When the headline of a major Canadian newspaper is "God will save us from climate change: US Representative", I can't help but laugh - at first.
John Shimkus really is a member of the house in the US. He really does believe that man cannot destroy what "god" has created. That's funny in the sense of "that's fucking stupid." It's not funny in the sense of "wholly fuck - he's actually an elected member of the house who can affect policy change".
You see, no matter what your beliefs/ideas are about global climate change, the idea that ONLY "god" can end the existence of humans is wrong and the implications of such an idea could be horrible. Humans do have the ability to end humanity.
The most religious nations on earth have stockpiles of nuclear (and other) weapons. So maybe John is right - "god" may save us from climate change - by having "his" followers, on earth, continue the war over who has the best imaginary friend. Total destruction of humanity in the short term would save us from extinction in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Saw the video on Pharyngula earlier today. Shimkus is a complete moron.
I love the line “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done." I interpret that as "Damn, I really fucked up this creation thing. But I'll give myself another shot, because after all, nobody's perf... err..never mind."
You have it right sherwood. He could never have followed the argument or applied the "but god is perfect" argument. Sarnia is right when he implies that this is scary.
Excellent point. I always forget to include that when discussing god belief. If your god is perfect, that would mean he can't/doesn't make mistakes. Why, then, did he have to drown almost all of his "creation"?
It is scary. I do accept that humans are contributing to global warming but I also see little need to make an argument for its acceptance - if we are wrong about AGW but we have replaced our need for fossil fuels with truly renewable energy, is that bad?
To have someone in a position to affect policy change, a person that believes no matter what we do, god's will will be done and the earth will not be destroyed, is depressingly frightening.
Why aren't public statements, like his, enough for public outrage? Where are the "moderates", where are the "accommodationists" now?
Sir, your beliefs are absolutely absurd and you are a threat to your country and our world.
Same goes with Sarah Palin.
Global warming will not destroy the earth. It will change it but life finds a way to survive/adapt. The earth's complex systems may surprise us too in that it may regulate the temperature in other ways.
Go green by more NUCLEAR is the only solution. Screw the wind and solar for now until some form of energy storage is available to fill in the times when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine!
Nuclear is always available and it is truly CO2 free!
I'm not suggesting that global warming will destroy the earth (I don't think many people would argue that, either). End humanity? Possible, sure. I'm concerned that the current energy policy needs to keep the future in mind and some whackjob ignorning how it impacts foreign policy is a recipe for disaster.
Nuclear war could end humanity and a wingnut that believes nothing (but god) could end humanity should hardly be involved in making laws that, ultimately, relate to how the US moves forward, deals with other nations and handles energy policy.
Nuclear power is not risk-free. I do not think it should be "avoided at all costs" - I do think it should play a major part in our energy production but let's not throw all caution to the wind.
No matter the position you take on nuclear, the answer isn't to pretend that we'll never run out of oil or that we should just keep drilling everywhere without concern.
And the answer is NEVER "god" - unless the question is "can you think of anything that people hold in high regard despite it not existing?"
Ontario gets more than 50% right now from Nuclear plants and how many do we really have? so almost double that or even add just one more Bruce and you can forget all the wind turbine and solar farm crap that we are really going to pay the price for in the next 20 years.
Yes, we have to keep wackjobs away from the nuclear button.
BTW, have you watched the video about the time sequence/location and who detonated nuclear devices? over 2000 detonations have occurred and we are still here but it could explain a lot of cancers since the 60s.......
Not sure about cancers caused, but I did see the video and was admittedly surprised at the number of tests performed. The map looked like a flashing Christmas tree at times. Regarding nuclear power, I think we need more facilities and a levellig off of wind/solar, mainly because of the costs involved. With the prices guaranteed to suppliers of these technologies by our prov government, we wont be able to afford hydro in the near future.
Post a Comment