Tortured critique of the wonderful Pope. Good luck with that.
42
Not for a moment do I believe that Mr. Douthat believes what he writes. We can expect that his clever and distracting, though transparent and unoriginal terms, catastrophism and dynamism will be embraced by apologists and enablers of the dynamically catastrophic industries that refuse to operate, and would enjoy a fraction of their profits, off the public dole. Let's see their morally-superior dynamism when they include in their costs all the destruction they cause to the environment and public health. Let them pay a fair price to the public whose resources are handed-over for a pittance by corrupt governments and governments, like ours, whose laws have legalized what we all recognize as corruption by other names. Mr. Douthat professes a deep concern for the poor while boosting the institutions that ignore them, at best, and enjoy quarter after quarter of record profits thanks to our indifference to them which this piece is intended to bolster.
Could we all not waste 20% less electricity, gas and food without the onerous decline in quality of life that Douthat fears? That would be the environmental equivalent of a planet with 1.4 billion fewer people.
Self-serving conservatives have accused the Pope of straying from morality into politics. I encourage them to stick with politics and leave moral issues like climate change to those, like Pope Francis, with a sense of morality.
Could we all not waste 20% less electricity, gas and food without the onerous decline in quality of life that Douthat fears? That would be the environmental equivalent of a planet with 1.4 billion fewer people.
Self-serving conservatives have accused the Pope of straying from morality into politics. I encourage them to stick with politics and leave moral issues like climate change to those, like Pope Francis, with a sense of morality.
46
Liberals should take a lesson here on how to reframe an argument.
We must stop calling them "climate change deniers" and start calling them "pro-pollution". That's what this is about. The GOP is fighting to allow corporations to pollute our country, our water, and our air.
We must stop calling them "climate change deniers" and start calling them "pro-pollution". That's what this is about. The GOP is fighting to allow corporations to pollute our country, our water, and our air.
84
The Pope's first concern has been about how the poor will fare with the onslaught of climate change. The rich will be able to pipe in water, pay for resources, move to more stable environments. The poor will be stuck. Francis attacks power because the power is rich and comfortable, not as threatened by the possibility of drastic weather change. Someone needs to expose the leadership and stand up for the poor and powerless. Finally a religious leader on a global scale, the pope, has the courage to attack and offer ideas for real change.
43
The selective adherence to the Pope by the political left entertains anyone with common sense. They condemn the Papacy on abortion and praise the building with the colored smoke on global warming. The overwhelming lack of intellectual consistency regarding the Pope's enunciations endlessly entertains.
For non-Catholics with intellectual integrity the response to the Holy Father's pronouncements, NUTS!
For non-Catholics with intellectual integrity the response to the Holy Father's pronouncements, NUTS!
2
What is meant by "the poor are less poor"? They have a refrigerator, a microwave, a cellphone? Maybe. But do they still have to have two or three jobs to keep that up? Probably. In the U.S. we have "working poor" whose life means they are always tired. They can't meet with the school teachers and staff because if they miss work one time they can be fired. It is a time and quality of life issue. It is an issue of the success of their children. An issue of the length of their lives and how soon their bodies will wear out or their guilt will get to them and they start drugs and/or alcohol to avoid it all. We do not live in a country that makes it okay to be poor. One cannot sit on one's petard if one is poor unless they are out of their minds.
25
Ross Douthat seems to think he is more Catholic than the Pope,
29
No, I can't accept the label of dynamist for James Inhofe. A dynamist must be supportive of experimentation and change. A dynamist must be part of the possible solutions, not an obstructionist. Finally, a dynamist who believes in God must accept that we, as humans are active agents of progress, not passive watchers and critics. How many climate change deniers meet those criteria? Most wear blinders that were put in place by position, motive or ideological alignment.
29
June 21, 2015
The genius of the Papal politics is the first and always the spiritual accountability to itself and then to confront the rest of humanity in terms of their voice on – as in this case the ecology of the planet.
One must line up the proclamations by say – Islam, or Hindu or Buddhist and as well the secular nations of modernity that are many and all listed as the top one hundred economies.
Spiritual authority and challenge to itself and the world is what will drive the desired effect to ask all on earth to balance the material realities and the spiritual effects.
Who owns Earth in and for the praise of the on high is always consequential to humanity’s destiny to guide the lives toward – be fruitful and multiply – and with the grace of rational accommodations to the world of the harmony of flora and fauna with justice to making this Earthly mansion praise to all who have lived and will live for loving care in faith and world dominion.
Jja Manhattan, N. Y.
The genius of the Papal politics is the first and always the spiritual accountability to itself and then to confront the rest of humanity in terms of their voice on – as in this case the ecology of the planet.
One must line up the proclamations by say – Islam, or Hindu or Buddhist and as well the secular nations of modernity that are many and all listed as the top one hundred economies.
Spiritual authority and challenge to itself and the world is what will drive the desired effect to ask all on earth to balance the material realities and the spiritual effects.
Who owns Earth in and for the praise of the on high is always consequential to humanity’s destiny to guide the lives toward – be fruitful and multiply – and with the grace of rational accommodations to the world of the harmony of flora and fauna with justice to making this Earthly mansion praise to all who have lived and will live for loving care in faith and world dominion.
Jja Manhattan, N. Y.
2
Douthat should read the sources he quotes. The World Bank report that he cites shows that the most significant decline in 'extreme poverty' driving the 'global reduction - earning LESS than $1.25 per day - occurred in China. This is much different from arguing that the "global poor have become steadily less poor." In fact, the WB describes how the poverty rate in Sub-Saharan has steadily climbed during these years. This increase in Sub Saharan Africa occurred despite the incredible wealth that transnational corporations - having bribed and bought authoritarian politicians - remove from the country as oil, minerals and precious stones.
But "steadily less poor" is not something that can just be measured by forcing people into a cash economy and 'guesstimating' their daily income. The rural poor in Latin America, Africa, and Asia have lost access to land they owned individually or collectively or had the right to work, which provided a source of food and shelter Their dispossession follows similar routes where local and global elites desire the land to produce biofuel material or extract metals or other resources from the ground. (http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/12/14/big-land-grabs-accelerate-dis...
This is not to romanticize rural poverty, but the alternative is found in the slums where the dispossessed are forced to live.
But "steadily less poor" is not something that can just be measured by forcing people into a cash economy and 'guesstimating' their daily income. The rural poor in Latin America, Africa, and Asia have lost access to land they owned individually or collectively or had the right to work, which provided a source of food and shelter Their dispossession follows similar routes where local and global elites desire the land to produce biofuel material or extract metals or other resources from the ground. (http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/12/14/big-land-grabs-accelerate-dis...
This is not to romanticize rural poverty, but the alternative is found in the slums where the dispossessed are forced to live.
29
Both Douthat and Brooks defend global capitalism as the source of the slow but definable decline in global poverty. What they fail to see is that while capitalism is indeed quite good at accelerating the creation of wealth, it is liberal democracy and the tempering influence of regulation and the rule of law that control the distribution of global wealth. Without liberalism, there would be no decline in global poverty, just more concentration of wealth. Anyone notice the that the recent increase in global inequality seems to parallel the slow decline in liberalism and the fraying of our democratic system?
29
Here's a question posed particularly to the 'conservative' side. Conservatism does not inherently reject science or facts -- that is only a recent aberration. It consists instead in an approach to solutions that, as you say, believes in and encourages the 'genius of the free market.' Conservatism is indeed forward-looking, even if we see precious little of that today.
If for a moment the reality of climate change is accepted — rather than written off as 'catastrophism' — by conservatives, what is the most practical and effective response to elicit change from the conservative side of the debate? THAT is the question for conservatives — not an up or down vote on science.
I'm not saying that there isn't a realistic conservative response -- some corporations are starting to look ahead even when the politicians are not. One is possible, and I'd like to hear it. There are 'technocratic' solutions as well, and a combination of the two, worked out through conservative-liberal dialogue and compromise carried on by rational human beings would be much better than what we have now.
By rejecting the sober realities that the Pope is pointing out and emphasizing as priorities, I don't know if you even have a place at that table, Ross, either as a conservative or a christian. You are somewhere else, and nowhere helpful. Please rethink.
If for a moment the reality of climate change is accepted — rather than written off as 'catastrophism' — by conservatives, what is the most practical and effective response to elicit change from the conservative side of the debate? THAT is the question for conservatives — not an up or down vote on science.
I'm not saying that there isn't a realistic conservative response -- some corporations are starting to look ahead even when the politicians are not. One is possible, and I'd like to hear it. There are 'technocratic' solutions as well, and a combination of the two, worked out through conservative-liberal dialogue and compromise carried on by rational human beings would be much better than what we have now.
By rejecting the sober realities that the Pope is pointing out and emphasizing as priorities, I don't know if you even have a place at that table, Ross, either as a conservative or a christian. You are somewhere else, and nowhere helpful. Please rethink.
21
Ross,
Back in 1776 conservatives made their way back to the British Empire to escape the American call of building a better country. We Jews call the mission Tikkun Olam and I am overjoyed to see Pope Francis join our mission. The message that brought America together was most clearly expressed by John Milton in Paradise Lost "better to serve in Heaven than rule in Hell."
I don't know who the next President of the United States might be but I hope that 100 years from now on a fairer less brutal planet 2017-2021 is referred to as Jimmy Carter's second term.
We are failing in our stewardship of our house, let us listen to Pope Francis before we inherit the wind. Proverbs 11:29
Back in 1776 conservatives made their way back to the British Empire to escape the American call of building a better country. We Jews call the mission Tikkun Olam and I am overjoyed to see Pope Francis join our mission. The message that brought America together was most clearly expressed by John Milton in Paradise Lost "better to serve in Heaven than rule in Hell."
I don't know who the next President of the United States might be but I hope that 100 years from now on a fairer less brutal planet 2017-2021 is referred to as Jimmy Carter's second term.
We are failing in our stewardship of our house, let us listen to Pope Francis before we inherit the wind. Proverbs 11:29
21
Mr. Douthat, the problem is that we do need a rather stark wake up call if we and the planet are to survive. We actually need to change the way that we think of the environment -- from being something that we can manipulate to serve our selfish purposes, to something that deserves our deep respect and genuine appreciation for all that its natural design gives us.
Mr. Douthat, global warming is real. The simple and unalterable truth is that carbon dioxide emissions, which have a chemical lifespan of 1000 years in our atmosphere, must be stopped dead in its tracks or we will be stopped dead in ours.
If we are to survive and succeed in creating a richly dynamic and purposeful life that's worth living, then we need to cultivate a far different cultural paradigm to operate within-- one that is deeply respectful and nurturing; one that cherishes the natural beauty and function of our environment and its ecosystem.
Yes, we must learn to recognize the inherently profound intelligence already built into its majestic design, seeking to harmonize with it rather than trying to change it to suit our selfish, short-term, parochial ends.
If this line of thought makes me -- to use your words -- as catastrophist as opposed to a dynamist, then so be it. But contrary to your implication, my view on our environment, and how we should strive to coexist within it, has a dynamism far more appealing and rewarding than the one that you seem to have alluded to.
Mr. Douthat, global warming is real. The simple and unalterable truth is that carbon dioxide emissions, which have a chemical lifespan of 1000 years in our atmosphere, must be stopped dead in its tracks or we will be stopped dead in ours.
If we are to survive and succeed in creating a richly dynamic and purposeful life that's worth living, then we need to cultivate a far different cultural paradigm to operate within-- one that is deeply respectful and nurturing; one that cherishes the natural beauty and function of our environment and its ecosystem.
Yes, we must learn to recognize the inherently profound intelligence already built into its majestic design, seeking to harmonize with it rather than trying to change it to suit our selfish, short-term, parochial ends.
If this line of thought makes me -- to use your words -- as catastrophist as opposed to a dynamist, then so be it. But contrary to your implication, my view on our environment, and how we should strive to coexist within it, has a dynamism far more appealing and rewarding than the one that you seem to have alluded to.
16
Dégringolade! Thanks for the word, which I've never encountered before.
1
Yes Pope Francis is critical of capitalism in his encyclical but he does not reject it. The system has improved the lives of many but I believe a major point of the enclyclical is that excessive greed and individualism in the pursuit of profit has affected all of what he refers to as Creation. The earth he says, citing Genesis, is under the dominion of man and man is responsible for its protection from the animals to the forests of the Amazon and to other humans. Excessive consumerism (boy does he single out air conditioning!) in the rich world has hurt the environment and the poor and has afffected the culture and livelihood of many.
12
The Earth, our only home in the vastness of space, is rapidly changing under the weight of our presence and technology.
Pope Francis, a simple man of wisdom with a reverence for life, elevated to prominence, has the courage to speak the truth of what he sees.
Ross Douthat speaks of meaning beyond the obvious, generating concepts that exist only in his mind.
While he expresses no fear of climate change, imagining "a series of chronic but manageable problems instead," he acknowledges the Republicans may fear a call to action.
Conservatives seem worried over the debt we are leaving future generations, but each gallon of gas burned contributes 19 pounds of carbon, a permanent debt that cannot be repaid. When will a personal awareness and responsibility bring change?
There are many technological solutions, but leadership is not willing to invest in any infrastructure, certainly nothing on the scale of the extractive industries.
Under conservative direction, congress cuts science and research, earth monitoring, education and social programs.
Pope Francis' vision seems on target regarding the perverse use of technology and the failure of leadership.
Some fail to see the urgency and reality of the big problem, and only find an affront to their ideology or capitalism.
Pope Francis, a simple man of wisdom with a reverence for life, elevated to prominence, has the courage to speak the truth of what he sees.
Ross Douthat speaks of meaning beyond the obvious, generating concepts that exist only in his mind.
While he expresses no fear of climate change, imagining "a series of chronic but manageable problems instead," he acknowledges the Republicans may fear a call to action.
Conservatives seem worried over the debt we are leaving future generations, but each gallon of gas burned contributes 19 pounds of carbon, a permanent debt that cannot be repaid. When will a personal awareness and responsibility bring change?
There are many technological solutions, but leadership is not willing to invest in any infrastructure, certainly nothing on the scale of the extractive industries.
Under conservative direction, congress cuts science and research, earth monitoring, education and social programs.
Pope Francis' vision seems on target regarding the perverse use of technology and the failure of leadership.
Some fail to see the urgency and reality of the big problem, and only find an affront to their ideology or capitalism.
13
This man, Francis, insofar as the almost one billion catholics on the planet, are concerned, is their spiritual leader, and now he has shown all 7.7 billion humans, on the planet, that he is an astute caring individual, who has no problem whatsoever in speaking truth to the powerful, honest to goodness truth, with not one punch pulled.
I'm a Catholic, in that I was born one, and now my Catholicism is limited to trying my best to live my life, while practising husbandry of our tiny planet, it's limited resources, and trying to get others to understand that we are on a ship, that has no lifeboats.
The following quote, attributed to Shakespeare, says a lot about the inaction on our planet, especially among our so called leaders, to protect and preserve it for future generations -
"All her husbandry doth lie on heaps,
Corrupting in its own fertility."
I'm a Catholic, in that I was born one, and now my Catholicism is limited to trying my best to live my life, while practising husbandry of our tiny planet, it's limited resources, and trying to get others to understand that we are on a ship, that has no lifeboats.
The following quote, attributed to Shakespeare, says a lot about the inaction on our planet, especially among our so called leaders, to protect and preserve it for future generations -
"All her husbandry doth lie on heaps,
Corrupting in its own fertility."
20
While Pope Francis took a welcome step in the right direction with his just-released encyclical on climate change, he remains unwilling to break the doctrinal chains that prevent the Vatican from recognizing the impacts of population growth.
He set up a false dichotomy between those dedicated to “resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different” and unspecified “others” who “can only propose a reduction in the birth rate.” Only? No responsible observer believes that smaller families are a panacea. Of course, consumption matters. It is the Pope who is ducking the issue here.
The Pope writes that to “blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.” Here, Pope Francis sets up a straw man. It is his own refusal to address population growth that is both obstinate and unrealistic.
According to the UN, Africa’s population may quadruple to four billion by 2100. How many millions will suffer and die because the Vatican places a higher value on doctrinal purity than on the lives of innocent people? This is not merely a matter of “complex regional situations,” as the Pope would have it. It’s a matter of life and death for millions of people and for so many others among what the Pope would term God’s creatures.
John Seager
President
Population Connection
He set up a false dichotomy between those dedicated to “resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different” and unspecified “others” who “can only propose a reduction in the birth rate.” Only? No responsible observer believes that smaller families are a panacea. Of course, consumption matters. It is the Pope who is ducking the issue here.
The Pope writes that to “blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.” Here, Pope Francis sets up a straw man. It is his own refusal to address population growth that is both obstinate and unrealistic.
According to the UN, Africa’s population may quadruple to four billion by 2100. How many millions will suffer and die because the Vatican places a higher value on doctrinal purity than on the lives of innocent people? This is not merely a matter of “complex regional situations,” as the Pope would have it. It’s a matter of life and death for millions of people and for so many others among what the Pope would term God’s creatures.
John Seager
President
Population Connection
13
We are a world of too many people eating up too many finite resources. Conservation of resources is a paramount responsibility for all. Maybe the Pope should also suggest that we breed less. .
17
Pope F's comments also go beyond the line that should be drawn between religion and politics.
1
If you consider the lifetime per capita consumption of children born in the developing world vs. those born in the U.S. and Europe, you'll find a startling fact: The average American and European families actually have 20 children each! That's right, our two children will deplete the Earth's resources at a rate more than double every other child on the planet. So, we need to stop blaming the poorest of the poor for the sins of the richest of the rich!
13
Ross Douthat's critique of the Pope's encyclical is muddled. He criticizes the Pope's"catastrophic" perspective but concludes we may have entered a "stagnationist" era. The problem with the latter is that carbon in the atmosphere is more or less permanent because it dissipates so slowly. Hence each month, each year that we continue to pour carbon into the atmosphere, the total amount increases. It is additive. So we are facing an imminent crisis.
And the conventional economic solutions--cap and trade or a carbon tax-- won't address the problem in a meaningful way. What we need is for each nation of the world to adopt a carbon budget, which strictly limits the amounts of carbon they can release. This will require phasing out fossil fuel and related industries that rely on carbon. In turn, governments will have to make huge transfers to ease the economic distress and pain this will cause.
Furthermore, intensive and difficult negotiations among the nations will have to take place to establish the budgets for each nation.
So we are facing an "eve of destruction" scenario unless we address many of the Pope's arguments without delay. And the Pope is not alone. He is in a distinguished if pessimistic tradition going back to the clergyman, Thomas Malthus.
And the conventional economic solutions--cap and trade or a carbon tax-- won't address the problem in a meaningful way. What we need is for each nation of the world to adopt a carbon budget, which strictly limits the amounts of carbon they can release. This will require phasing out fossil fuel and related industries that rely on carbon. In turn, governments will have to make huge transfers to ease the economic distress and pain this will cause.
Furthermore, intensive and difficult negotiations among the nations will have to take place to establish the budgets for each nation.
So we are facing an "eve of destruction" scenario unless we address many of the Pope's arguments without delay. And the Pope is not alone. He is in a distinguished if pessimistic tradition going back to the clergyman, Thomas Malthus.
11
The religious right are the original catastrophists. Their exclusionary stance? Judgement day is coming and the world is going to end so we might as well plunder it. It explains how they reconcile that whole people over profits thing they got going on. Lastly they are leaving the rest of us behind as they ascend up to heaven. They are finally being exposed for the self serving hypocrites they are. Pope Francis is truly gods gift to the planet. He speaks the truth in simple language calling out the lies and standing up to the bullies who have been running the show and hiding behind their religious platform. how can they argue with him. In the catholic faith he is the man. The closest link to God. They really look like hypocrites now...
12
• ...[the 'dynamists'] believe we can innovate our way through them while staying on an ever-richer, ever-more-liberated course.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." JOHN ADAMS
There is no such word as 'dynamist'. He is coining. Mr. Douthat bloviates. He's really talking about the great polluters who will sweep away ecology for profit. Whoever he's talking about can believe what they wish. Existing and growing scientific evidence overwhelmingly proves them wrong.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." MARK TWAIN
• What everyone wants to know, of course, is whether the pope takes sides in our most polarizing debate. And he clearly does.
"It is a tragedy of the world that no one knows what he doesn't know - the less a man knows, the more sure it is that he knows everything.
~ JOYCE CARY
Of course, Pope Francis has spoken clearly on many issues without the fog of theological oratory. We all know. He is on the side of Humanity.
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." DIETRICH BONHOEFER
• But I don’t mean the argument between liberalism and conservatism.
