and all that is within it. With that in mind, we are to be good stewards, treating everything with respect, while still filling the Earth and subduing it. That’s Christian “environmentalism” in a nutshell.

        But let’s break it down a little bit here and look at that first sentence: “Man was created to have dominion over the Earth and all that is within it.” In Genesis chapter one, it says that man is to “fill the Earth and subdue it,” so therefore man is to be seen as above the rest of creation. That means, to a Christian, a human has more value than, say, a tree or an animal, which is definitely different than some of the radical environmentalists would claim. We are to subdue the Earth, or said another way, to control it and use it for our purposes.

        Yet, at the same time, one must remember that the Earth is as much a part of God’s creation as we are and we should, as Christians, always respect that which God has made. Unnecessary waste, destruction, and purposeless desolation of the ground and living material are really shames and shouldn’t happen. Is it worth threatening the lives of human beings over? I don’t believe so. Yet, the environment is a gift from God and should be respected and taken care of, because of what it is. Does that mean radicalism is okay? No, radicalism is never truly okay. Moderate conservatism is where it’s at, but that is all my opinion. =)

        So there we have a little bit of my take on Christian “environmentalism.”

UTT - Blog Post 19

Response to Michael Moore’s statement: “I’m kind of tired…and bored of debating a sixteenth century economic philosophy versus a nineteenth century economic philosophy. It’s the twenty-first century. Can’t we come up with something new?”

        Well, this is actually a pretty easy statement to respond to, because it’s so basically nonsensical. To begin, though, I’ll put a little background up on this: Michael Moore is saying that he is sick of hearing a “sixteenth-century economic philosophy” (Capitalism) being debated with a “nineteenth century economic philosophy” (Socialism and, eventually, Communism). So, that’s where he’s coming from when he makes that statement.

        To respond to it is simple, though: Why ignore things that are still relevant today just because they were created several hundred years ago? We use concepts born since the beginning of time and never have any issues with them—an idea is an idea wherever it comes from, and if a better option isn’t out there, then we use what we have. Just because it was created in a past century doesn’t make it any less valid if it is still applicable in today’s markets, which both ideas have proven to be.

        I guess, from my viewpoint, his statement is simply nonsensical in nature. It’s not an applicable argument towards why something should or shouldn’t be applied to economics; “I’m tired of hearing about this” doesn’t make it any less true. If those are the two reigning economic models in the world today, then they are what we have to work with. The “new” ones that he seems to want to badly really haven’t panned out at all. In fact, they don’t even appear on a decent-sized scale because they simply aren’t plausible. Simply because something was created at a later date doesn’t always make it better.

        So, in conclusion, then, I would say that his statement isn’t a valid one. It implies a lot that isn’t the case and tries to ignore a debate due to irrelevant factors. If he wants to push an agenda, it would be nice if he could at least use an argument that works with facts rather than just opinion.