Of course Douthat does and "there’s no doubting where [Ross] stands."
The irony: I believe Douthat is Catholic and questions the Pope. I, an avowed Atheist, support the Pope.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." JOHN ADAMS
There is no such word as 'dynamist'. He is coining. Mr. Douthat bloviates. He's really talking about the great polluters who will sweep away ecology for profit. Whoever he's talking about can believe what they wish. Existing and growing scientific evidence overwhelmingly proves them wrong.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." MARK TWAIN
• What everyone wants to know, of course, is whether the pope takes sides in our most polarizing debate. And he clearly does.
"It is a tragedy of the world that no one knows what he doesn't know - the less a man knows, the more sure it is that he knows everything.
~ JOYCE CARY
Of course, Pope Francis has spoken clearly on many issues without the fog of theological oratory. We all know. He is on the side of Humanity.
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." DIETRICH BONHOEFER
• But I don’t mean the argument between liberalism and conservatism.
Of course Douthat does and "there’s no doubting where [Ross] stands."
The irony: I believe Douthat is Catholic and questions the Pope. I, an avowed Atheist, support the Pope.
19
"Our most polarizing debate"? No, climate change is not a debate. It's a fact. It's only a debate to the American GOP/reality deniers.
19
Dourhat makes climate change sound like a chronic but manageable disease; in fact, it is more like pancreatic cancer- deadly if not caught early .
14
We have nothing to fear but Douhat himself, would be the revision to FDR's famous pronouncement. It is a battle of good and evil, but a constantly waged one, which will never go away - certainly not in our lifetime. But within that battle, or "the game within the game", the Pope stepped out and took some risks that no one in his position had before - that's to be commended, not nitpicked about. That he took on environmental policy, which made Jeb so squeamish as to utter some nonsense that he goes to church "to be lifted up", is even more impressive. If there's no world worth living in environmentally, then what's it all for - can't be any more basic than that.
The population problem is one that Francis will stay away from now, since his utterance on the plane back from the Phillipines took on a life of its own. But even that "error" showed that he was cognizant of the fact that the planet can't sustain unchecked growth - look at the recent studies on the world's aquifers, if you have any doubt about that, let alone the impacts to agriculture.
I'm all for Pope Francis to take as many swings as he can while he's in that position. It's more than likely that his successor, whomever he is, will turn back the clock again.
The population problem is one that Francis will stay away from now, since his utterance on the plane back from the Phillipines took on a life of its own. But even that "error" showed that he was cognizant of the fact that the planet can't sustain unchecked growth - look at the recent studies on the world's aquifers, if you have any doubt about that, let alone the impacts to agriculture.
I'm all for Pope Francis to take as many swings as he can while he's in that position. It's more than likely that his successor, whomever he is, will turn back the clock again.
6
So great to see you recognize the glaring inconsistency between environmentalism on the one hand, and a position against birth control, on the other. How seriously can the Pope ever be taken as a moral philosopher when he simultaneously advocates both of those?
Although talking about "imminent destruction" is almost certainly too catastrophist, I doubt "stagnationism" will control either. If there is one question, and only one, that will control the amount of misery the human race will experience in the next century and beyond, it is the question of how fast we can get society off of fossil fuels and on to renewables. As climate change hits more and more intensely in the upcoming years and decades, stagnation may be about the last thing people will perceive. It will instead be much more about how dynamic we can be with the energy transition.
Although talking about "imminent destruction" is almost certainly too catastrophist, I doubt "stagnationism" will control either. If there is one question, and only one, that will control the amount of misery the human race will experience in the next century and beyond, it is the question of how fast we can get society off of fossil fuels and on to renewables. As climate change hits more and more intensely in the upcoming years and decades, stagnation may be about the last thing people will perceive. It will instead be much more about how dynamic we can be with the energy transition.
1
Throughout the bible god "speaks" through catastrophic weather, environmental change and social catastrophe. It seems to me, considering the constant barrage of bad news, that the pope is just interpreting "god's word."
2
There is no 'most polarizing debate.' There is reality, and there are those who cannot accept it, refuse to accept it, and/or have a vested financial interest in pretending to deny it.
End op-ed.
End op-ed.
21
What Douthat refers to glowingly as a "Dynamist" is actually a "catastrophist" - fear mongering that to do the right thing on the environment and care for the commons would cause an economic catastrophe. While the world burns, they argue for business as usual, practicing magical thinking that the free market will innovate us out of this.
Time to put a carbon tax on fossil fuels are get big oil and coal to pay their fair share of of the mess their technology has created.
Time to put a carbon tax on fossil fuels are get big oil and coal to pay their fair share of of the mess their technology has created.
7
Like many non-Catholics, I feel grateful to Pope Francis for focusing on the problems associated with current environmental policies. But I find it odd that you use the terms catastropihists and dynamists to identify the positions on the issues the Pope refers to. Better and more conventional terms would be egalitarians and elitists. After all, the preeminent hero of your so-called "catastrophists" is Franklin Roosevelt, a man whose policies not only promoted egalitarianism through government action, but also promoted economic dynamism that lasted for many decades. The preeminent hero of your so-called dynamists is Ronald Reagan, a man whose dismantling of egalitarian programs and regulations led to (1) a series of economic catastrophes (starting with the savings and loan disaster and ending, so far, with the collapse of 2007-08), and (2) entrenched favoritism for the wealthy elite that has held the working and middle classes economically back for the past 35 years.
9
"Genius" of free markets. Free markets and the corporations they spawn create, and feed on, a large poor population, like our 14 million undocumented immigrants. I have to admit, the 1% are pretty clever.
7
Assuming climate deniers are sincere (a dubious assumption at best) I do not understand the rational for not cleaning a dirty house because it won't lead to a catastrophe. Cleaning the environment would offer employment contrasting nicely with the employment we now find in the production of guns, armaments, coal etc. to say nothing of the benefits to cleanliness.
5
If 97 percent of the senior officers of the Department of Defense, the CIA and the NSA agreed a foreign government has years ago launched a biological attack on the U.S. And that the attack will be very slow to develop, but if it keeps developing, it may become impossible to stop. Would you be taking the same stance, calling them catastrophists?
Also, how can the Pope be faulted for talking about a problem that he believes will lead a major termination of life across the planet, but be on solid ground when he talks about abortion, a problem he believes will lead to termination of a potential life?
Also, how can the Pope be faulted for talking about a problem that he believes will lead a major termination of life across the planet, but be on solid ground when he talks about abortion, a problem he believes will lead to termination of a potential life?
4
Church's encouragement to Fecundity (and against birth/ and population control)? It's Based primarily on one little phrase: "be fruitful and multiply." Fine. A couple of good Jesuits and pot of coffee could come up with a biblical foundation for supporting quality of life over quantity of life. Half hour...max.
(And by the way Ross...enjoy explaining to your grand children why there are no more elephants, say, while we manage ourselves without total collapse of our anthrocentric little corner of the galaxy.)
(And by the way Ross...enjoy explaining to your grand children why there are no more elephants, say, while we manage ourselves without total collapse of our anthrocentric little corner of the galaxy.)
7
You want backward looking? I suggest you look at the last two popes. Today's Republicans are the inheritors of the Curia that condemned Galileo. The people fighting action against climate change have no particular faith in the future, unless it includes ever greater profits- their watchword and holy grail .
7
Fewer people had a greater and keener admiration for the power of Capital than Karl Marx. He knew something that Ross Douthat has yet to fathom: Capitalism is not "conservative." Before its onslaught, Marx and Engels wrote, "everything solid melts into air." We know now that it can sweep away not only social forms but life forms, in fact the biosphere itself. The Pope seems to have realized that life should not be in the service of the Church; the Church might be in the service of life--in all its forms. If there is any kind of divinity in this world it is evident in life itself--not scriptures, crowns, symbols, and inherited authority.
2
Rereading this skimpy piece by Douthat, I just have another comment on my lips.
Don't worry, be happy is a "dynamist" position?
Under just slightly different circumstances Douthat would call such a person an irresponsible moocher. But when republican holy cows are in danger of being slaughtered, turning off your mind is a virtue. And people who worry about what might go wrong are "catastrophists".
Some people will be dragged along by history, kicking and screaming.
Don't worry, be happy is a "dynamist" position?
Under just slightly different circumstances Douthat would call such a person an irresponsible moocher. But when republican holy cows are in danger of being slaughtered, turning off your mind is a virtue. And people who worry about what might go wrong are "catastrophists".
Some people will be dragged along by history, kicking and screaming.
10
The abject failure or of contemporary American conservatism to even premed to take the threat of climate change seriously will mar the reputaton of American conservatism for decades and possibly for centuries.
3
All of this is right-wing code speak for "let's stop worrying about the environment and let's instead give big-business free reign."
4
The pope is just restating what scientists have been telling us for years.
As usual, the Vatican is way behind the times.
As usual, the Vatican is way behind the times.
4
On a macro level, I believe we as a society, and our so called G7 partners have come to a fork in the road, with post WW 2 strategy's. Is apparent we turned in our world policemen's badge. We promoted a financial crisis from lack of regulation. We have become an observer of a war in the Middle East, and have no intention of challenging Putins model of expansion. These many moving parts, none yet with any clear path, won't bode well for tackling climate change. I doubt the Chinese and the millions of Indians, can have this on top of their needs. As we retract within, who will lead? As for the Catholic Church, all their new membership unfortunately is made up of the poor. Halting our model of technology, on top of industrialization, will only make that flock poorer. If indeed we experience a depression when all the debt comes do, the welfare model will be job 1. Billions to worry about feeding not if the temperature went up 2 degree's, and with zero air conditioning in most of the hot spots.
Ross is being silly. Christianity has always been antithetical to lazzez-faire capitalism.
4
Ah, yes, a column in which Mr. Douthat channels Frank Luntz. A Dynamist is a hero right out of Ayn Rand, forthright and strong, confident the future will pose no threat that our inherent virtue and superior intellect cannot overcome. Never mind, of course, the human debris left in our wake. The Catastrophist, on the other hand, is a sad, subhuman quitter. He invariably has a wispy beard and forlornly lugs around his sign proclaiming, "The End is Near!" It has been rumored he even cares for the poor and afflicted.
For the sake of phony balance, he tries to walk it back a bit in closing, but the message is clear. Disengenuous characterization, how sweet it is!
For the sake of phony balance, he tries to walk it back a bit in closing, but the message is clear. Disengenuous characterization, how sweet it is!
11
The Pope is the existential threat if one is focused on political ways & means, that is methods & resources available to accomplish an end. The Socratic dialogue should focus less on man's ability to control nature with advanced technology & conscription to the fight, and more on practicing habits of living in harmony with the natural world. This is antithetical to the industrialist's paradigm of producing consumer goods & consumption for material gain at the expense of usurping global resources & the resulting damage to the environment.
The loss of rain forest habitat, rising sea levels, increasing droughts & fires, cataclysmic hurricanes & tsunamis, shrinking water supplies, degradation of the air we breathe, collapse of honey bee colonies & frenzied rate of animal extinctions & nuclear waste storage & contamination is not an existential threat. It's not a matter left up to scientists or high tech workers living in Silicon Valley. It's real, happening now even as man resorts to violence to kill his fellow man in maniacal wars over fossil fuel resources or tribal superiority. This insanity is proof that we're all part of the web of life, as Pope Francis, eloquently explains. Men of moral authority need to speak above the madness of delusional crowds as if addressing someone higher than ourselves. Possibly towards the heavens in which those of faith appeal for those heavily invested in consumption & consumerism to hear the reckoning call before its too late.
The loss of rain forest habitat, rising sea levels, increasing droughts & fires, cataclysmic hurricanes & tsunamis, shrinking water supplies, degradation of the air we breathe, collapse of honey bee colonies & frenzied rate of animal extinctions & nuclear waste storage & contamination is not an existential threat. It's not a matter left up to scientists or high tech workers living in Silicon Valley. It's real, happening now even as man resorts to violence to kill his fellow man in maniacal wars over fossil fuel resources or tribal superiority. This insanity is proof that we're all part of the web of life, as Pope Francis, eloquently explains. Men of moral authority need to speak above the madness of delusional crowds as if addressing someone higher than ourselves. Possibly towards the heavens in which those of faith appeal for those heavily invested in consumption & consumerism to hear the reckoning call before its too late.
5
I appreciate this article, it's better than we usually get on environmental problems, and I appreciate a religious leader not mouthing unhelpful platitudes. But still wish for coverage on the horrendous threat of the slow motion nuclear explosion continuing at Fukushima. WHAT are Japan and the world doing about this? It threatens all...
Isn't it interesting how right-wing Catholics like Douthat react to Church teaching that does not fit neatly with their pre-determined political views? While excoriating liberal Catholics for disagreeing with, say, Church teaching on contraception, they blithely reduce the Church's social teaching on the environment to the Pope's personal opinion, as if he was just another politician expression his policy position on global climate change. If you want to be the traditional Catholic that you frequently claim to be, Mr. Douthat, then you are obliged to accept Church teaching across the board. If you wish to dissent, then be honest and admit that you have joined the ranks of "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose which Church teachings they prefer. To do otherwise is the height of hypocrisy.
7
What a wonderful example of how a theorist will dance in the face of empirical evidence that threatens their view. The Pope is not wading off into politics where he does not belong, but articulating the life of a person who lives by spirit not flesh first; spirit gives flesh purpose not the other way around. This appears quite inconvenient to RD, so his response is typical. He invents two new terms to interpret the data, one that is negative and then hangs it on the Pope. But the Pope is juxtaposing spirit and flesh, showing spirit comes first in the teachings, and then showing how putting flesh before spirit is a broad dynamic, and one that includes environmental damage. RD is just dancing, as will be the rest of the theorists who used the Pope, but who can not quite follow the inferences of their convictions. This is what theorists do; but we do not have to vote for a politician who will flinch in their values when the going gets tough.
3
Pope Francis is calling to action his Roman Catholic followers on the basis of Jesus of Nazareth's Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule, condemnation of the love of money as the root of all evil, pride being the gravest of human sins, protection of the Earthly natural bounty and the promise of eternal salvation to the sick, poor, suffering and imprisoned. Matthew 5-7; 19:24; 25-31-46.
The Nazarene was neither a member of some facile fictional "dynamists" nor "catastrophists" school. Nor was He a white American businessman nor politician nor pundit nor economist nor educator. Armageddon and a day of judgment is the essence of Christian theological salvation where our sins were paid for by the Messiah's sacrifice and resurrection which awaits us all if only we choose to turn to and follow Him.
Your dispute is not with the scientific realism of the chemist and heir to the rock and keys to the kingdom upon which the Roman Catholic Church is built - Pope Francis. The problem is that New Testament Bible Jesus Christ was and is a community organizing humanitarian socialist. Other than the Nazarene and His mother the only person that we know for sure that will dwell in paradise is a belatedly repenting thief on a cross next to our Lord at Golgotha.
The Nazarene was neither a member of some facile fictional "dynamists" nor "catastrophists" school. Nor was He a white American businessman nor politician nor pundit nor economist nor educator. Armageddon and a day of judgment is the essence of Christian theological salvation where our sins were paid for by the Messiah's sacrifice and resurrection which awaits us all if only we choose to turn to and follow Him.
Your dispute is not with the scientific realism of the chemist and heir to the rock and keys to the kingdom upon which the Roman Catholic Church is built - Pope Francis. The problem is that New Testament Bible Jesus Christ was and is a community organizing humanitarian socialist. Other than the Nazarene and His mother the only person that we know for sure that will dwell in paradise is a belatedly repenting thief on a cross next to our Lord at Golgotha.
4
I'm a very lapsed catholic, but Pope Francis makes the right noises to me. No, he can't remake the entire church in the span of a few years, but the things he has said have been great so far. It brings me great joy to see all the right-wing American catholics and other conservative "christians" falling over themselves to disagree with him, or to try to say he's out of order. The fact that this pope causes such consternation to the usual suspect is a good sign. You go Francis!
4
It's not modern dynamism versus modern catastrophe, or technical progress versus luddite yearnings for the past. Pope Francis has no quarrel with science and technology when they are practiced by working With the dynamic creativity of natural processes. He clearly states that the problem that is leading toward catastrophe is the arrogant attempt to dominate and control nature instead of learn from and live within it.
6
Obviously you are not paying attention to California. It is not some future Catastrophe we are worried about, it is right now, clear and present danger.
So the American Catholics with a capitalist mindset will try to undermine the Pope's words on the environment because you are happy to mix Religion and Capitalism as a perfect union. Your Pope is telling you that this will have to change for the good of all humanity and so the question is Do You have the courage to Change?
So the American Catholics with a capitalist mindset will try to undermine the Pope's words on the environment because you are happy to mix Religion and Capitalism as a perfect union. Your Pope is telling you that this will have to change for the good of all humanity and so the question is Do You have the courage to Change?
6
Wow, "Catastrophism". Is that a word? I had to look it up and it has to do with Geological theory, not belief structures. There are hundreds of acres of junk floating in our oceans. Bejing is shrouded in unsustainable smog. Old growth forests are being cut down in Indonesia so the poor can have wood to cook with.
OK, I think this seems deplorable, and yes there are other opinions. Profits and Capitalism may actually have improved the lot of many but by no means all the people in the world. We have a way to go to get all humanity into even an acceptable state. So the Pope has become humanity's hero. Soiling our world, accepting poverty, waging wars, wonton consumption (the rich in California don't have to spare their gardens water), is declared immoral. Why would you use the word "pungent"? The "Dynamists" will not be wallowing in the Free Market Miracles which brought us Pet Rocks and more spending in restaurants than in grocery stores and ever increasing need for Health Insurance. No the Dynamists will be out there solving those problems, once they are articulated. But at least the Pope has cut through the harangue and just said it. Go Pope.
OK, I think this seems deplorable, and yes there are other opinions. Profits and Capitalism may actually have improved the lot of many but by no means all the people in the world. We have a way to go to get all humanity into even an acceptable state. So the Pope has become humanity's hero. Soiling our world, accepting poverty, waging wars, wonton consumption (the rich in California don't have to spare their gardens water), is declared immoral. Why would you use the word "pungent"? The "Dynamists" will not be wallowing in the Free Market Miracles which brought us Pet Rocks and more spending in restaurants than in grocery stores and ever increasing need for Health Insurance. No the Dynamists will be out there solving those problems, once they are articulated. But at least the Pope has cut through the harangue and just said it. Go Pope.
6
Greed is a disease in those who are unable to give adequate appreciation to what they already have. The more we over consume, the less we taste and savor what it is we are consuming. Technology is good but it does not cure greed; it enables and facilitates greed. The cure for greed is to invest more of our limited individual awareness in the world as it is and invest less in what we think we want or need.
3
What on earth caused this shallow fellow to believe he had anything worthy to say about a document so profound and passionate. This article is just silly.
9
"What’s more, they believe that things cannot go on as they are"
Basic science, greenhouse gas theory, tells us that if we burn all the fossil fuels the fossil fuel industry is burning, we will raise the global temperature beyond the 2 degrees we believe is safe. We have no real idea what will occur is we pass 2 degrees - we know warming causes melting that leads to the release of methane (Siberian methane blow holes, plumes of methane off the east and west coasts and Arctic methane calthrates releasing are signs this is already occurring). More methane warms the planet releasing more methane that warms the planet - this is just one profoundly dangerous dynamic in the climate puzzle. It is an irreversible chain reaction and incalculable risk - and fact. If I cite it I am not a "castrophist" - I'm a truth teller. We must come to see the difference.
Denying these scientific facts does not make you dynamic - it makes you a lackey for fossil fuel industry propaganda written to keep this planet on fossil fuel no matter what threat they pose to the future.
That said, I personally am an optimist. I believe we are not too stupid or too poor to engineer the switch of fossil fuels. We have all the tools we need to do that, save one - political will. The fossli fuel industry has purchased much of our governance and owns the opinions of many of our citizens, causing them to make often intricate arguments for a future course that science tells us is certain catastrophe.
Basic science, greenhouse gas theory, tells us that if we burn all the fossil fuels the fossil fuel industry is burning, we will raise the global temperature beyond the 2 degrees we believe is safe. We have no real idea what will occur is we pass 2 degrees - we know warming causes melting that leads to the release of methane (Siberian methane blow holes, plumes of methane off the east and west coasts and Arctic methane calthrates releasing are signs this is already occurring). More methane warms the planet releasing more methane that warms the planet - this is just one profoundly dangerous dynamic in the climate puzzle. It is an irreversible chain reaction and incalculable risk - and fact. If I cite it I am not a "castrophist" - I'm a truth teller. We must come to see the difference.
Denying these scientific facts does not make you dynamic - it makes you a lackey for fossil fuel industry propaganda written to keep this planet on fossil fuel no matter what threat they pose to the future.
That said, I personally am an optimist. I believe we are not too stupid or too poor to engineer the switch of fossil fuels. We have all the tools we need to do that, save one - political will. The fossli fuel industry has purchased much of our governance and owns the opinions of many of our citizens, causing them to make often intricate arguments for a future course that science tells us is certain catastrophe.
6
Coining new words: "Dynamists" and "Catastrophists" to describe current problems which are only the tip of an immense iceberg, which reaches deep down into history, does not clarify but becloud issues. The issues at the core of the current debate are not new, they are coeval with the birth of modernity. Only when we recognize this will we be able to craft realistic solutions and avoid the diabolical failures of communism and fascism to resolve the pathologies engendered by modernity or liberal-capitalism.
1
Mr. Douthat criticizes the pope for being against carbon markets as a way to bring down emissions, yet such proposals have died in congress where it's been stymied by politicians on the right trying to outdo each other in their opposition to environmental regulations. Pope Francis, who at least has a scientific background, is making at least a tacit acceptance of the last 500 years when he cites the consensus of research on climate change. In a brief reading of the first chapter Pope Francis clearly demonstrates an understanding of the science and an acceptance of technological as well as behavioral solutions. The division of schools of thought into "catastrophism" and "dynamism" is a gross oversimplification evident in even a cursory reading. To put it simply, there are plenty of people who take the viewpoint that we are heading towards a catastrophe if we don't do something about climate change but also believe that innovation and technology are necessary parts of the solution. I don't see opposition to this in pope Francis's writing but there is also an emphasis on behavioral change based on morality. It is difficult to exactly get to Mr. Douthat's point but I think it is something like; Don't worry. "We'll figure things out before things get too bad but we don't really need to change much right now." How bad will things have to get before that happens?
3
This analysis is way too Cartesian. After working on energy and environment for 42 years it seems to me that both catastrophist and dynamist perspectives are required. The middle way is synergy, not stagnation. A healthy dose of science and reality, combined with innovation and business, can do much to move us forward.
2
No college student would be allowed to turn in an essay on this topic without giving evidence (quotations, bibliographical references etc.). Just an example: "This pungency is what really distinguishes “Laudato Si’ ” from prior papal documents." What documents, please?
Pope Francis is following in the tradition of Leo XIII ("Rerum Novarum ["About New Things])" that reconciled the Catholic Church with "modernisn" after the obscurantism of Pius IX and established the foundation for the church's social doctrine. It also follows the sweeping encyclical "Pacem in Terris" by John XXIII, with a condemnation of the arms race and, implicitly, the Cold War mentality, with blame to go around for all.
Pope Francis (who, quite expediently uses the first line of Saint Francis ode to the creation and nature "Laudato Sii mi Signore" [Praised be to you, my Lord]).
Papal encyclicals are not about triangulation or political parties' electoral platforms: they take a firm stand on pressing issues, without much regard for how it will play in the polls. Paul VI caused a strong backlash when he condemned all forms of birth control with his "Humane Vitae". Whether "right or wrong" (according to whom?) it set the course for the church for the last 50 + years. I can only hope "Laudato Sii" will have the same lasting effect -- in positive, this time.
Pope Francis is following in the tradition of Leo XIII ("Rerum Novarum ["About New Things])" that reconciled the Catholic Church with "modernisn" after the obscurantism of Pius IX and established the foundation for the church's social doctrine. It also follows the sweeping encyclical "Pacem in Terris" by John XXIII, with a condemnation of the arms race and, implicitly, the Cold War mentality, with blame to go around for all.
Pope Francis (who, quite expediently uses the first line of Saint Francis ode to the creation and nature "Laudato Sii mi Signore" [Praised be to you, my Lord]).
Papal encyclicals are not about triangulation or political parties' electoral platforms: they take a firm stand on pressing issues, without much regard for how it will play in the polls. Paul VI caused a strong backlash when he condemned all forms of birth control with his "Humane Vitae". Whether "right or wrong" (according to whom?) it set the course for the church for the last 50 + years. I can only hope "Laudato Sii" will have the same lasting effect -- in positive, this time.
5
Ignore any column that begins by dividing people into two categories.
11
Pope Francis and the many co-writers of his encyclical, Roman Catholics all I presume, get one thing right -- climate change is an existential challenge for our civilization. Its causes must be promptly eradicated if we want to avoid catastrophic consequences. Bravo! Focusing our attention on the moral implications of our unthinking consumerism is also completely right. Our ability to ignore the consequences of our personal contribution to this crisis is so amazing that it would be laughable if not for the real suffering it causes our and future generations. Again, Bravo! Writers like Mr. Douthat want to float above the mess we've created with their "penetrating" conservative insights. Talk about laughable! We have work to do and the markets can help if we allow them to recognize the superiority of renewable energy. We have to unravel all the protections for fossil fuels written into law and regulations that prevent solar and wind and electric vehicles from replacing combustion of fossil fuels with clean energy and transport. Where is Mr. Douthat on the real crux of the problem facing us? Were he serious about avoiding false perils his columns would be devoted to promoting renewable energy and sustainable practices and removing all the impediments in their path.
5
Ironic condemnation from an editorialist who would prefer we go back to the kind of religiousness and traditionalism prevalent during the Dark Ages.
3
Follow the money, Ross. I'd vote for the stagnationist position. Recall T. S. Eliots warning: That's the way the world will end, not with a bang but a whimper.
3
Douthat's rationalization of a complacency favoring the wealthy and comfortable typifies the Biblical warning that there are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear. Luckily, many others see and hear quite clearly.
3
"Nor are questions related to population growth successfully resolved." It's ironic to point out the tension between the Pope's concerns about the economic effects of climate change on the world's poor and the Catholic Church's resistance to birth control if you are a spokesperson for a political party that has waged an ongoing and worldwide war against women's reproductive rights. "Dynamism" won't resolve that tension, either, as long as the right insist on fighting that war; it means only that the rich think they can stay rich while the poor are given no opportunity even to control the size of their families.
1
False dichotomy. One can believe that things cannot continue as they are while at the same time having faith that, over time, reason will prevail and necessary adaptations made that will ensure our survival and improvement as a species.
4
If this is the "great argument of our time," Mr. Douthat, why do you have to explain dynamists and catastrophists as if we've never heard of the terms before?
3
I live in Western Washington( state),first came here 37 years ago.Because of what I've observed here,climate wise,in that 37 years,I ,as an ex-Catholic,already knew the climate was messed up before Pope Francis weighed in,although he is,in my view doing the moral thing given what's stake.
During this 37 year period my state's mountains-the Olympics across the Puget Sound and the Cascades dividing Western and Eastern Washington-have had below average winter snowfall more frequently,until this last winter they got record low snowfall totals .Currently those mountains have less snow than during most years in August and September. This will probably cost this the state economically,because the runoff from the Cascades normal snow packs provide the state with affordable hydroelectric power,and the farms in Eastern Washington with water for irrigation.
The impact of our warming climate is already having worse impact,a deadly one,in many poorer 3rd world countries;like a snap of a finger India has gone from one it's worst,deadliest droughts,to deadly flooding.That's how the Pope's call for action is a moral statement,irrespective of one's religion.As with most global crises,it's the poorest among us pay the price first and worst.
During this 37 year period my state's mountains-the Olympics across the Puget Sound and the Cascades dividing Western and Eastern Washington-have had below average winter snowfall more frequently,until this last winter they got record low snowfall totals .Currently those mountains have less snow than during most years in August and September. This will probably cost this the state economically,because the runoff from the Cascades normal snow packs provide the state with affordable hydroelectric power,and the farms in Eastern Washington with water for irrigation.
The impact of our warming climate is already having worse impact,a deadly one,in many poorer 3rd world countries;like a snap of a finger India has gone from one it's worst,deadliest droughts,to deadly flooding.That's how the Pope's call for action is a moral statement,irrespective of one's religion.As with most global crises,it's the poorest among us pay the price first and worst.
4
Hmmm.
As I encounter, and read comments from, Protestants, atheists, agnostics, deists, and yes, Roman Catholics, who say "I really like this Pope," I see why the Right are so afraid of Francis.
Unlike the Right's self-righteous posturing as the saviors of democracy, motherhood, and apple pie, Francis actually IS a moral authority. People will listen to Francis and many will act accordingly.
As I encounter, and read comments from, Protestants, atheists, agnostics, deists, and yes, Roman Catholics, who say "I really like this Pope," I see why the Right are so afraid of Francis.
Unlike the Right's self-righteous posturing as the saviors of democracy, motherhood, and apple pie, Francis actually IS a moral authority. People will listen to Francis and many will act accordingly.
136
I must say Ross is pretty polite in his rebuttal to Pop Francis. As for the contradiction between overpopulation and the Catholic vision of marriage and fecundity, I think Pop Francis is very consistent about it. He upholds the stance against abortion firmly but also don't think believers need to reproduce like rabbits (his words not mine). I am not a Christian so It is interesting to see the evolving dialogue among the various Christian communities on this issue. Being a Buddhist, we firmly believe that all beings are sentient beings (human are not superior to a bug) and it is our duty to treat the earth with wisdom and compassion.
The poor are better off today? If this is accurate (by what measurement? Some GOP think tank?), that is implying that the poverty will continue to improve and the current system will drive that. That is a huge stretch on Mr. Douthat's part. We still have tens of millions of people throughout the world starving with little hope of improvement. In the richest country in the world, we have millions of people starving and who knows how many homeless people. That is not to mention poor and increasingly middle class families with a negative net worth. Ross, the current system is NOT working, and your solutions (think trickle down economics) are not the solution.
78
Christianity was built upon apocalyptic discourses. The problem is Christianity. Francis should begin with removing all the false truths his church uses to maintain its power on people. Humanism is capable of solving human problems without these interferences.
3
Mr. Douthat's praise for the "Dynamists" way of thinking is pure Lyndon Larouchism. Is there a closet "Larouchie" at the Times?
2
Typical self-centric read from the US Right. Fecundity does not mean what you'd have the Bible imply. Going forth to multiply doesn't mean going forth to multiply wildly.
Out environment is being affected by our choices as a society, and the majority do not have a choice at all. In order to live in this world you need to make a profit for someone else that is exponentially larger than what you take for yourself.
Our entire living is based on the appropriation of 'things' that are ever changing and ever more sophisticated - in the true sense of the word - and all pour money (that is, a conglomerated value for world resources) into the pockets of those that already have enough to feed their families for a million years.
This planet is choking on hubris, while we carry the same monkey mentality we're so sure we've slipped. Humanity is an allegorical construct for a monkey looming in the mirror.
Out environment is being affected by our choices as a society, and the majority do not have a choice at all. In order to live in this world you need to make a profit for someone else that is exponentially larger than what you take for yourself.
Our entire living is based on the appropriation of 'things' that are ever changing and ever more sophisticated - in the true sense of the word - and all pour money (that is, a conglomerated value for world resources) into the pockets of those that already have enough to feed their families for a million years.
This planet is choking on hubris, while we carry the same monkey mentality we're so sure we've slipped. Humanity is an allegorical construct for a monkey looming in the mirror.
5
The Pope should stick to his field, religion, and stop embarrassing himself by meddling in politics.
Mr. Douthat says that the catastrophists see the path that we're on leading to "crisis, disaster, degringolade". He has it almost right, but should have reversed his sequence. Since he wants to show his erudition by using French words, he should have listed "degringolade" first, followed by crisis, and disaster.
Degringoler means "to fall by steps", which by its own definition implies that it can be reversed. Crisis and disaster occur only if the "degringolade' is allowed to continue unabated.
That's the message of the pope. Stop the degringolage and start climbing up.
It's not hopeless, but someone has to put some ideas forward that go beyond reducing taxes for the rich and allowing the unrelenting carbon economy (drill baby, drill!) to go on unchecked. I haven't heard anything from the pack of Republicans running for the nomination of their party that even begins to address the issue. And my own Senator, the esteemed Jim Inhofe doesn't even think it's a problem! I'll take the pope' intellect over Mr. Inhofe's (and Mr. Douthat's).
Degringoler means "to fall by steps", which by its own definition implies that it can be reversed. Crisis and disaster occur only if the "degringolade' is allowed to continue unabated.
That's the message of the pope. Stop the degringolage and start climbing up.
It's not hopeless, but someone has to put some ideas forward that go beyond reducing taxes for the rich and allowing the unrelenting carbon economy (drill baby, drill!) to go on unchecked. I haven't heard anything from the pack of Republicans running for the nomination of their party that even begins to address the issue. And my own Senator, the esteemed Jim Inhofe doesn't even think it's a problem! I'll take the pope' intellect over Mr. Inhofe's (and Mr. Douthat's).
4
I think the reality that our semi-intelligent species struggles with is that we really cannot destroy the earth. We can however turn the environment that we evolved in into a tool to destroy ourselves, or so diminish our numbers as to allow for more adapted species to this new environment to step forward.
The earth has billions of years to go yet, so in cosmic time, it will shrug off it's little genetic experiment we call humanity, and generate species after species, because life itself is very tough.
Too bad we keep overestimating our value and misconstruing our purpose. Humanity cannot save itself until it deals with it's real and fundamental nature - we are evolved creatures that have limited capacities to deal with our "human condition". Maybe if we finally do that, we can realize how totally dependent we are on this speck of dust we live on.
The earth has billions of years to go yet, so in cosmic time, it will shrug off it's little genetic experiment we call humanity, and generate species after species, because life itself is very tough.
Too bad we keep overestimating our value and misconstruing our purpose. Humanity cannot save itself until it deals with it's real and fundamental nature - we are evolved creatures that have limited capacities to deal with our "human condition". Maybe if we finally do that, we can realize how totally dependent we are on this speck of dust we live on.
Ross, I read your column late last night and couldn't sleep. I am outraged. As an atheist, one who believes in evidence and not invisible deities, I agree with the pope. Dynamists, Catastrophists, on the left, on the right, is mental masturbation. A warming climate does not mean that Kennebunkport will be like St.Tropez. Although the Jersey shore may wash up somewhere in Kansas. The earth is about 11 billion years old. Humans, hominids, have been puttering around for the last 4 million years (approx). Read a geology book. Try to understand the processes and the time frame of the creation of the oil fields. Then tell me that we can suck it all out in 300 years, burn it and spew it into the atmosphere and all that will happen is now we can get a really good tan and grow geraniums in Siberia in January. If only we could carpe the diem and make lemonade out lemons. You often speak about morality. Caitlyn Jenner, gay marriage, and now the pope and the climate. The immorality is yours. Caitlyn and every other human being who feels the need to gender reassign has the right to do so. It's not about morality, it's about a biological error. Ever think about the trillions of molecules, one of which that could lose its way? I might agree that the Jenner/Kardashian empire is tacky and sometimes revolting, but hardly immoral. Your 2000 year old texts just don't measure up to the task. Hiding behind them in the face of facts is truly immoral. Your willful blindness is the true immorality.
4
If it wasn't so dangerous for humans it would be enjoyable to see those who have for years enjoyed a theocratic view of government, as long as it oppressed women and gays, supported rapacious corporations and was the mouth piece for the GOP as long as it was well paid, squirm and babel almost incoherently in the face of the Pope's climate change is real encyclical. Now they want the Church to stay out of public policy..at lease public policy on climate change. They still no doubt want those pastoral letters from bishops read on Sunday mornings before Election Day telling Catholics that a vote for a democrat must be confessed and may not be forgiven!
I like the pope. He sounds nice. I really haven't seen much in the way in which his representatives in the US behave toward women but then the pope hasn't changed much there either. The bishops still support GOP candidates and demean women on a regular basis. But then women are a soft target for many.
Voters of all religions and no religion must tell our government that corporations must no longer be in charge. It's time for a government by the humans and for the humans!
I like the pope. He sounds nice. I really haven't seen much in the way in which his representatives in the US behave toward women but then the pope hasn't changed much there either. The bishops still support GOP candidates and demean women on a regular basis. But then women are a soft target for many.
Voters of all religions and no religion must tell our government that corporations must no longer be in charge. It's time for a government by the humans and for the humans!
3
You cannot have it both ways, Ross. Decisions must be made. There is no fence sitting regarding the conditions in which the world's population presently exists. We are either improving or we are deteriorating, and from all that I have seen we are deteriorating.
Perhaps, Ross, you do not spend enough time outside to realize that Climate Change, Global Warming, drought, too much rain, too little rain, increasingly violent weather, etc. are all real elements in our environment. Even uphere in Oregon the grass is now orange and not green this Summer. I saw Denver's environment change over a quick 35 years and I have already seen Oregon's environment change just over an even quicker 2 1/2 years. Things proceed from life to death -- not the other way around. We and the planet are dying.
Perhaps, Ross, you do not spend enough time outside to realize that Climate Change, Global Warming, drought, too much rain, too little rain, increasingly violent weather, etc. are all real elements in our environment. Even uphere in Oregon the grass is now orange and not green this Summer. I saw Denver's environment change over a quick 35 years and I have already seen Oregon's environment change just over an even quicker 2 1/2 years. Things proceed from life to death -- not the other way around. We and the planet are dying.
Looking at life expectancies around the world, modernity has been a huge success. Regressing to the past where half of the babies born would die by age 5 is proof that the "old days" are today. And progress continues. You have to be alive to complain about modernity.
Many readers are disappointed to read this apparent spin, but the fact is lost what a glorious retreat it is.
1
A man who believes in angels, that life exists after death, that the devil is real, that humans can be possessed, that statues and idols are holy, that water and prayers and signs of the cross can heal illness, that certain people are saints, that God answers prayers, and when he doesn't he is still listening, that a virgin gave birth to a man who was really a God, this is the world of Pope Francis, and this is whose guidance, wisdom and outlook for life on Earth we consider the penultimate.
Let us not mistake power and influence for insight.
Let us not mistake power and influence for insight.
May be from this "Laudato Si" the Pope's point of view only relates to the position of the religion in the future society, not other things that are mixed with it, in that case the Pope is making a reasonable prediction.
It's worth noting that the Pope earned a degree in chemistry before embarking on his advanced theological studies.
2
The very poor whom the Pope loves will suffer most from his vision. Capitalism and technology have been the element of progress for the world's formerly hopeless poor. Denying emerging nations access to cheap carbon based energy resources is the surest way to keep them in dark ages of peasantry. Does he really wish to return to a more enlightened feudalism?
One wonders if Mr. Douhat even bothered to read Laudato Si before writing this column.
Far from being a "catastrophist", the Pope's message seems to be a clarion call that now is the time to transcend consumerism -- which is degrading the earth and demeaning people -- to adopt an approach that brings new harmony between the earth and its peoples, economics and ecology, and spirituality and science.
That sounds pretty dynamic to me ....
Far from being a "catastrophist", the Pope's message seems to be a clarion call that now is the time to transcend consumerism -- which is degrading the earth and demeaning people -- to adopt an approach that brings new harmony between the earth and its peoples, economics and ecology, and spirituality and science.
That sounds pretty dynamic to me ....
1
Great. Now the Catholic Church will be demanding that global warming heretics recant their skepticism under threat of excommunication, or worse.
1
This reminds me of the Terri Schiavo case, when the GOP went full blast into a family and medical case, making politics of religion. That young woman had been in a coma for years. Her doctors declared her brain dead. Her husband agreed to switch off life support equipment. The full weight of the GOP opposed and demonized him. Tom DeLay called it medical terrorism. Drs. in Congress (Frist and Gingrey, e.g.) saw a piece of video tape and declared her well enough to recover if were she to receive proper care.
Jeb Bush boasted to a conservative meeting recently that he had stood by Terri Schiavo. He had signed into law a Florida bill that addressed only the Schiavo case, interfering with the husband's rights and overriding the doctors' opinions. Shortly afterwards, his brother George Bush, signed a similar federal bill into law--W flew from Texas for that one piece of business.
The hypocrisy of the Right knows no bounds. Science is good only when it suits their policies of greed.
Jeb Bush boasted to a conservative meeting recently that he had stood by Terri Schiavo. He had signed into law a Florida bill that addressed only the Schiavo case, interfering with the husband's rights and overriding the doctors' opinions. Shortly afterwards, his brother George Bush, signed a similar federal bill into law--W flew from Texas for that one piece of business.
The hypocrisy of the Right knows no bounds. Science is good only when it suits their policies of greed.
3
Mr. Douthat what you are sir is an "obfuscationist" trying to refine the issue of climate change into one of those ("catastrophists") who you would have us believe that they say the sky is falling (when what we note is that the sea level is actually rising) and others ("dynamists") who are actually quite reasonable in understanding the yin and yang of the climate. Sorry but when a senator brings a snowball to the floor of the senate during the winter (and a rather extreme winter at that) to prove that it is actually cold outside you are not witnessing a dynamist but a demagogue. What I am Mr.Douthat is a SCIENTIST and a rather skeptical one at that. Indeed back in the 1960s the meteorological community was worried that all of the visible pollution in the air would reflect sunlight back into space and lead to global cooling (but because you and many other obfuscationists haven't done your homework on this subject you never picked on that). The "I am not a scientist" refrain rings hollow as NONE of the politicians and yourself hesitate to opine on reproductive health and rights of women because, guess what, they and you are not obstetrician/gynecologists. Score another column for hypocrisy.
4
A dynamist can see that climate change can be an immense disaster to avoid the worst of which we must develop a new modernity, a way very much still forward, but on a different vector. Any such change in vector will result in a turnover among our elites. But modernity has always involved changes in vector, has always involved the rise and fall of families and social groups at the top. That's why those at the top have forever been mostly conservative, pretending we're better off to freeze the wheel of modernity while they and theirs own the best vantage. They are not the dynamists they pretend to be; they are dynasts.
56
The issue is not the dichotomy between believing anthropogenic climate change and a world system that is unsustainable.
The only relevant question is when will anthropogenic climate change create a world system that is unsustainable.
A subject upon which reasonable men may and do disagree, but one which is of the ultimate importance.
Exactly when the tipping point is reached, when melting permafrost, disappearing polar ice and collapse of the thermohaline circulation are no longer reversible.
The latter is of critical importance to European civilization. Few people realize that London is closer to the the north pole than Winnipeg and Chicago is closer to the equator than Rome.
The only relevant question is when will anthropogenic climate change create a world system that is unsustainable.
A subject upon which reasonable men may and do disagree, but one which is of the ultimate importance.
Exactly when the tipping point is reached, when melting permafrost, disappearing polar ice and collapse of the thermohaline circulation are no longer reversible.
The latter is of critical importance to European civilization. Few people realize that London is closer to the the north pole than Winnipeg and Chicago is closer to the equator than Rome.
A quick look at the first slate of comments before me reveals zero approving of this piece. I find it thoughtful, original--not tied to any particular agenda besides the critical--and in the end, which is unexpectedly bleak, quite powerful. Great writing!
1
Umm, Ross ... so what's your point?
From a response to a FB friend: I think the significance of the encyclical is that Francis has placed the entire agenda on an ethical/moral plane, that transcends individual expressions of faith [or nationality or political stripe]. Of special significance to the Christian communions, he has placed another dot on the line of "dominion" that is (too) slowly tracing its path from "exploitation" to "stewardship."
From a response to a FB friend: I think the significance of the encyclical is that Francis has placed the entire agenda on an ethical/moral plane, that transcends individual expressions of faith [or nationality or political stripe]. Of special significance to the Christian communions, he has placed another dot on the line of "dominion" that is (too) slowly tracing its path from "exploitation" to "stewardship."
2
Change the subject; deflect the thrust by broadening the conversation; add perjorative language---dynamist vs catastrophist, what else to expect? Why not philosopher vsr scientist, where philosopher is understood to hold to accepted orthodoxy and scientist to look to observable outcomes?
What does the sentence: "This is a document aligned with a scientific consensus on climate that excoriates the modern scientific mind-set as, in effect, a 500-year mistake." even mean?
I suspect it is identifying the next retreat in climate change deniers---first, it isn't happening; then, its happening but is not caused by human activity; now, it is happening and is caused by human activity, but the activity has been a source of some benefit.
Nonsense.
What does the sentence: "This is a document aligned with a scientific consensus on climate that excoriates the modern scientific mind-set as, in effect, a 500-year mistake." even mean?
I suspect it is identifying the next retreat in climate change deniers---first, it isn't happening; then, its happening but is not caused by human activity; now, it is happening and is caused by human activity, but the activity has been a source of some benefit.
Nonsense.
3
so ross creates a false premise and argues brilliantly, unopposed, in defense of his position.
"the great argument of our time." "but i don't mean the argument between liberalism and conservatism. "
huh? why you would link these two is a sign of how much ideology dominates your intellectual process. once again proving that ideology is useful for people that don;t want to think. they always need their comfortable template of ideology. a frame through which to view a disorganized and messy world in a way that makes the view less complicated and more reassuring than it is.
huh? why you would link these two is a sign of how much ideology dominates your intellectual process. once again proving that ideology is useful for people that don;t want to think. they always need their comfortable template of ideology. a frame through which to view a disorganized and messy world in a way that makes the view less complicated and more reassuring than it is.
3
I love how your Pope has no faith. It is no wonder that the Catholic clergy discourages their members reading Scripture. If they did, they would see this person for who it really is.
Of course our consumerism, our love of the world and it's worldly pleasures brings us consequences. God told us it would and he told us that it will be Him doing it.
While the pope pushes for anti-biblical solutions in his encyclical, may I suggest you spend your time reading God's. That is where the truth and the solutions are. The catholic church is clearly looking for alternatives.
Of course our consumerism, our love of the world and it's worldly pleasures brings us consequences. God told us it would and he told us that it will be Him doing it.
While the pope pushes for anti-biblical solutions in his encyclical, may I suggest you spend your time reading God's. That is where the truth and the solutions are. The catholic church is clearly looking for alternatives.
The Pope is calling us to task for our greed and media-induced lust for consumption and self gratification. He may be condemning the modern way of life, but more precisely, he is condemning our heedless self-subjugation to the marketplace, whose champions refuse to acknowledge (or pay for) its actual costs and whose its effects on our environment are obvious to even a casual observer and nowhere near as invisible as its storied hand.
95
Those catastrophists are what thinking people call scientists.
7
I never understood, why does the Pope expend his energy of moral authority on issues that are of no concern to any religion: for example, his recent forays into the discussions of nuclear disarmament and now the global climate change. Certainly these are grave issues created by humans, but their fundamentals are outside of religious mode of thought. The Pope should better address the security of the Holy See that, after 9-11-2001 in the US and 1-7-2015 in Paris, is wholly inadequately protected by only about 120 Swiss Guards. Even if they are oath-bound to defend Vatican, just like their predecessors who fell for Louis XVI in Paris in 1792, the line of defense seems to be very thin.
From Lloyd's of London to the Pope, the consensus is that climate change is real and requires immediate action. Republicans suggesting otherwise risk losing all credibility.
6
Since the Pope wants the church involved in secular discussions, politics, business decisions pertaining to the environment, perhaps it would be better to remove the tax exempt status so he can engage more directly.
1
It really is an extraordinarily radical document, one that challenges everyone, left, right, and center. And, as Douthat says, it's a document that (while accepting the broad scientific consensus on climate change) also questions much of modernity itself: especially markets, but not only markets.
Of all the thinkers I can recall, it probably reminds me most of Gandhi (whose view of small-scale local self-sufficiency ultimately proved ineffective in helping most Indians escape poverty)... or perhaps, even more, of Jesus.
I also heard many echoes of the "seamless garment of life" argument that the church has made many times before. In that sense, this encyclical fits squarely in at least one of the church's long traditions. Still, its moral rejection of market regimes such as cap-and-trade in favor of a more radical ascetism definitely evokes Jesus in ways modern Christian authorities often have not.
I also found a note of bitter irony in Pope Francis's address to "every person on Earth," which he explicitly contrasted with Pope John XXIII's encyclical addressed to all people "of good will." It is as if this Pope is well aware that his audience includes many people with no good will whatsoever, but he wants them to know he is talking to them, too.
Of all the thinkers I can recall, it probably reminds me most of Gandhi (whose view of small-scale local self-sufficiency ultimately proved ineffective in helping most Indians escape poverty)... or perhaps, even more, of Jesus.
I also heard many echoes of the "seamless garment of life" argument that the church has made many times before. In that sense, this encyclical fits squarely in at least one of the church's long traditions. Still, its moral rejection of market regimes such as cap-and-trade in favor of a more radical ascetism definitely evokes Jesus in ways modern Christian authorities often have not.
I also found a note of bitter irony in Pope Francis's address to "every person on Earth," which he explicitly contrasted with Pope John XXIII's encyclical addressed to all people "of good will." It is as if this Pope is well aware that his audience includes many people with no good will whatsoever, but he wants them to know he is talking to them, too.
2
Ok, I missed this somehow in my first reading, so here is another observation and analogy. We are implored to do nothing and wait for a scientific fix. This sounds like a group of tobacco executives plotting a new marketing strategy, "smoke now, a cute is likely."
4
POLARIZATION looks to be the hallmark of Ross Douthat's piece. He assails the Pope's encyclical as not being logical and scientific, despite the fact that Francis represents the spirit, as opposed to science. While the Dalai Lama would claim that the science and the spirit are one in the same, though perhaps differently from Spinoza, the Pope takes a traditional Catholic view. What the writer overlooks is the fact that in order to assess problems, one must define what is broken so that things can be put to rights. Fixed. That is called the empirical method, not catastrophizing. One challenge that looms large is the disingenuousness of those who claim that whoever's got the biggest pile of money will win the prize by purchasing the right to despoil the resources of the planet. Such a position assumes that the rights of other humans are for sale. Well not according to our Constitution, where we are first, all created equal and second all entitled to pursue life, liberty and happiness. It is the dialectic between the opposing views that will lead to successful solutions. Logic is what we need. Balkanization is what we get. Therein lies the danger! The fact is that we all face the dangers of global climate change, whether we choose to acknowledge the risks they pose to us individually and as nations. The choice is to manage challenges efficiently or inefficiently. We've too often chosen the latter at the expense of the former. It's high time to change all that.
2
So now we are to the point of calling those who believe science anti-modern, or rejectionists of modernity. This is truly Orwellian.
4
If we don't bring population growth down, nothing else will matter in the long run.
I hate to pile on Mr. Douthat but I take issue most at his conclusion. Stagnation is not a viable option, and should not be, even for the irreligious like me who do not take the Pope's, or any religious leaders words, especially to heart. I am not sure whether the crisis has to rise to species extinction to register as catastrophe, that is, the end of our species, but we are surely causing the mass extinction of other animals in droves in what scientists are calling the sixth great mass extinction, this time man made. So sure, as Douthat alludes to, to what extent our environment totally collapses and whether humanity can survive are still somewhat open questions. But what are not is that an ever shrinking minority are living in an ever growing grandeur, while most are faced with over crowded cities, stifling pollution, dwindling work opportunities, their resources and parkland plundered, all the while faced with more and more images of an Americanized life they cannot and will never attain: this, at least, is the kind of moral catastrophe Pope Francis talks about. We should be stewards of this world and be thinking in centuries and millenia, not simply the next business cycle. I am hoping a change in politics in 2015-2016 (th NDP in Canada, and Bernie Sanders in the US) can begin to put some muscle behind the Pope's call to action. Stagnation is not an option.
2
As soon as I read "genius of free markets" I stopped reading.
9
Catastrophists? Both Republican and Democrat? More like they are mostly Republican. Including the Pope in this camp is bordering on the ridiculous. If anything, he seeks to be the dynamic force within the church that will change the church and the world by making it face the real challenges that confront humanity. The Pope is anything but a "catastrophist". And, I bet this newly coined word will be used by most of the Republican candidates for President in 2016, which may be Ross' purpose in writing the article.
9
Pope Francis has been variously called a "Communist" and a "Marxist": he stated being billed as much "is not an insult". Now he's positioning himself environmentally and socio-politically definitely left-wing. With the political left in Italy drifting more and more towards center right, maybe the pope is the real, true revolutionary of the 21st century.
1
An 'argument between dynamists and catastrophists'? More Mr. Douthat ! Perhaps we can frame this Earth/Life puzzle of socio-economics, science, morality, uncertainty, limits ! - and yes, Gloom with a capital G - in terms of tea leaves, dice, opportunities - even optimism? You are spinning the ugly Mr Douthat. Lipstick on the pig !
Overall, the "Laudato Si" encyclical was muddled nonsense: 50 million Americans live in poverty and 75% of us live paycheck to pay check. Francis never explains how tripling our energy bills to say, German levels, does any good for most of us. Plus his science is wrong and obsolete.
Worse yet was a whole section on organizing an authoritarian world government. Francis claims that "it is essential to devise stronger and more
efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions."
Lest anyone believe that his envisioned world government would be solely concerned with the environment, Francis quotes his predecessor, Benedict XVI:
"To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority."
His Holiness however does condemn Carbon Emission Trading as a grift.. which it is concocted by Wall Street and their crime syndicates to rip off
trillions more from all of us.
But overall, the whole package can and should be summarily rejected.
Worse yet was a whole section on organizing an authoritarian world government. Francis claims that "it is essential to devise stronger and more
efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions."
Lest anyone believe that his envisioned world government would be solely concerned with the environment, Francis quotes his predecessor, Benedict XVI:
"To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority."
His Holiness however does condemn Carbon Emission Trading as a grift.. which it is concocted by Wall Street and their crime syndicates to rip off
trillions more from all of us.
But overall, the whole package can and should be summarily rejected.
I think Mr. Douthat is being a little too black and white. The real world is not divided into catastrophists and dynamists, any more than the the United States is divided into card-carrying Democrats and Republicans. Humanity is more nuanced than that, even though our political representatives, sadly, behave otherwise.
What the Pope has done is to use the bully pulpit of his moral authority to challenge the governmental, corporate and financial leaders of the world to address the environmental problems that 99% of qualified scientists believe will come about as a result of climate change. Addressing them will most likely involve a certain amount of the catastrophists' scaling back, as well as some of the dynamists' innovation.
Is the encyclical written in a tone of strong moral opposition to winner-take-all capitalism, and filled with care and concern for the world's downtrodden? Sure. But we should read it as a counterbalance to the philosophy of the other side, which might be called "the Koch Brothers philosophy of self-interest", and understand that the way forward most likely lies somewhere between the two.
What the Pope has done is to use the bully pulpit of his moral authority to challenge the governmental, corporate and financial leaders of the world to address the environmental problems that 99% of qualified scientists believe will come about as a result of climate change. Addressing them will most likely involve a certain amount of the catastrophists' scaling back, as well as some of the dynamists' innovation.
Is the encyclical written in a tone of strong moral opposition to winner-take-all capitalism, and filled with care and concern for the world's downtrodden? Sure. But we should read it as a counterbalance to the philosophy of the other side, which might be called "the Koch Brothers philosophy of self-interest", and understand that the way forward most likely lies somewhere between the two.
2
So you side with Senate Leader McConnell rather than your Pope.
A bad call on many fronts.
Do you believe in anything?
A bad call on many fronts.
Do you believe in anything?
9
No offense, Mr. Douthat, but the Pope was more specific. He was clearly saying that there are self-evident, massively harmful human behaviors that must stop now. For example, he said, gill net fishing and mountaintop mining could not be rationalized. This clearly includes small bore netting that is plundering forage fish to make pig and chicken feeds, cat food, aquaculture fish meal (or using fish to catch fish in poor ratios), and the rapidly growing Omega3 industry that depletes small fish stocks leaving marine mammals and sea birds to starve. Need I say anything about mountaintop coal mining...?
8
Americans pride themselves on holding noble ideals such as equality and universal human rights. Yet a dominant worldview of our day -- evolutionary materialism -- denies the reality of human freedom, gives no basis for moral ideas or the equality of individually and collectively caring for where we live.
So where did the idea of equal rights for all begin? We tend to take the concept of planetary equality for granted. However, it was Christians believing in the God stories of the Bible, who first overthrew ancient social hierarchies between rich and poor, masters and slaves.
Even at the birth of our nation, the American founders deemed it self-evident that human rights exist grounded in God. The Declaration of Independence leads off with those bright, blazing words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident -- that all men created equal, -- endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
With the rise of the global economy, we are losing those rights and our home is in danger, because the greed of corporations, governments use science and technology chipping away at thinking of equality and understanding the importance building a better world.
So where did the idea of equal rights for all begin? We tend to take the concept of planetary equality for granted. However, it was Christians believing in the God stories of the Bible, who first overthrew ancient social hierarchies between rich and poor, masters and slaves.
Even at the birth of our nation, the American founders deemed it self-evident that human rights exist grounded in God. The Declaration of Independence leads off with those bright, blazing words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident -- that all men created equal, -- endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
With the rise of the global economy, we are losing those rights and our home is in danger, because the greed of corporations, governments use science and technology chipping away at thinking of equality and understanding the importance building a better world.
3
Sounds like Douhat is saying we'll muddle through - like we've been doing since the dawn of time.
Let's ask a polar bear. Mr. Bear, are you a dynamist and catastrophist?
Mr. Bear: Those are big words. All I know is ice and permafrost are melting. Alaskan villages are sinking into ooze. Got any fish?
Let's ask a Miami resident. Ms. Resident, are you a dynamist and catastrophist?
Ms. Resident: You idiot. You are counting the angels on a pin while my house is under water.
Let's ask a Koch Brother. Mr. Koch, are you a dynamist and catastrophist?
Mr. Koch: beats me. I just wanna see people confused while I drill where the permafrost used to be. Ka-ching!
Mr. Bear: Those are big words. All I know is ice and permafrost are melting. Alaskan villages are sinking into ooze. Got any fish?
Let's ask a Miami resident. Ms. Resident, are you a dynamist and catastrophist?
Ms. Resident: You idiot. You are counting the angels on a pin while my house is under water.
Let's ask a Koch Brother. Mr. Koch, are you a dynamist and catastrophist?
Mr. Koch: beats me. I just wanna see people confused while I drill where the permafrost used to be. Ka-ching!
14
I invite the church to donate $1 trillion of its assets to develop geo engineered solutions to protect its 1 billion followers from temperature increases, that's only $1000 per soul.
1
Ah, the conservative's constant drive to attach a label to the "sides" of an issue, and within the connotation of the word used for the label, to set up the writer's intent to diminish and demean any opposing perspective.
Here, the selection of 'dynamism' as the label for climate science deniers is laughable. Dynamists are those who see through the obfuscation attempts and seek BOTH to shift the pattern of climate change and create new tools and technologies for a sustainable earth. One cannot fix a set of problems unless the problems are clearly understood, described and addressed
Here, the selection of 'dynamism' as the label for climate science deniers is laughable. Dynamists are those who see through the obfuscation attempts and seek BOTH to shift the pattern of climate change and create new tools and technologies for a sustainable earth. One cannot fix a set of problems unless the problems are clearly understood, described and addressed
9
This is Nina Castro.
I know that it's your calling to analyze and dissect, but in essence what you've done is mire the call to action in a new "stagnationist" cesspool. I'll take the "doers" vs. the "stagnators" every time, but especially this time.
I know that it's your calling to analyze and dissect, but in essence what you've done is mire the call to action in a new "stagnationist" cesspool. I'll take the "doers" vs. the "stagnators" every time, but especially this time.
8
"...the genius of free markets." Oh, puh-leeze!
12
Great point, Russ--"catastrophism" has no place in the Catholic religion!
1
Put two mice in a box. They might mate and reproduce more mice. When the mice run out of enough food and water, they will begin to eat each other.
There are obvious definable limits to growth. When we exceed those limits, suffering begins. It has always been this way. But the "dynamist" has been taught (by the corporate Oligarchs who thrive on producing consumer toys) that we can scientifically figure our way out of the disaster. Sometimes that works. We have done some wonderful things - preventing diseases, creating shelter, etc. But there are limits.
The worship of growth and consumerism is an experiment. It is the real religion of our time. All these other God based religions are just moral cover for irresponsible selfish behavior. It is beginning to fail. All the signs are there. But the Ross Douthats of the world will continue to ignore them.
It's the other species and and poor humans that suffer first. Those of us who read the Times can move inland or find another source of fresh water - for a while. We'll eat steak as forests are decimated. We can even buy oxygen. This movie has been made many times. Now it becomes real...
Pope Francis is merely doing what leaders of all types should have been doing many, many years ago. He's so right. He's so late.
There are obvious definable limits to growth. When we exceed those limits, suffering begins. It has always been this way. But the "dynamist" has been taught (by the corporate Oligarchs who thrive on producing consumer toys) that we can scientifically figure our way out of the disaster. Sometimes that works. We have done some wonderful things - preventing diseases, creating shelter, etc. But there are limits.
The worship of growth and consumerism is an experiment. It is the real religion of our time. All these other God based religions are just moral cover for irresponsible selfish behavior. It is beginning to fail. All the signs are there. But the Ross Douthats of the world will continue to ignore them.
It's the other species and and poor humans that suffer first. Those of us who read the Times can move inland or find another source of fresh water - for a while. We'll eat steak as forests are decimated. We can even buy oxygen. This movie has been made many times. Now it becomes real...
Pope Francis is merely doing what leaders of all types should have been doing many, many years ago. He's so right. He's so late.
6
Another apologist for greed and exploitation. Such cynical and tired arguments have no traction anymore!
10
Oy vey! The linguistic contortions of Mr. Douthat notwithstanding, sometimes a stinky smokestack is just a stinky smokestack. One cannot claim to be a devout Christian and tolerate contaminating the earth and its inhabitants.
13
The fourth word Ross uses in his piece to characterize the Pope's majestic, luminous, brilliant encyclical is the negative adjective "sprawling". Need more be said?
5
Do you suppose Greed is the knowledge God did not want us to have???
It is indeed a disaster.
It is indeed a disaster.
3
What nonsense. This isn't about catastrophy v dynamism, its about ants v grasshoppers. People with vision to plan for the future v people only interested in living for today. The fact that occasionally technology saves the grasshoppers doesn't validate their approach to life. Too many business leaders cannot see beyond the next quarter and too many politicians cannot see beyond the next election.
16
This is the textbook puffery predicted by Ruth Benedict in her seminal scientific look (Patterns of Culture) at how human groups rise and fall in the world. First, we select traits over time that resonate with our ideals. Second, we sanctify them so that criticism is sinful. Third, we cling to them in the face of all reason. Then, just at the moment when those selected traits are in greatest need of criticism or change, we hold them more tightly than ever. Instead of gradual change in the face of a dynamic world, we get either calamity of revolution. Helluva job, Mr. Douthat.
10
Here is the solution to global warming. Forget about restricting fossil fuels and destroying economies. Oh, and as a “side” benefit, it feeds the poor. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_a...
The convolutedness of Douthat's analysis, and indeed of every conservative who has made comment on the Pope's reasoned, reasonable, and accurate description of the state of our common home, reminds me of George Clooney as Ulysses Everett McGill in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou," when Ulysses and his companions awaken to find themselves trapped in a burning barn. Ulysses can only say over and over "We're in a tight spot!"
8
I am not Catholic, but I am coming to like and respect Pope Francis a great deal as he sincerely tries to follow the teachings of Christ. Douthat's attack presents a very distorted view of what is going on and what this pope stands for. It is not a fight between dynamists and catastrophist,s but honest self-criticism of where we have fallen short and are endangering our future and our children's future. What Douthat is saying is let's not really be wholly against what hurts us, but rather be temperate and not really give up our filthy pleasure of amassing wealth without regard for anyone or anything else.
As some very wise people have said mankind has two possibilities to be good or to be evil, to make the necessary changes or to make excuses and temporize and call for moderation while we continue down the same filthy path. It is so easy to be deaf to the cries of the poor, and now the middle class, as we comfortably hold onto a brutally selfish way of living
As some very wise people have said mankind has two possibilities to be good or to be evil, to make the necessary changes or to make excuses and temporize and call for moderation while we continue down the same filthy path. It is so easy to be deaf to the cries of the poor, and now the middle class, as we comfortably hold onto a brutally selfish way of living
7
Ross Douthat is one of those humans who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that not everything should work to the benefit of a conservative, right wing America human.
4
Hey Ross, sorry to know you came down on the side of those who need instant gratification . It has been the hallmark of our generation.
The innovation which you touted in favor of Capitalism has only resulted in Poverty and Misery and War for 70 % of the world.
I hope the Pope instills some sense into the Ayn Rand's of Capitalism like you.
The innovation which you touted in favor of Capitalism has only resulted in Poverty and Misery and War for 70 % of the world.
I hope the Pope instills some sense into the Ayn Rand's of Capitalism like you.
3
Douthat fights a desperate rearguard rightist position, ignoring the manifest failures of post-Enlightenment politics & economics, grossly oversimplifying critiques & issues., & slipping in subtle slanders. If this is the best his party can do, its shallow incompetence is made plain. Pope Francis speaks in the tradition of the OT prophets & Jesus when he criticizes oppression & injustice, a tradition that is all too relevant today. As for ‘the genius of free markets’, that spirit is a devil.
5
I sat at table the other day with a group of former colleagues to enjoy a day at the racetrack. The subject of the pope’s encyclical arose, without any of us having either read it or read much about it. When I pointed out that all of us were rather comfortable as compared to the poor throughout the world, the immediate reaction was that we had earned it. The fact of our conspicuous consumption at that very table didn’t trouble us as we went on to consume food and drink and cash without any purpose but personal pleasure. I think Francis is telling us to reconsider our behaviors as the wealthiest use up the world’s resources without any regard for those with nothing! Everything else is minor to that principle.
4
animals do not foul their nests...is their concern "moral," or is it "instinctive"? (what we "sapientists," if you will, might call "common sense")...does it matter?
how aobut we stop as much of the fouling as we can and repair as much damage as we can, forthwith with the tools (law, moral imperative, mop and broom, whatever) we possess...then, or even as we go, address the rest, whether as "dynamists." "catastrophists," "stagnationalists," or jabberwocks.
how aobut we stop as much of the fouling as we can and repair as much damage as we can, forthwith with the tools (law, moral imperative, mop and broom, whatever) we possess...then, or even as we go, address the rest, whether as "dynamists." "catastrophists," "stagnationalists," or jabberwocks.
4
I am in the process of slowly and carefully reading this document. There are many good points made. I agree the environment has been severely compromised. However, blaming "western civilization" for this disaster will not yield a single gallon of clean water or remediate an inch of land. It is the massive population increase that is a major cause or one of the major causes of the environmental damage Pope Francis deplores. The Pope also gravely underestimates the size and magnitude of the situation. By ignoring the obvious, the Pole compromises the integrity of his teachings.
2
What did the Pope write about overpopulation, women's health and starving children, made all the worse by a lack of birth control?
3
What is missing is that the Pope is preaching mostly to the U.S., the most arrogant ignorant population on the planet. Our "leaders" boast of our "exceptionalism", while I travel around the planet and see challenges to our environmental attitude in the regular people everywhere. Our only exceptionalism is our lack of knowledge of the very world in which we live.
3
"Religion is based on faith while science is based on doubt."
Richard P. Feynman
Nobel laureate physicist
Moral: Beware the unquestioning conviction and soaring rhetoric of high priests an any Harvard Divinity School drop-outs who may have once served as Vice President of the United States.
Richard P. Feynman
Nobel laureate physicist
Moral: Beware the unquestioning conviction and soaring rhetoric of high priests an any Harvard Divinity School drop-outs who may have once served as Vice President of the United States.
Mr. Douthat's argument seems very reasonable, which is what conservatives want to seem because change never occurs when it seems reasonable to not change. This has been the focus of a successful conservative agenda for decades, but is also the reason Pope Francis' encyclical is not "reasonable" - it is a call for humans to face our true enemy, the habits of our minds, which tell us if we just hold the steering wheel of the car straight, we won't run off the road. While this may seem reasonable, try it sometime and see where you end up.
2
The Pope has gone as far as his theological position allows him.For him to speak out about over population would shake the very foundations of Catholicism, and it's here that secularism must take over, making an alliance of strange bedfellows.More than anything else, over population is the greatest threat to survival of the planet.Not only because it adds to the suffering of the poor.but it stalls the conversion of fossil fuels to green energy,which even the the most radical conservatives would secretly prefer, if only for a desire for clean air & a end to polluting our environment.
Given to the Popes limited ability,he has helped to moved the world in the right direction towards confronting global warming, & history will look upon him as one of the great theologians.
Given to the Popes limited ability,he has helped to moved the world in the right direction towards confronting global warming, & history will look upon him as one of the great theologians.
2
The “catastrophists" might conclude after reading Mr. Douthat that no awareness, no understanding the gravity is sufficient to motivate us to behave responsibly. And while Neither Pope Francis or Mr. Douthat offer concrete alternatives to the status quo, we opt for convenience? And what should we say to ourselves? The same ineffective words over and over funnel us towards more and more disruptive choices tomorrow. Pope Francis should cry in despair, but for his faith in humanity.
Mr. Douthat,
Have you read the Latin original? I never trust official translations after I saw a spelling error in Federal Register, in the English translation of the French text on the subject of notarization and certification by "Apostille", the article signed by Walther J. Stoessel.
Have you read the Latin original? I never trust official translations after I saw a spelling error in Federal Register, in the English translation of the French text on the subject of notarization and certification by "Apostille", the article signed by Walther J. Stoessel.
Your presentation of this matter as binary is flawed. What the Pope is doing is presenting a justification for action to move us of the dead center position where all we do is talk about environmental decay and income disparity between the rich and poor. It is possible that with his courage and leadership the Pope can alter our path toward a more sustainable and just future. Thank Pope Francis for taking this stand against the powerful forces of greed that want to destroy the earth to make more money at the expense of those who lack decent food, shelter, and health care.
7
The writer is muddying the water further in a vain effort to protect the status quo. Nature and society by virtue of their complexity do not support simplifications like dynamic vs catastrophic. Climate change will significantly alter our way of life. We can ease the change by acknowledging that change is always happening, just faster right now, and invest in new processes that will reduce our footprint. Or we can wait until climate forces change on us. Simply changing our energy sources, using sustainable agriculture, mining, logging and construction, distributing food, clothing and shelter more equitably would arrest climate change before it goes too far. The business class can still make a lot of money. It's the competitive model, the Tennysonian "nature red it tooth and claw" that needs to be set aside.
7
Jesus was an apocalyptist which I'd say makes Him a catastrophist.
2
It obscures the issue to dress it up in a pseudo-philosophical false dichotomy.
How about taking Francis on face value? Here's how I interpret his message: "We have a big problem. It is not being addressed because of corporate greed. Let's do something about it." No need stare at our navel as we contemplate the greatness of our civilization.
And how come everyone forgets what Francis said about the poor? "Not to share one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs"
Now if only he had a change of heart about abortion and women priests. Still, I wish he was writing for the Times instead of Mr. Douthat. Go Francis!
How about taking Francis on face value? Here's how I interpret his message: "We have a big problem. It is not being addressed because of corporate greed. Let's do something about it." No need stare at our navel as we contemplate the greatness of our civilization.
And how come everyone forgets what Francis said about the poor? "Not to share one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs"
Now if only he had a change of heart about abortion and women priests. Still, I wish he was writing for the Times instead of Mr. Douthat. Go Francis!
8
Fascinating. It's always interesting to see the evolution of the Right in their arguments. For a while now, they've been using the Luntz line, "I'm not a scientist." It's as if they all had a memo handed to them: Jeb! Bush, McConnell, Boehner, Rubio, Rick Scott. Bobby Jindal (who actually was a biology major in college!), all have stated that they are not scientists, which begs the question of why they don't confer with scientists?
But, now we see the new pivot of the Right:
"Finally, it’s possible to believe that climate change is happening while doubting that it makes “the present world system ... certainly unsustainable,” as the pope suggests. Perhaps we’ll face a series of chronic but manageable problems instead; perhaps “radical change” can, in fact, be persistently postponed."
Literally, the Right wants to fiddle while Rome burns. We caused this situation, why can't we fix it? Such insightful, brave leaders, and columnists, on the Right.
But, now we see the new pivot of the Right:
"Finally, it’s possible to believe that climate change is happening while doubting that it makes “the present world system ... certainly unsustainable,” as the pope suggests. Perhaps we’ll face a series of chronic but manageable problems instead; perhaps “radical change” can, in fact, be persistently postponed."
Literally, the Right wants to fiddle while Rome burns. We caused this situation, why can't we fix it? Such insightful, brave leaders, and columnists, on the Right.
24
It is disappointing that Pope Francis accepts the reality of climate change yet cannot see that it is unrelenting population growth that has made climate change a reality.
Half the right message is unfortunately not good enough. By continuing to support large families, Catholocism dooms many in the third world to lives of desperation, sometimes hunger and early death.
I can remember visiting Kenya a few years ago. On Sunday, I would see the population dressed in their best clothes going to worship, many presumably in Catholic churches.
Too bad church doctrine didn't teach the importance of having AT MOST two children in a world that is already overpopulated.
The Holy Scriptures are silent on birth control because it didn't exist when they were written. They are also silent on abortion, but the "binding of Isaac" suggests that the Old Testament God might have condoned infanticide in conditions of privation.
It is therefore a tragedy that our religions cannot teach that use of birth control is an obligation and that NO, it is NOT murder to undergo an abortion.
The result is that we can see the population of sub-Saharan Africa explode. In many cases, too many people leads to outright genocide (Rwanda), endless civil wars (Congo) or outright starvation (the Sudan).
Meanwhile one of the two subspecies of Whtie Rhino is essentially extinct, while perhaps 5 of 7 subspecies of Black Rhino are extinct.
It is too many people (large families) which destroy Mother Earth.
Half the right message is unfortunately not good enough. By continuing to support large families, Catholocism dooms many in the third world to lives of desperation, sometimes hunger and early death.
I can remember visiting Kenya a few years ago. On Sunday, I would see the population dressed in their best clothes going to worship, many presumably in Catholic churches.
Too bad church doctrine didn't teach the importance of having AT MOST two children in a world that is already overpopulated.
The Holy Scriptures are silent on birth control because it didn't exist when they were written. They are also silent on abortion, but the "binding of Isaac" suggests that the Old Testament God might have condoned infanticide in conditions of privation.
It is therefore a tragedy that our religions cannot teach that use of birth control is an obligation and that NO, it is NOT murder to undergo an abortion.
The result is that we can see the population of sub-Saharan Africa explode. In many cases, too many people leads to outright genocide (Rwanda), endless civil wars (Congo) or outright starvation (the Sudan).
Meanwhile one of the two subspecies of Whtie Rhino is essentially extinct, while perhaps 5 of 7 subspecies of Black Rhino are extinct.
It is too many people (large families) which destroy Mother Earth.
30
Unless you are advocating some sort of mass slaughter, population is not a problem that can be readily tackled.
Brakes, however, can be applied now to slow down the direct cause of climate change — CO2 and other gases such as methane.
The first order of business is to slow the bleeding.
Brakes, however, can be applied now to slow down the direct cause of climate change — CO2 and other gases such as methane.
The first order of business is to slow the bleeding.
The US is a major polluter. Population did not do that. The greed of the oilmen did it.
The encyclical says:
" To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption. "
If you look at the numbers, energy use in advanced countries is the major villain in climate change. Furthermore, birth rates are dropping everywhere. Lots of countries are already below the reproduction rate. Population growth is a problem that is in the process of solving itself; the consumerist mindset is a problem that it out of control. Pope Francis is right.
" To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption. "
If you look at the numbers, energy use in advanced countries is the major villain in climate change. Furthermore, birth rates are dropping everywhere. Lots of countries are already below the reproduction rate. Population growth is a problem that is in the process of solving itself; the consumerist mindset is a problem that it out of control. Pope Francis is right.
It is disappointing that Pope Francis accepts the reality of climate change yet cannot see that it is unrelenting population growth that has made climate change a reality.
Half the right message is unfortunately not good enough. By continuing to support large families, Catholocism dooms many in the third world to lives of desperation, sometimes hunger and early death.
I can remember visiting Kenya a few years ago. On Sunday, I would see the population dressed in their best clothes going to worship, many presumably in Catholic churches.
Too bad church doctrine didn't teach the importance of having AT MOST two children in a world that is already overpopulated.
The Holy Scriptures are silent on birth control because it didn't exist when they were written. It is also silent on abortion, but the "binding of Isaac" suggests that the Old Testament God might have condoned infanticide in conditions of privation.
It is therefore a tragedy that our religions cannot teach that use of birth control is an obligation and that NO, it is NOT murder to undergo an abortion.
The result is that we can see the population of sub-Saharan Africa explode. In many cases, too many people leads to outright genocide (Rwanda), endless civil wars (Congo) or outright starvation (the Sudan).
Meanwhile one of the two subspecies of Whtie Rhino is essentially extinct, while perhaps 5 of 7 subspecies of Black Rhino are extinct.
It is too many people (large famines) which destroy Mother Earth.
Half the right message is unfortunately not good enough. By continuing to support large families, Catholocism dooms many in the third world to lives of desperation, sometimes hunger and early death.
I can remember visiting Kenya a few years ago. On Sunday, I would see the population dressed in their best clothes going to worship, many presumably in Catholic churches.
Too bad church doctrine didn't teach the importance of having AT MOST two children in a world that is already overpopulated.
The Holy Scriptures are silent on birth control because it didn't exist when they were written. It is also silent on abortion, but the "binding of Isaac" suggests that the Old Testament God might have condoned infanticide in conditions of privation.
It is therefore a tragedy that our religions cannot teach that use of birth control is an obligation and that NO, it is NOT murder to undergo an abortion.
The result is that we can see the population of sub-Saharan Africa explode. In many cases, too many people leads to outright genocide (Rwanda), endless civil wars (Congo) or outright starvation (the Sudan).
Meanwhile one of the two subspecies of Whtie Rhino is essentially extinct, while perhaps 5 of 7 subspecies of Black Rhino are extinct.
It is too many people (large famines) which destroy Mother Earth.
4
Large famines and large families.
Ross is trying to put lipstick on a pig by redefining all the climate change deniers and climate change ignoring politicians as people who will do something about climate change if you just let them lead. People like Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum and Mark Rubio who are looking for campaign contributions from Charles and David Koch. They will do something when the right solution comes along. The problem is that there are no solutions on hand that let us continue to dig up and burn all the carbon in the ground while maintaining the equilibrium of the climate.
41
VIVA PAPA FRANCESCO!!!
26
The American people have refused to take on their supposedly elected "leaders" who are doing everything in their power to protect their paymasters, the top 1% global financial elite. However, Europeans - who have suffered through millennium of wars over power by their leaders at the expense of average people - are speaking up and taking action. The Good People of America can either stand up and VOTE for leaders who will restore a civil, safe democracy in America and around the world or be laughed out of the international community. Do we want an America that is known only for destroying the planet's resources and providing weapons to murder people or do we want to stand for real democracy? How we vote on November 8 - just over four months from now - and in future elections for the foreseeable future will decide. I will vote only for democrats and others who want to restore real democracy in America.
20
There is a bit of irony in the pope's pronouncement. One reason why environmental movements are successful is that they can develop quasi-religious appeal. Consider for example the religious concepts of sin and penance; in the environmental context this can be embodied by pollution (sin) and the making of 'sacrifices' (this strongly religious term is indeed commonly used) with respect to our lifestyle (penance). Or think of the notion of apocalypse found in many religions: from the 60s to the 80s atomic power provided an apocalyptic vision, nowadays global climate change can also fill the slot. And again we are being asked to make "sacrifices" in order to avert the end of days. Finally, environmentalism also offers a vision of paradise: mankind living in harmony with nature. So it is interesting that a religious leader would now take a position on matters that for some of his own flock but also for others already form a parallel or competing religion.
6
The Pope's message is that living the values of Catholic teaching are calling us to confront the challenge of our collective ecological stewardship of the planet.
This message doesn't represent a competitive threat to the world's great religions, in fact, it may well reinvigorate them.
This message doesn't represent a competitive threat to the world's great religions, in fact, it may well reinvigorate them.
51
Your post, while interesting, has nothing to do with the realities of our situation, its real dangers, and the need for real response, not merely about religion at all--not to create a paradise, but to attempt to sustain a livable environment in so far as we can now and for the future.
4
Douthat: "What everyone wants to know, of course, is whether the pope takes sides in our most polarizing debate."
Of course he takes sides, and this is nothing new for him or his predecessors. It is called the "preferential option for the poor," and it is nothing new for Francis and his predecessors, especially popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The idea can be traced back to the Hebrew prophets of ancient Israel and is given "pungency" in the judgment scene of Matthew 25:31-46, when the criteria for identifying the just is how they treated the poor: the hungry, the thirsty, the ill, etc.
This is nothing new, Ross.
Of course he takes sides, and this is nothing new for him or his predecessors. It is called the "preferential option for the poor," and it is nothing new for Francis and his predecessors, especially popes Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The idea can be traced back to the Hebrew prophets of ancient Israel and is given "pungency" in the judgment scene of Matthew 25:31-46, when the criteria for identifying the just is how they treated the poor: the hungry, the thirsty, the ill, etc.
This is nothing new, Ross.
36
Is the Pope simply siding with the poor or is he siding with creation itself ? Is the Pope simply trying to bring relief to the world's slums, or is does he have a concern for the affluent as well, who perhaps gradually and inadvertently are walled off from the plight of the world's masses, whose reactions are thereby driving explosive social unrest - insurrection, mass immigration, tribalism, war, terrorism.
I do believe he is calling for people the world over to assert truly representative government and policy. That will represent a threat or challenge to those living a life of excess - materially, politically, etc. I believe the Pope is asserting that these issues need to be freshly assessed and challenged with a moral framework.
I do believe he is calling for people the world over to assert truly representative government and policy. That will represent a threat or challenge to those living a life of excess - materially, politically, etc. I believe the Pope is asserting that these issues need to be freshly assessed and challenged with a moral framework.
Perhaps humans can adapt to climate change to a degree that we, as a species, remain successful and dominate on the planet. But what about all the other species? What gives humans the right to continually destroy whole ecosystems and species just because we want to burn all the coal and oil and natural gas that is available? What God gave humans the power of such wholesale destruction of the natural world? No god that I can believe in.
23
No God gave such power. Nature by its very design assumes a dynamic and changing world where species that adapt survive and those that dont die off. When a beaver dams a stream lots of animals are killed in the flooding. It's not that some God likes the beaver better than the gopher or that the beaver has the right to kill gophers to improve its quality of life. It just is what nature made it to be.
Nor any God that Pope Francis can believe in. If you read the encyclical, you will be treated to lyrical passages based on the relationship of Saint Francis of Assisi (our Holy Father's namesake) with the rest of the natural world. To quote: "The purpose of other creatures is not to be found in us. Rather, all creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things. Human beings, endowed with intelligence and love, and drawn by the fullness of Christ, are called to lead all creatures back to their Creator."(paragraph 83, Laudato Si) And: "Even the fleeting life of the least of beings is the object of His love, and in its few seconds of existence, God enfolds it with His love." (paragraph 77)
The greatness of the Pope's teaching in this encyclical lies in its being based on the essential Christian teaching: God's love is boundless, endless and utterly faithful, the basis of all creation.
The greatness of the Pope's teaching in this encyclical lies in its being based on the essential Christian teaching: God's love is boundless, endless and utterly faithful, the basis of all creation.
On which side are American "conservatives" dynamists or catastrophists or stagnationists?
"Praise be to You", describes circumstances that exist and are being exploited to serve the elite, the 0.01% in which scientific evidence is being ignored and manipulated causing immediate and impending harm to the majority and to the weakest among that majority. As wealth is inherently stagnating, self protective, exclusive one knows intuitively that the wealthy are not diligently building a dynamic future but one in which they acquire more wealth, preserve their wealth dynastically, and capitalize on dwindling resources. Innovation is disruptive to the wealthy. The wealthy today deny scientific evidence or buy scientists who confuse the public to keep the world enslaved to fossil fuels so they can extract the last dollar from the catastrophe that they created and the stagnation they enforce.
Douthat argues that the world's poor are better off today because of the rule of the elite. UNHCR reports that there are over 51 million forced immigrants fleeing from war. It is estimated that there are over 35 million slave in the world today. Stagnationists want us to believe that we are better off today but we have 86 million persons who have fled their countries because of war or enslaved. Conservatives have been served notice.
Stagnationist is a welcomed term and one that should be employed by progressives running against stagnationists.
"Praise be to You", describes circumstances that exist and are being exploited to serve the elite, the 0.01% in which scientific evidence is being ignored and manipulated causing immediate and impending harm to the majority and to the weakest among that majority. As wealth is inherently stagnating, self protective, exclusive one knows intuitively that the wealthy are not diligently building a dynamic future but one in which they acquire more wealth, preserve their wealth dynastically, and capitalize on dwindling resources. Innovation is disruptive to the wealthy. The wealthy today deny scientific evidence or buy scientists who confuse the public to keep the world enslaved to fossil fuels so they can extract the last dollar from the catastrophe that they created and the stagnation they enforce.
Douthat argues that the world's poor are better off today because of the rule of the elite. UNHCR reports that there are over 51 million forced immigrants fleeing from war. It is estimated that there are over 35 million slave in the world today. Stagnationists want us to believe that we are better off today but we have 86 million persons who have fled their countries because of war or enslaved. Conservatives have been served notice.
Stagnationist is a welcomed term and one that should be employed by progressives running against stagnationists.
25
Ross, unfortunately your seeming need to criticize this report that gores some of your sacred pigs blinds you to its overwhelming message that, while flawed is hopeful... IF...
IF we abandon the idea that healthy societies operate on an 'auto-pilot' that says that this doctrine or that (‘the market', 'technology', 'liberalism', conservatism') will save us... no further thinking involved... Clearly they haven't. History has NOT ended.
We live in an age of perpetual/hidden war, of bread and circuses, of rampant consumerism, of stagnation and relative complacency, of 'gated' communities, 'safe' from the squalor that exists all around, of a sixth extinction....
Whether or not it's 'true', assume there is a God, and He/She is good.... then we must follow the Wisdom of generosity, empathy, love, caring, IF we are to turn this massive ship around.
You can argue around the edges all you want, but the icebergs ahead and around us aren't going to move... it's our heading that must move.
IF we abandon the idea that healthy societies operate on an 'auto-pilot' that says that this doctrine or that (‘the market', 'technology', 'liberalism', conservatism') will save us... no further thinking involved... Clearly they haven't. History has NOT ended.
We live in an age of perpetual/hidden war, of bread and circuses, of rampant consumerism, of stagnation and relative complacency, of 'gated' communities, 'safe' from the squalor that exists all around, of a sixth extinction....
Whether or not it's 'true', assume there is a God, and He/She is good.... then we must follow the Wisdom of generosity, empathy, love, caring, IF we are to turn this massive ship around.
You can argue around the edges all you want, but the icebergs ahead and around us aren't going to move... it's our heading that must move.
35
If we assume there is a God, and He/She is good....then why is His/Her creation such a mess? Why is there squalor all around?
If you, EEE, want to invent a God, don't insist that He/She is good while you excoriate the Thing that your invention supposedly holds sway over. If Man was made in God's image, what does your description of His/Her handiwork tell you about your God?
If you, EEE, want to invent a God, don't insist that He/She is good while you excoriate the Thing that your invention supposedly holds sway over. If Man was made in God's image, what does your description of His/Her handiwork tell you about your God?
Spin, spin, spin.
19
The despoiling of the physical landscape is a reflection of the despoiling of our individual internal landscapes. We are driven to plunder the environment by our greed for things that we need to have and in doing so are ruining the one resource we cannot replace: the planet we live on. True environmentalists, (e.g. Bill McKibbin, the Dalai Lama, and the Pope) are not concerned with the accumulation of things or getting elected to office. They see the destruction of the earth and are trying desperately to get citizens on the planet to wake up. Mr. Douthat's divisions are not helpful to this cause. No one should take sides when our survival is at stake… but we should ponder this question: how much do we really need to make us happy?
98
That is truly brilliant. The outside a reflection of the collective inside. As Ted Kennedy said, "When does the greed stop? How much is enough?"
There is no polarizing debate about climate change. There is simply a small, vocal portion of the public that remains, for whatever reason, willfully impervious to science. This editorial space would be put to better use if it recognized that fact and opined on how to weed the retrogrades out of our public policy forums.
33
Yes, that is the scientific way, squelch all dissenting voices. That's what tyrants always do. Ask Socrates or Galileo.
It's all about the 2nd amendment absolutism trumpeted by the NRA, funded in large measure by Big Carbon in order to maintain a gun fetishizing anti-government right wing base that is in turn easily manipulated against any central power or responsibility that might be inconvenient to the carbon oligarchs. This of course requires bald faced denial of science. Simple.
dynamists and catastrophists? I don't think so. The root of the problem is capitalism, modernity has nothing to do with it. Francis is looking to the government for solutions. The real issue is not climate change, it is pollution of the water and earth. Those are immediate problems, solvable now, by each government unto itself. Francis would love to let loose the EPA on the world.
16
(Corrected version)"Hey Ross, Way to spin it!" In general my political and economic viewpoints are antithetical to those of Mr. Douthat; including this article. But that doesn't mean that I believe that his standpoints are unworthy of intellectual respect (they are!) and as you arrogantly imply, are merely a product of his allegiance to the energy industry.
Considering and respecting a variety of points of view is one of the most important components of true liberalism. Summarily dismissing opposite opinions simply because we differ philosophically is not only anti-liberal it is also anti-intellectual.
Considering and respecting a variety of points of view is one of the most important components of true liberalism. Summarily dismissing opposite opinions simply because we differ philosophically is not only anti-liberal it is also anti-intellectual.
Hey Ross, Way to spin it! I wondered how you would take a potentially revolutionary constructive message on climate change from Pope Francis and twist it into yet another Conservative excuse to keep raking in the profits. Well done. Let's keep digging that coal, extracting that oil, buying all those colourful plastic products and those bigger/smaller/thinner/fatter techno-gadgets. Wink wink.
37
I'll give Brooks some credit here. As a gentle defender of republican policies, he's been dealt a lousy hand - forced to conclude that the infallible pope has indeed erred. That's a problem for Catholics to accept.
The "dynamists" versus "catastrophists" formulation is artificial, but at least it has a whiff of logical plausibility. And it does, indeed, open the door on discussions of remedies that may be different from stopping our carbon emissions.
Unfortunately (for republicans, at least), the pope's position is based on a strong blend of scientific understanding and moral concern for our world, while the republican defense of the status quo is not.
I suspect Brooks knows that this "debate" is not going to go the republican's way in the long term but he's doing his job, and I give him a hat tip for a respectable and civil effort.
The "dynamists" versus "catastrophists" formulation is artificial, but at least it has a whiff of logical plausibility. And it does, indeed, open the door on discussions of remedies that may be different from stopping our carbon emissions.
Unfortunately (for republicans, at least), the pope's position is based on a strong blend of scientific understanding and moral concern for our world, while the republican defense of the status quo is not.
I suspect Brooks knows that this "debate" is not going to go the republican's way in the long term but he's doing his job, and I give him a hat tip for a respectable and civil effort.
7
@ Entropic
Er...the author of this piece is Ross Douhat not David Brooks. The invention of the non existent dynamists and catastrophists categories is pure, and rather transparent, sophistry.
Er...the author of this piece is Ross Douhat not David Brooks. The invention of the non existent dynamists and catastrophists categories is pure, and rather transparent, sophistry.
26
Not only do you have the wrong author of the piece, you also have the wrong concept of infallibility. Encyclicals are not considered to be "ex cathedra" and do not come with "anathemas" for anyone who disagrees, so they are not part of infallibility. Infallibility does not mean that Popes can never be wrong, but only that when they make the most serious pronouncements as matters of the fundamental Catholic faith. Encyclicals are to be treated with respect, but do not compel the conscience.
You misunderstand the doctrine of papal infallibility. It is a very narrowly drawn doctrine, limited to pronouncements regarding faith and morals. Statements that "the notion that there are no indisputable truths to guide our lives, and hence human freedom is limitless" is evil fall into the infallible category. Specific strategies for dealing with environmental issues - such as the Pope's position on trading carbon credits - do not.
I consume, therefore I am. This is what my BBF Pope Francis is having us all take a look at. Where does our values lie, in things or people in monney or motther earth. If you are a republican usually the answer lies in tthe former.
14
There is a word mentioned in Ross's analysis that is missing from laudato si: apocalyptic. Understandably Pope Francis avoids use of apocalyptic reference. It avoids criticism that he is an hysterical alarmist. However, the unfortunate fact is that we are starting down the path that may lead to an apocalyptic extinction of the humanity. In fact, we are now in the early stages of a sixth mass extinction of life that exhibits signs of perhaps being the last because forces are being unleashed that may make the Earth inhospitable to any conscious life and perhaps any life at all.
On January 17, 2015, the Times published an Op-Ed by astrophysicist Adam Frank who believes that mass extinctions of life are a natural result of the evolution of conscious life forms that as they develop and abuse the environment as a matter of course. The nearly inevitable result is the extinction of all life. It's a scenario that he hypothesizes has been repeated millions of time on planets throughout the Universe.
In his first encyclical Francis excoriated the selfishness of those whose faith is in blind market forces that they manipulate for their own selfish interests. In laudato si he doesn't completely connect the dots. Nonetheless, the Apocalypse we face is an Apocalypse of Selfishness.
Listen! Can you hear the hoof beats? The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are riding and they just over the horizon.
John Klotz
http://johnklotz.blogspot.com
On January 17, 2015, the Times published an Op-Ed by astrophysicist Adam Frank who believes that mass extinctions of life are a natural result of the evolution of conscious life forms that as they develop and abuse the environment as a matter of course. The nearly inevitable result is the extinction of all life. It's a scenario that he hypothesizes has been repeated millions of time on planets throughout the Universe.
In his first encyclical Francis excoriated the selfishness of those whose faith is in blind market forces that they manipulate for their own selfish interests. In laudato si he doesn't completely connect the dots. Nonetheless, the Apocalypse we face is an Apocalypse of Selfishness.
Listen! Can you hear the hoof beats? The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are riding and they just over the horizon.
John Klotz
http://johnklotz.blogspot.com
22
I don't hear any hooves beating, but Chicken Little just texted me some apocalyptic message about the sky falling. What's that all about?
Don't worry about the four horsemen. They're stuck in traffic, and the horses will starve before the horsemen get to us.
Of course it's a huge shock when everything on which our society is predicated comes under threat, when we're faced with the fact that our ingrained prejudices are just so much pernicious garbage.
We're being told we must change ideas in midstream...
Is it surprising that the reaction should be "shoot the messenger", when the message denies our real religion, the cult of Mammon, and our real philosophy, crass materialism?
But before we "nuke the Vatican" it might be a good idea to reflect as deeply as we are able to on the message we are receiving from hard reality:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33209548
Stop. Read. Think, if you still know how to.
Then think of your children. Even if you don't know how to think of anyone else's.
We are all in the same boat.
The same Ark.
We're being told we must change ideas in midstream...
Is it surprising that the reaction should be "shoot the messenger", when the message denies our real religion, the cult of Mammon, and our real philosophy, crass materialism?
But before we "nuke the Vatican" it might be a good idea to reflect as deeply as we are able to on the message we are receiving from hard reality:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33209548
Stop. Read. Think, if you still know how to.
Then think of your children. Even if you don't know how to think of anyone else's.
We are all in the same boat.
The same Ark.
19
Dear Mr. Douthat,
The only "great argument of our time" is not the convoluted attempt you have made to downplay the pope's encyclical (As if "runaway consumerism" is NOT a vice!) but whether the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE will finally "figure out" that there is a problem with the environment and that problem is fueled by man generated "greed" (Despite the movie, greed is NOT good).
Perhaps the consequences of the pope's encyclical will be more telling; the GOP/TP/K.A. might lose a whole bunch of Catholic voters if they don't become, shall we say, somewhat "scientific" versus appealing only to "Joe the Plumber" types.
It will be interesting to see how the "Christian" Republican candidates re-act to his message. After all, he is the leader of over 1 billion Christians who tend to pay attention to what the "Holy Father' says.
You can certainly "dice and splice" his message but it seems pretty clear to me and, probably, many other voters:
a. The pope recognizes man made global catastrophe in the works
b. He condemns it and calls for those who participate in it to stop.
Not good words for the Koch Brothers who were all set just to buy this election. Unfortunately, none of the GOP/TP/K.A. front running candidates (declared or otherwise) are able to think independently enough to wean themselves from the money dangled before them by the likes of their wealthy backers.
The Democrats have a similar problem but they seem to have accepted the "science" of global warming.
The only "great argument of our time" is not the convoluted attempt you have made to downplay the pope's encyclical (As if "runaway consumerism" is NOT a vice!) but whether the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE will finally "figure out" that there is a problem with the environment and that problem is fueled by man generated "greed" (Despite the movie, greed is NOT good).
Perhaps the consequences of the pope's encyclical will be more telling; the GOP/TP/K.A. might lose a whole bunch of Catholic voters if they don't become, shall we say, somewhat "scientific" versus appealing only to "Joe the Plumber" types.
It will be interesting to see how the "Christian" Republican candidates re-act to his message. After all, he is the leader of over 1 billion Christians who tend to pay attention to what the "Holy Father' says.
You can certainly "dice and splice" his message but it seems pretty clear to me and, probably, many other voters:
a. The pope recognizes man made global catastrophe in the works
b. He condemns it and calls for those who participate in it to stop.
Not good words for the Koch Brothers who were all set just to buy this election. Unfortunately, none of the GOP/TP/K.A. front running candidates (declared or otherwise) are able to think independently enough to wean themselves from the money dangled before them by the likes of their wealthy backers.
The Democrats have a similar problem but they seem to have accepted the "science" of global warming.
27
If your precious Pope is such a great leader of his flock, how about asking him to intervene with the Catholic Court that gave us Citizens. Surely, he could open the eyes of Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia to the errors of their ways. After all, it was the Catholic Court that opened the doors for the heinous Koch Brothers, AKA Satan, LLC, to buy this country lock, stock and pulpit.
Do you think living on more than $1.25/day is an achievement? This is an argument the ruling class makes time and again. Why don't you try something else?
18
It beats living on less than that, which twice as many people worldwide did in 1990. Or perhaps you think everyone in the world can jump to $15/hour overnight.
The liberals hate churches who speak against gay marriage but love church who bus their congregants to the polls after the service. And now they have come to love the church for endorsing global warming.
I'm thinking a church is fine with the libs if the church preaches out of the "Book of Liberal Church Order."
Maybe a lib will drop a few bucks in the collection plate.
I'm thinking a church is fine with the libs if the church preaches out of the "Book of Liberal Church Order."
Maybe a lib will drop a few bucks in the collection plate.
3
@Jimmy
By suggesting we recognize and do something about it, the pope would seem to be opposing -- not endorsing -- global warming.
By suggesting we recognize and do something about it, the pope would seem to be opposing -- not endorsing -- global warming.
1
The same seems to be true of conservative candidates. Rick Santorum and Jeb Bush, both of whom are Catholic, have dismissed the encyclical because it doesn't fit their agendas. Yet, they both say they oppose abortion because of their religious positions.
As a priest-friend of mine said recently, "If your religion lines up 100% with a political party, there's something wrong with your religion. I promise you." I agree. During the 2000 election, I was teaching social justice in a Catholic high school. I had the students choose three issues and investigate the positions of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and a third party candidate. While one could cherry pick three topics that align with one party, it wasn't easy. My goal was for students to see that no party is perfect. Each party will require some compromise. It's up to each voter to decide on which issues and to what degree compromise is possible.
As a priest-friend of mine said recently, "If your religion lines up 100% with a political party, there's something wrong with your religion. I promise you." I agree. During the 2000 election, I was teaching social justice in a Catholic high school. I had the students choose three issues and investigate the positions of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and a third party candidate. While one could cherry pick three topics that align with one party, it wasn't easy. My goal was for students to see that no party is perfect. Each party will require some compromise. It's up to each voter to decide on which issues and to what degree compromise is possible.
I'm a liberal, Jimmy, and a Christian. Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy; blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." It's not about gay marriage. It's not about politics. It's about giving to all who ask of you, living in a radically compassionate way.
And it's as far from the conservative version of Christianity, the meanness and self-righteousness of that version, as it is possible to be. Or you might read this from him: " Many will say to Me in that last day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; for I was hungry and you fed me not, naked and you clothed me not, sick and in prison and you didn't care for me." (Matthew 7)
Don't say you weren't warned.
And it's as far from the conservative version of Christianity, the meanness and self-righteousness of that version, as it is possible to be. Or you might read this from him: " Many will say to Me in that last day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; for I was hungry and you fed me not, naked and you clothed me not, sick and in prison and you didn't care for me." (Matthew 7)
Don't say you weren't warned.
3
Another way of portraying Douthat's dynamists and catastrophists is that a dynamist is one that ignores the fact that the world we live in today is filled with misery, and the catastrophist fully encompasses the current global realities. The dynamist is oblivious to the hundreds of millions of starving people clawing for existence and without any meaning in their lives, and is oblivious to the wanton and wholesale destruction of the planet. The catastrophist fully acknowledges what is going on, and that all signs lead to things getting much worse.
Rather than dynamist and catastrophist I would prefer using the terms egoist and compassionist...
Rather than dynamist and catastrophist I would prefer using the terms egoist and compassionist...
21
The world has always been full of misery. There has been a gradual decrease in misery recently (recently on a historical timeframe).
Do you have some ideas on how we can lift everyone out of misery, globally, overnight?
Do you have some ideas on how we can lift everyone out of misery, globally, overnight?
So it's a nice way to cast the folks you identify with as glowing dewey eyed optimists and all those other whiners, including the Pope a fellow with a bit of knowledge at his finger tips as a lunatic fringe, but it just doesn't hold up. Maybe we'll innovate our way out of this problem or maybe we won't. When 97% of scientists agree you have a problem to say you don't see a problem strikes me as the delusional side of the argument. The problem is in this case if you happen to be wrong, you could be right, but just sayin' let's supppose all those scientists are right this time and we don't innovate our way out of this, what's the downside. Oh, massive species loss, potentially out of control warming, yes, catastrophe. It is not a certainty, it is a risk some folks can acknowledge and some folks can't because they would have to give up some creature comforts or their 401K might decline in value with all those fossil assets. The delusions reside with the deniers who are willing to go to the casino with the entire planet.
The other delusion is either or mentality, who is to say we can't innovate our way to a low carbon economy with an even better standard of life. Who really is the doubter.
The other delusion is either or mentality, who is to say we can't innovate our way to a low carbon economy with an even better standard of life. Who really is the doubter.
20
Catastrophism, sorry that is new to me. But we Americans, who can retreat to leafy and well watered suburbs, must remember that the Pope is father over Catholics the world over, many of whom live in places where there is simply no clean water, nor even toilets.
I read the encyclical, the questions and concern are that of a reasonable man.
I read the encyclical, the questions and concern are that of a reasonable man.
35
@Terry
Not my preferred definition, either, Terry. When I think of "catastrophism," names such as Velikovsky come to mind.
Not my preferred definition, either, Terry. When I think of "catastrophism," names such as Velikovsky come to mind.
One cannot be a conservative and a Christian, which makes it rather weird that conservatives beat the religious drum louder than anyone. The moral philosophy of Jesus, which the Pope is somewhat attuned to, is not just different from the values, goals, and beliefs of political conservatives; the two are the opposite of each other. (The views of Democrats fall in the middle, a compromise Christianity.) The right-wing icon, Ayn Rand, was a highly literate person capable of reading and understanding the Gospels. She saw the ideas of Jesus as devaluing Western values, and she quite logically despised Christianity. It's amazing that people like Mr. Douthat can't see what Rand saw--and what the Pope sees. It's not that Douthat's views are wrong, but it is ridiculous to view them as Christian. This huge religious hypocracy on the right should end.
39
Saint Peter denied Christ thrice and violently reacted to his arrest. A man of little faith who sank in the water. A man who ran and hid from Golgotha and was not at the empty open tomb. A man who quarreled with Paul. Jesus despaired in the Garden of Gethsemane and felt forsaken on the cross at Golgotha. Much more human, humane, humble and normal Christian than the 1st stone casting judging likes of Ross Douthat or Bush, Rubio, Santorum etc.
Physics works.
The energy imbalance is measurable. The Earth is warming at its fastest rate in 11,000 years. There is no pause.
Douthat's Dynamists are not technocrats they're cargo cultists.
The energy imbalance is measurable. The Earth is warming at its fastest rate in 11,000 years. There is no pause.
Douthat's Dynamists are not technocrats they're cargo cultists.
20
Denialists have a new word: "catastrophism." This single word allows them to dismiss those who express concern about the impact of climate change. How can we take seriously the people among us who tell us we are on the verge of calamity? Dismiss them as hysterical, dismiss them as "catastrophists." Once you've so dismissed them it then excuses the denialists to keep up business as usual. Don't worry, be happy. Embrace fossil fuelishness. Burn more coal, oil and gas because carbon dioxide is good for us, and so is greed, blindness to reality, indifference to the facts, and self-destruction according to the Ross Douthats of the world.
22
"Radical liberal catastrophists". It has a nice ring to it!
3
Yes, jingoism lives: obviously "dynamism" is much better than "catastrophism".
"This is a document aligned with the scientific consensus on climate that excoriates the modern scientific mind-set as, in effect, a 500-year mistake."
What is that? Greed and science are one? I was expecting Douthat to somehow try to subvert the Popes message. But not in this blatency.
"We might have entered a kind of stagnationist position, a sustainable decadence"
read:
Grumble, grumble, so we are causing this thing the liberals call climate change. But lets not do anything about it anyways.
This will be the next republican boulder that has to be rolled off the road.
What is that? Greed and science are one? I was expecting Douthat to somehow try to subvert the Popes message. But not in this blatency.
"We might have entered a kind of stagnationist position, a sustainable decadence"
read:
Grumble, grumble, so we are causing this thing the liberals call climate change. But lets not do anything about it anyways.
This will be the next republican boulder that has to be rolled off the road.
15
Oh dear it IS amusing to watch the catholic right in the US flail about like this.
25
The Catholic " wrong" according to the heir to the Fisherman Rock upon whom the Church was built who was given the Keys to the Kingdom by Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
A recent article took issue with the Pope's criticism of the cap and trade idea. If I understand the system correctly (and I am not sure I get all the complexities), it works like this: industries are granted certain credits (actually, permission to pollute) and they can sell the unused credits. Thus, if industry A needs to go over its limits, it can buy credits from industry B. But if this is so, it means two things: 1. that the total amount of pollution is shifted from B to A, and what is saved? 2) but, most importantly, if industry B is willing to sell its credits, it means that they don't need to use all their allotted energy and if they were not able to sell it, they might not use it and therefore there would be less pollution. Now, I understand that some financial benefits are derived from not using the allotted credits and this makes sense. But what is gained by the selling of credits other than allowing a bigger industry to pollute more and, of course, the profit to the selling industry?
6
Pope Francis maker or discover of catastrophes? The catastrophe he should be concerned about is the one in his own church especially since Vatican II, namely the ecclesial environmental degradation in his own Church. The Catholic Church effectively has become thoroughly Modernized in the sense of Pope Pius X condemnation. It is a kind of do-it-yourself Catholicism--cafeteria Catholicism, if you will. Pope Francis needs to spend his time fixing problem of which he has control and not engage in controversies over which he has no control.
2
Perhaps he can't control it, but I'm betting he can make a difference. Let's hope so.
Here's a simple test, Mr. Douthat, if you have to wonder if the world is going to hell in a handbag and you can't quite decide dynamists, catastrophists, or stagnationists are right about the future then its probably a good idea to assume the worst, hope for the best, and most of all, do all that you can to make it happen.
Incidentally, in terms of absolute numbers there are probably more people living in poverty today then anytime in history. The Pope may have a contradiction between the sanctity of life beginning at conception and the reality of that sanctity ending at birth but you are the one with the contradiction between reality and delusion.
Incidentally, in terms of absolute numbers there are probably more people living in poverty today then anytime in history. The Pope may have a contradiction between the sanctity of life beginning at conception and the reality of that sanctity ending at birth but you are the one with the contradiction between reality and delusion.
42
You blow-up a balloon till it explodes, at that micro second before it explodes, the balloon is at its greatest capacity. Dynamisms can be summed up in four word: Technology will save us. Tell that to all the other species of life we are driving to extinction. Go Anthropocene!
33
I’m don’t understand the hostility toward what Douthat wrote in this column. I don’t read a strong critique of the Pope or the encyclical. I do see some weak and inaccurate points.
That the poor have become less so is not due to capitalism - we are exploiting all the planet’s resources as fast as we can. The resultant wealth is being distributed in a massively unequal manner, so while the poor are a little better off, the rich are getting obscenely richer.
He conveniently ignores the Pope walking back the dogma on all-procreation-all-the-time. The Pope can’t do a 180 on this over night. That he has moderated on this at all, as well as on homosexuality, etc., is amazing and makes me wonder why conservatives in the Church haven’t poisoned him yet.
His statement on population growth is even a bit liberal, it seems to me - “it isn’t entirely clear how the planet can sustain the steadily-growing population the Catholic vision of marriage and fecundity implies. To credibly make the case that a billions-strong human race can keep having large families, you might need a more dynamist view of the human future . . .”
He refers to his third-way stagnationist theory as “sustainable decadence” - hardly a ringing endorsement.
He finishes with “the deep critique our civilization deserves . . . The arguments . . . will still resonate . . . Not a fear that the particular evils of our age can’t last, but the fear that actually, they can.”
Sounds fairly supportive to me - what am I missing?
That the poor have become less so is not due to capitalism - we are exploiting all the planet’s resources as fast as we can. The resultant wealth is being distributed in a massively unequal manner, so while the poor are a little better off, the rich are getting obscenely richer.
He conveniently ignores the Pope walking back the dogma on all-procreation-all-the-time. The Pope can’t do a 180 on this over night. That he has moderated on this at all, as well as on homosexuality, etc., is amazing and makes me wonder why conservatives in the Church haven’t poisoned him yet.
His statement on population growth is even a bit liberal, it seems to me - “it isn’t entirely clear how the planet can sustain the steadily-growing population the Catholic vision of marriage and fecundity implies. To credibly make the case that a billions-strong human race can keep having large families, you might need a more dynamist view of the human future . . .”
He refers to his third-way stagnationist theory as “sustainable decadence” - hardly a ringing endorsement.
He finishes with “the deep critique our civilization deserves . . . The arguments . . . will still resonate . . . Not a fear that the particular evils of our age can’t last, but the fear that actually, they can.”
Sounds fairly supportive to me - what am I missing?
8
He's the pope! Obviously he's going to say the problem is "not enough catholicism!", and the solution is "more catholicism!" According to the Pope, catastrophe is the result of the catholic church being evacuated from center stage and being replaced with the Enlightenment values of the philosophes (plus 21st century capitalism and technological innovation), and the only way to fix it is with a kind of spiritual restoration: a return to the Catholic church, in some form or another. I appreciate Ross' criticisms of the pontiff, even if ultimately i'm more of a dynamist than stagnationist...
The Republican Party has rejected science. They argue against evolution and climate change. Instead they quote the Bible as the end all. Governor Perry stated that there was not enough proof to support evolution but then accepted the Bible. At least the Pope accepts science and climate change. His sin according th Mr. Douthat is to criticize the American religion of capitalism. This is very unAmerican.
41
I always thought that the world could be divided into two groups: those who divide the world into two groups, and those who don't.
26
Mr Douthat, you use a lot of fancy verbiage to call out Pope Francis as an alarmist on climate change.
It was hardly likely that a conservative who believes in the genius of markets would agree with a Pope who labels as magical thinking the suggestion that the problems we face can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals.
Your argument, however, is so contorted that one might think you had great difficulty finding a way to respond to the encyclical that would at least sound as though it were based on principle and not simply on ideology and sheer dislike of the Pope.
It was hardly likely that a conservative who believes in the genius of markets would agree with a Pope who labels as magical thinking the suggestion that the problems we face can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals.
Your argument, however, is so contorted that one might think you had great difficulty finding a way to respond to the encyclical that would at least sound as though it were based on principle and not simply on ideology and sheer dislike of the Pope.
53
The Pope, in his insular religious patriarchal ivory tower, has just now made proclamations on issues that have been scientifically investigated and proven for the last fifty or so years?
I think we should make "innovative engineers, brilliant scientists with values, smart problem-solving social workers, and insightful and useful social scientists" Pope in the future. We need to upgrade the qualifications for "The Pope" in the 21st century.
Pope Francis, a nice guy, is no intellect or a problem solver. And he keeps coming to the table of knowledge twenty, thirty or fifty years too late.
I think we should make "innovative engineers, brilliant scientists with values, smart problem-solving social workers, and insightful and useful social scientists" Pope in the future. We need to upgrade the qualifications for "The Pope" in the 21st century.
Pope Francis, a nice guy, is no intellect or a problem solver. And he keeps coming to the table of knowledge twenty, thirty or fifty years too late.
1
Don't you get it ??
He may be late to the party, but he is one guest, among all, who when he speaks, billions listen.
And the .01%ters tremble, as they contemplate their demise.
He may be late to the party, but he is one guest, among all, who when he speaks, billions listen.
And the .01%ters tremble, as they contemplate their demise.
The Pope is a Jesuit scholar with an advanced degree who taught literature and psychology in a high school and a college, then taught theology in another college. He has negotiated through very difficult political situations in his country for years. To call him a nice guy with no intellect or problem solving skills is to demonstrate abject ignorance. He is the first pope in years who is anything but insular.
Mr. Douthat has once again demonstrated a sophistry almost beyond comprehension in his efforts to defend the indefensible and attack those who disagree with him. Now he has attacked the leader of his beloved church, the source of many of his professed beliefs.
45
Ross just as education, politics and private enterprise can lift millions out of poverty it can lead to a transition from CO2 producing electricity production to renewable, non-CO2 emitting electricity production and such could allow more people to be lifted out of poverty without warming our atmosphere dangerously.
Your support for both conservatism and dynamism is confusing - just like Edmund Burke's support for the American revolution but not the French! Hmm. Interesting. Could "conservatism" as a political philosophy have been fatally flawed from the start? Someone really ought to think about it.
"The genius of free markets"? Do you mean like Koch Industries self-determined right to pollute? Where's the genius in that? If the US was a social democracy you'd be less blithe about letting parts damage the whole! It doesn't seem sustainable Ross. Don't you love your country? Repeat after me: "government regulation of private enterprise is good."
In short: I somewhat agree with your critique of Pope Francis' perspective - but obviously not entirely. Reform is needed to avert catastrophe but not as radical as his eminence believes. The continuation of the status quo of development fueled by fossil fuels "obviously" can't last however.
Also you're right to point out that reform of the Catholic church's position regarding artificial contraception would be consistent with his thinking on ecological matters. But that's probably too much to expect of a pope - even Pope Francis.
Your support for both conservatism and dynamism is confusing - just like Edmund Burke's support for the American revolution but not the French! Hmm. Interesting. Could "conservatism" as a political philosophy have been fatally flawed from the start? Someone really ought to think about it.
"The genius of free markets"? Do you mean like Koch Industries self-determined right to pollute? Where's the genius in that? If the US was a social democracy you'd be less blithe about letting parts damage the whole! It doesn't seem sustainable Ross. Don't you love your country? Repeat after me: "government regulation of private enterprise is good."
In short: I somewhat agree with your critique of Pope Francis' perspective - but obviously not entirely. Reform is needed to avert catastrophe but not as radical as his eminence believes. The continuation of the status quo of development fueled by fossil fuels "obviously" can't last however.
Also you're right to point out that reform of the Catholic church's position regarding artificial contraception would be consistent with his thinking on ecological matters. But that's probably too much to expect of a pope - even Pope Francis.
4
I'm surprised that a staunch Catholic like Mr. Douhat has forgotten that the whole point of Christianity is catastrophe. Humans are naturally evil and the world will, as a consequence, end in foreordained disaster. Surprise! Your religion is Cataclysmic! Now, how do you resolve *that* with capitalism?
20
At first I said to myself, "keep an open mind on what Ross might have to say". Then Ross surprised me. He said a few things that I actually agreed with. He Seemed to be agreeing with science and the Pope on both climate change and civilization threatening challenges. Then he went back to lala land by essentially "if we keep on doing what we've been doing everything will just be fine. Technology and faith in humanity will make it all work out. Just more denial nonsense.
Yet I do agree with his observation that Catholic dogma tells people to go forth and multiply. That is hypocritical of the Pope.
Yet I do agree with his observation that Catholic dogma tells people to go forth and multiply. That is hypocritical of the Pope.
17
The problem with Ross Douthat's premise is that dynamism vs. catastrophism in the modern world is not a matter of philosophical choices and preferences. The evidence is clear that, if the world continues to add to the problems of GHGs, topsoil erosion, ocean acidification, ad nauseum, the results are predictably catastrophic.
Clearly scientific and technical progress will play a role in whatever solutions do get adopted, but so must a different approach to our relationships to the environment and one another. The Ever Onward-March of Progress ideology of the 18th and 19th centuries that got us where we are, got us where we are in terms of teetering on the edge of disaster, as well. It will not serve us well in the 21st century and beyond.
Clearly scientific and technical progress will play a role in whatever solutions do get adopted, but so must a different approach to our relationships to the environment and one another. The Ever Onward-March of Progress ideology of the 18th and 19th centuries that got us where we are, got us where we are in terms of teetering on the edge of disaster, as well. It will not serve us well in the 21st century and beyond.
8
Douhat in another one of his classic bits of casuistry invents two previously unheard of groups. Dynamists and Catastrophists. Clearly the purpose is demonize the Catastrophists (who now allegedly include the pope) as some sort of nut eating, tree hugging, doom saying, Luddite, sandal wearing cranks opposed to all modernity and human economic progress; and of course business particularly those businesses concerned with the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. As if it was anything like so simple. I see the dilemma for Douhat and Republicans who are affronted by this encyclical from the Vatican which they perceive as a serious threat to the credibility of the fantasy they have been selling for decades about climate change and global warming . Most have taken a fairly crude approach on the lines of the Pope should stick to religion while we take care of the money (have you ever noticed they always say this when religion opposes them but constantly invoke its importance in matters like women's reproductive rights). Douhat realizing this is a counter productive tactic where such a charismatic and credible figure as Francis is concerned deploys a more subtle tactic of classifying the Pope as a crank standing in the way of progress. Only one step away from parading down Broadway with a sandwich board proclaiming "We're all Doomed."
50
This is an interesting discussion of the subject.
However, Douthat does not mention the obvious - that we can hope for SOME innovations to help us deal with problems, while also seeking to end SOME of our current habits/behaviors.
In other words, in his language (academic language) our response should be partly "dynamic" and partly "catastrophic"
Having said this, it is entirely possible our civilization may be almost entirely destroyed within about a century or so. There is absolutely no reason that we could not destroy irrevocably, our habitat - after all, many civilizations have done this before on a local level. It absolutely can happen - and to me seems the most likely outcome.
All serious scientists and thinkers who have considered climate change say, at this point, there is no way we will survive without some geoengineering innovation. As insane as this sounds, it is now the reality. Even if ALL human activity stopped today, the temperature of the earth will continue to rise for several hundred years and remain elevated for several thousand. And as we know, human activity is not stopping and it is very possible we will barely reduce greenhouse gas production in the next 50-100 years. We're not necessarily doomed, but the nurturing climate that allowed our flourishing will be significantly altered for at least several thousand years, if not forever.
However, Douthat does not mention the obvious - that we can hope for SOME innovations to help us deal with problems, while also seeking to end SOME of our current habits/behaviors.
In other words, in his language (academic language) our response should be partly "dynamic" and partly "catastrophic"
Having said this, it is entirely possible our civilization may be almost entirely destroyed within about a century or so. There is absolutely no reason that we could not destroy irrevocably, our habitat - after all, many civilizations have done this before on a local level. It absolutely can happen - and to me seems the most likely outcome.
All serious scientists and thinkers who have considered climate change say, at this point, there is no way we will survive without some geoengineering innovation. As insane as this sounds, it is now the reality. Even if ALL human activity stopped today, the temperature of the earth will continue to rise for several hundred years and remain elevated for several thousand. And as we know, human activity is not stopping and it is very possible we will barely reduce greenhouse gas production in the next 50-100 years. We're not necessarily doomed, but the nurturing climate that allowed our flourishing will be significantly altered for at least several thousand years, if not forever.
27
Everyone needs to read Naomi Klein's masterful work "This Changes Everything." See if you can a) sleep at night and b) continue to support anything coming out of Corporate Mercia or the Republicant Party.
This Pope has no blind faith in "the power of markets"? Fine with me.
69
Rupert! I love you! I think faith should OPEN our eyes and minds and hearts and souls.
Love&Blessing&Laughter
Love&Blessing&Laughter
Whatever nits we can pick about his encyclical, and I have a few myself, the fact is that it is provoking widespread thought and self-reflection. Judging from the push-back he's getting from the right, the pope has already eminently succeeded.
54
Did Douthat actually read the encyclical? Seriously! The statement by Pope Francis contains the following:
Page 4: Quotes Pope Paul VI (1971) saying that “humanity runs the risk of destroying [nature] and becoming in turn a victim of this degradation.”
Page 5: Quotes Pope John Paul II (1979) warning that human beings “see no other meaning in their natural environment than what serves for immediate use and consumption.”
Page 6: Quotes Pope Benedict XVI (2007) calling for “correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.”
It’s clear that Douthat is saying ALL of these popes are “catastrophists.”
Page 4: Quotes Pope Paul VI (1971) saying that “humanity runs the risk of destroying [nature] and becoming in turn a victim of this degradation.”
Page 5: Quotes Pope John Paul II (1979) warning that human beings “see no other meaning in their natural environment than what serves for immediate use and consumption.”
Page 6: Quotes Pope Benedict XVI (2007) calling for “correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.”
It’s clear that Douthat is saying ALL of these popes are “catastrophists.”
62
Can one be a dynamic catastrophist?
Climate change is not like nuclear Armageddon. At least not for the wealthy people and nations that have the economic and martial resources to make do with the best of what is left - a temperate archipelago so to speak.
But that is not the case for those billions, and their nation states, that do no have the wherewithal to cope breathtaking changes that could occur in their domains. Like the flooding of deltas and low lying coasts, severe long lasting droughts, and utter violent mayhem that that these conditions will produce.
I think the Pope is trying to tell us that it is not about saving ourselves, but about saving the world, ourselves included. It's about the strategic and deliberate use of wealth and resources to prevent catastrophe. The free market and capitalism will instinctively move wealth to where it can grow, maybe waterfront property in Newfoundland, not flood control in Bangladesh.
But that is not the case for those billions, and their nation states, that do no have the wherewithal to cope breathtaking changes that could occur in their domains. Like the flooding of deltas and low lying coasts, severe long lasting droughts, and utter violent mayhem that that these conditions will produce.
I think the Pope is trying to tell us that it is not about saving ourselves, but about saving the world, ourselves included. It's about the strategic and deliberate use of wealth and resources to prevent catastrophe. The free market and capitalism will instinctively move wealth to where it can grow, maybe waterfront property in Newfoundland, not flood control in Bangladesh.
217
Not 'grow.' But move it to wherever it can benefit only its owner.
L&B&L
L&B&L
Let me mention a few “catastrophists” Douthat did not seem to consider:
- Ronald Reagan in his quest to limit nuclear weapons
- George H.W. Bush in his negotiation and signing of the Montreal Protocols (limiting CFCs)
- Richard Nixon, who established the EPA
- Theodore Roosevelt, who established national parks througout the nation and spearheaded numerous regulations of industry
- Lyndon Johnson, who signed the 1963 Clean Air Act
- Dwight Eisenhower who cautioned the nation about the military industrial complex
- John Major who signed the UK to the Rio Earth Summit accords
And I might add Milton Friedman who supported a tax on pollution.
- Ronald Reagan in his quest to limit nuclear weapons
- George H.W. Bush in his negotiation and signing of the Montreal Protocols (limiting CFCs)
- Richard Nixon, who established the EPA
- Theodore Roosevelt, who established national parks througout the nation and spearheaded numerous regulations of industry
- Lyndon Johnson, who signed the 1963 Clean Air Act
- Dwight Eisenhower who cautioned the nation about the military industrial complex
- John Major who signed the UK to the Rio Earth Summit accords
And I might add Milton Friedman who supported a tax on pollution.
46
“For instance, he doesn’t grapple sufficiently with evidence that the global poor have become steadily less poor under precisely the world system he decries — a reality that has complicated implications for environmentalism.”
“For instance, he doesn’t grapple sufficiently with evidence that the global poor have become steadily less poor under precisely the world system he decries — a reality that has complicated implications for environmentalism.”
The poor may richer in monetary terms but their quality of life has been profoundly degraded. In China, the air, land and water are so polluted that the food supply cannot be trusted. And pollution in India is worse than in China. Economic progress in Asia comes without any protection for workers and the environment. The move away from sustainable agriculture to a cash based economy benefits the ruling elite, not the poor.
“For instance, he doesn’t grapple sufficiently with evidence that the global poor have become steadily less poor under precisely the world system he decries — a reality that has complicated implications for environmentalism.”
The poor may richer in monetary terms but their quality of life has been profoundly degraded. In China, the air, land and water are so polluted that the food supply cannot be trusted. And pollution in India is worse than in China. Economic progress in Asia comes without any protection for workers and the environment. The move away from sustainable agriculture to a cash based economy benefits the ruling elite, not the poor.
20
Wait, did Ross Douthat just acknowledge that Catholic fecundity and the ecological health of our planet are linked?
"Nor are questions related to population growth successfully resolved. If resource constraints are really as severe as the pope implies, and technological solutions as limited in power, it isn’t entirely clear how the planet can sustain the steadily-growing population the Catholic vision of marriage and fecundity implies. To credibly make the case that a billions-strong human race can keep having large families, you might need a more, well, dynamist view of the human future than this encyclical contains."
Wow. That's a sign of progress.
"Nor are questions related to population growth successfully resolved. If resource constraints are really as severe as the pope implies, and technological solutions as limited in power, it isn’t entirely clear how the planet can sustain the steadily-growing population the Catholic vision of marriage and fecundity implies. To credibly make the case that a billions-strong human race can keep having large families, you might need a more, well, dynamist view of the human future than this encyclical contains."
Wow. That's a sign of progress.
18
Correction: the Catholic Church does not obligate couples to have large families, but that family planning should be natural.
Only a dynamist with myopic hubris would believe that our current course will provide a better future.
Glaciers are melting at a rapid pace, depleting the water sources of almost a billion people.
Polar ice caps and Antarctic ice sheets are melting threatening the homes of billions of people who live along the world's coastlines.
Oceans are acidified, filled with gyrating plastics and depleted of fish.
The Sixth Extinction of life on Earth, largely due to man-made environmental devastation has begun. Meanwhile, our Congress has begun passing bills to ignore scientific studies on native grassland birds such as the Sage-grouse. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/us/politics/management-of-western-bird...
As India's pollution rises, crops fail by 50%. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/03/india-air-pollution-c...
As the world's temperature rises, widespread crop failures are expected by 2030. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080131-warming-crops.html
So. On our current trajectory water will be scarce, crops will fail, oceans will be empty, and hundreds of millions will risk their lives in the largest mass migration man has ever seen. That WILL be a catastrophe, no doubt about it.
Glaciers are melting at a rapid pace, depleting the water sources of almost a billion people.
Polar ice caps and Antarctic ice sheets are melting threatening the homes of billions of people who live along the world's coastlines.
Oceans are acidified, filled with gyrating plastics and depleted of fish.
The Sixth Extinction of life on Earth, largely due to man-made environmental devastation has begun. Meanwhile, our Congress has begun passing bills to ignore scientific studies on native grassland birds such as the Sage-grouse. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/us/politics/management-of-western-bird...
As India's pollution rises, crops fail by 50%. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/03/india-air-pollution-c...
As the world's temperature rises, widespread crop failures are expected by 2030. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080131-warming-crops.html
So. On our current trajectory water will be scarce, crops will fail, oceans will be empty, and hundreds of millions will risk their lives in the largest mass migration man has ever seen. That WILL be a catastrophe, no doubt about it.
23
"Dynamists of the left tend to put their faith in technocratic government; "
As a card carrying member of the "dynamists of the left" I have to point out that this is utter rubbish. The central point of the world view conservatives mumble to themselves as they fall asleep every night is that they hate government, therefore our opponents must love it. Douthat takes this comforting fantasy one step further, apparently we ONLY love government. Apparently the millions of leftists toiling away in corporate America do so under duress, comforted only by the knowledge that government - oh, most lovely government! - will soon sweep this free market plague away.
Sorry Ross, but if you insist on eating only ice cream for every meal while I suggest alternatives, this does not mean I hate ice cream and love arugula. The fact is, lefties are fine with the "genius of the market". Ben and Jerry were not heartbroken when they were not able to be taken over by the government. The American left/right divide may once have been a debate about the size and role of government but has degenerated into a split over whether the world is black and white (gov always wrong, business always right) or grey (everybody screws up sometimes).
As a card carrying member of the "dynamists of the left" I have to point out that this is utter rubbish. The central point of the world view conservatives mumble to themselves as they fall asleep every night is that they hate government, therefore our opponents must love it. Douthat takes this comforting fantasy one step further, apparently we ONLY love government. Apparently the millions of leftists toiling away in corporate America do so under duress, comforted only by the knowledge that government - oh, most lovely government! - will soon sweep this free market plague away.
Sorry Ross, but if you insist on eating only ice cream for every meal while I suggest alternatives, this does not mean I hate ice cream and love arugula. The fact is, lefties are fine with the "genius of the market". Ben and Jerry were not heartbroken when they were not able to be taken over by the government. The American left/right divide may once have been a debate about the size and role of government but has degenerated into a split over whether the world is black and white (gov always wrong, business always right) or grey (everybody screws up sometimes).
26
I think the encyclical Laudato Si contains a papal response to the likes of Douthat:
Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth. They are less concerned with certain economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual operation in the functioning of the economy. They may not affirm such theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their deeds by showing no interest in more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations. (page 81-2)
Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth. They are less concerned with certain economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual operation in the functioning of the economy. They may not affirm such theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their deeds by showing no interest in more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations. (page 81-2)
16
2% of the encyclical deals with global warming and then it was only spoken of in relation to respect for life in all its stages.98% of it deals with abortion as the beginning of the slippery slope. Everything points back at God the Creator of all and our responsibility to take care of our world beginning with the unborn.
3
Nothing upsets capitalists and their puppets more than someone putting a stick in the wheels of their greed.
How dare the Pope try to steward the Earth and its flock instead of letting them roast, dehydrate and then be biblically flooded to death with the effects of a few harmless trillion pounds of annual carbon dioxide emissions.
Who does this papal imposter think he is ?
At least Pope Francis took the time to study the science; have you studied the science, $ir Douhat ?
James Powell, a highly trained scientist, former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.
A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.
In summary, Mr. Powell concluded that close to zero scientists rejected anthropogenic global warming.
It must be nice to just bifurcate the world into 'dynamists' and 'catastrophists' and sprinkle some stagnationist decadence poppycock on top and clean your hands of the overwhelming empirical data that says we're obviously roasting the earth.
For a religious man, Mr. Douhat, you seem very unconcerned about 'God's green earth'.
How dare the Pope try to steward the Earth and its flock instead of letting them roast, dehydrate and then be biblically flooded to death with the effects of a few harmless trillion pounds of annual carbon dioxide emissions.
Who does this papal imposter think he is ?
At least Pope Francis took the time to study the science; have you studied the science, $ir Douhat ?
James Powell, a highly trained scientist, former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.
A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.
In summary, Mr. Powell concluded that close to zero scientists rejected anthropogenic global warming.
It must be nice to just bifurcate the world into 'dynamists' and 'catastrophists' and sprinkle some stagnationist decadence poppycock on top and clean your hands of the overwhelming empirical data that says we're obviously roasting the earth.
For a religious man, Mr. Douhat, you seem very unconcerned about 'God's green earth'.
247
"For a religious man, Mr. Douhat, you seem very unconcerned about 'God's green earth'.
Or the people and animals living ON the earth, now and in the future. Whatever little future we have.
Or the people and animals living ON the earth, now and in the future. Whatever little future we have.
2
Dynamists vs. catastrophists! Those who devise false dichotomies are usually engaged in obfuscation. Just as writing about the improved lot of the world's impoverished does not address the desperate lives of many across the globe.
Of course, Bergoglio is going to be concerned about profligate lives of materialist cultures because pf his Roman Catholic world view, but that does not negate the fact that the first and obvious way to counter global warming is a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Perhaps the dynamists may find technological fixes but waiting for "clean coal," is not a solution.
Of course, Bergoglio is going to be concerned about profligate lives of materialist cultures because pf his Roman Catholic world view, but that does not negate the fact that the first and obvious way to counter global warming is a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Perhaps the dynamists may find technological fixes but waiting for "clean coal," is not a solution.
15
If Douthat is correct that "It’s a document calling for global action, even a 'new world political authority,' that’s drenched in frank contempt for the existing global leadership class," then I suspect I know who the pope has in mind for the new world political authority. Just think how much better off the world would be if it was run by the Catholic Church--that's the veiled message. New argument, same solution for centuries now. Granted this is a brilliant PR stunt on the part of the pope, but once the dust settles, I suspect we will all remember the Catholic church that was dominating the news a few years ago with very different headlines.
2
The catastrophe is already happening. In my 50 plus years of existence I have witnessed an unbelievable amount of environmental destruction. We have lost so much in such a short time, and yet people like Douthat seem to be blind to the world wide disaster we are causing.
24
As there are more people today who live in absolute poverty and are chronically malnourished than even existed at the beginning of the Industrial Age, Douthat's claim that "the global poor have become steadily less poor under precisely the world system he [Pope Francis] decries" is nonsensical.
23
So, are Jeb! And Rick risking excommunication or trial for heresy by flouting the pope's more sober thoughts on climate change and planetary stewardship?
With a degree in chemistry, the pope actually IS a scientist or, at least, more of one than any of the would-be presidential nominees who've told him to "leave science to the scientists."
His background should stand His Holiness in good stead not just to understand the relationship between climate change and greenhouse gases, but the implications of nanotechnology and several emerging technologies.
With a degree in chemistry, the pope actually IS a scientist or, at least, more of one than any of the would-be presidential nominees who've told him to "leave science to the scientists."
His background should stand His Holiness in good stead not just to understand the relationship between climate change and greenhouse gases, but the implications of nanotechnology and several emerging technologies.
21
Douthat would argue how many angels can dance on a pin, and he would do it in a frustrtingly dense way.
If I understand his argument, it's a question of how quickly we're destroying our environment; if slowly, remedies can be found. Well of course, and activists have been trying to get remedies adopted. However, the oil oligarchs have the power and influence to have blocked us for at least a generation.
It's not all that complicated. If I wrote children's tales, I would say the man's house is burning; he resists recommended fire fighting techniques but, instead, keeps putting oil (then natural gas on it). Pretty soon, what was a slow process is beyond remedy and the man becomes homeless.
Doughthat says the poor have benefited from industrialization that the Pope castigates. This again is a straw man. Just because industrialization has brought great benefits doesn't mean it has come without cost. It is clear to us now that burning fossil fuels has had and continues to have devastating effects on our environment.
Then there's the issue of the role of population. The Pope does downplay this factor (do Catholics still oppose birth control?), but at any population, unequal distribution of wealth will produce shortages. There is credible literature that famines are not for lack of food, but for reasons of war, social upheavals and, in short, maldistribution of available food.
If I understand his argument, it's a question of how quickly we're destroying our environment; if slowly, remedies can be found. Well of course, and activists have been trying to get remedies adopted. However, the oil oligarchs have the power and influence to have blocked us for at least a generation.
It's not all that complicated. If I wrote children's tales, I would say the man's house is burning; he resists recommended fire fighting techniques but, instead, keeps putting oil (then natural gas on it). Pretty soon, what was a slow process is beyond remedy and the man becomes homeless.
Doughthat says the poor have benefited from industrialization that the Pope castigates. This again is a straw man. Just because industrialization has brought great benefits doesn't mean it has come without cost. It is clear to us now that burning fossil fuels has had and continues to have devastating effects on our environment.
Then there's the issue of the role of population. The Pope does downplay this factor (do Catholics still oppose birth control?), but at any population, unequal distribution of wealth will produce shortages. There is credible literature that famines are not for lack of food, but for reasons of war, social upheavals and, in short, maldistribution of available food.
17
This column is pure obfuscation. It's an elaborate attempt to distract people from the main issue, which is: either you side with scientists, or you don't. The pope does. The author of this column does not. Not only that, the author is trying to convince us that he is somehow smarter than scientists and that we need not worry about climate change. It's really that simple.
25
Capitalism based on unlimited consumption is incompatible with the reality of a finite planet. And the first and hardest hit by the resulting deprivation, pollution and disasters are the poor. How is that so hard to understand? What Douthat calls a "catastrophic" mentality is no more than simple truths.
21
Pope Francis is highly ethical, and cannot stand the stench in the Church today.
9
This borders on being ridiculous. I am sorry that you can not see the bubble you live in. This "ever better" world is only available to an elite class. Most of us find that our world is getting smaller, more difficult, less remunerative. We live in an era of extreme weather precipitated by climate change. We have seen a proliferation of technology that produces mass amounts of waste from plastic to nuclear that clearly endanger our habitat. Too many of us live without food or shelter and more without the protection of the law. We have seen a dramatic decline in the living standard of the middle class so that we must reclassify them as the working poor. And this is the US! What about the festering swamplands of humanity where it is barely possible to find even the most meager sustenance. The distinction between “the dynamists and catastrophists” is not only false, it is destructive. What we need are dynamic responses to real problems so that we can avoid catastrophe.
18
Looking at the comments so far, hats off to Ross. This is a very tough crowd. He must have very thick skin.
Many people want a technological solution. The drive their Teslas and have solar cells on their roofs. I suppose Ross might call them dynamists, but they don't fit his "technocratic government" model. They are spending their own money for what they want: clean energy.
Granted, there are subsidies. But those subsidies support a free market scheme: using competitive pricing to drive the change in behavior. I think that all practically minded people want our civilization to continue. That means most people care about climate change, want to harness the market to change behavior in some fashion, and believe that changes in how we live (including new clean energy technologies) will make a difference.
A lot of Americans are happy with the Pope for validating the science of climate change and providing a moral argument in favor of action. His broader economic theories, on the other hand, will not find as welcoming of an audience. Even the left here believes in the power of new technologies to save our butts in the end. Americans are too optimistic for the doom and gloom part of his message.
Many people want a technological solution. The drive their Teslas and have solar cells on their roofs. I suppose Ross might call them dynamists, but they don't fit his "technocratic government" model. They are spending their own money for what they want: clean energy.
Granted, there are subsidies. But those subsidies support a free market scheme: using competitive pricing to drive the change in behavior. I think that all practically minded people want our civilization to continue. That means most people care about climate change, want to harness the market to change behavior in some fashion, and believe that changes in how we live (including new clean energy technologies) will make a difference.
A lot of Americans are happy with the Pope for validating the science of climate change and providing a moral argument in favor of action. His broader economic theories, on the other hand, will not find as welcoming of an audience. Even the left here believes in the power of new technologies to save our butts in the end. Americans are too optimistic for the doom and gloom part of his message.
3
Mr. Douthat:
When the Pope isn't old school enough for a traditionalist like you it may be time to find a new religion. What you call stagnation, a wiser soul might call denial,a subject the bible covers abundantly.
Denial denying dynamists believe that, despite our sad history that we will be able to outrun our mistakes, therefore believing in a human infallibilty that
sounds like heresy. They have faith in self-seving lies of their own creation. They believe they can make a heaven on earth through the power of human imagination or find shan-gri-la in outer space.
I don't detect a lot of piety in dynamist thinking or much of a God presence either. Perhaps, that could be what the Pope is worried about. Might it not be that those he criticizes might benefit from a drenching in Papal scorn? Perhaps the fact that we have a global leadership class is proof enough that we are in trouble. Did God appoint them or John Calvin?
As a devout Catholic I don't know why a warning from the leader of your faith is causing you so much consternation. Could it be that Father Church sees that your faith in your political beliefs outweighs your faith in the church? That you hold your ideologies dearer than you hold God? He seems to be worried about your soul. You seem to be worried about the next election.
When the Pope isn't old school enough for a traditionalist like you it may be time to find a new religion. What you call stagnation, a wiser soul might call denial,a subject the bible covers abundantly.
Denial denying dynamists believe that, despite our sad history that we will be able to outrun our mistakes, therefore believing in a human infallibilty that
sounds like heresy. They have faith in self-seving lies of their own creation. They believe they can make a heaven on earth through the power of human imagination or find shan-gri-la in outer space.
I don't detect a lot of piety in dynamist thinking or much of a God presence either. Perhaps, that could be what the Pope is worried about. Might it not be that those he criticizes might benefit from a drenching in Papal scorn? Perhaps the fact that we have a global leadership class is proof enough that we are in trouble. Did God appoint them or John Calvin?
As a devout Catholic I don't know why a warning from the leader of your faith is causing you so much consternation. Could it be that Father Church sees that your faith in your political beliefs outweighs your faith in the church? That you hold your ideologies dearer than you hold God? He seems to be worried about your soul. You seem to be worried about the next election.
17
a thoughtful column by Douhat... avoiding cant, respectful of the Pope's uniqueness on these issues and yet open to discuss differences...
2
I of course meant to say:
" ... most people, even those of good will, will NOT read [the entire Laudato Si']."
" ... most people, even those of good will, will NOT read [the entire Laudato Si']."
Only an American would think "the argument between liberalism and conservatism" is "the great argument of our time". The great argument of our time is the argument between liberalism and social democracy (as opposing "guiding lights" of alternate governments of a rational democratic polity - and may it ever be so! (Obviously I do not regard the US - or my own Australia - as a rational democratic polity!)).
Conservatism is an intellectually and morally bankrupt political philosophy. Would Edmund Burke have approved of the writing and sealing of the Magna Carta if he was there Ross - do you think? A bit radically progressive for his taste - don't you think? And how can a dynamic market economy actually be conservative exactly Ross? Cars built in the '50's dominate the roads of Cuba not of your country.
Just like your fellow traveller David Brooks I think you've had an inkling of the truth of what I'm saying. It must be terribly embarrassing for both of you to have backed a political philosophy that links you with Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum et al - indeed most of the present GOP. When you counsel stasis you reward ignorance: you declare your hostility to the getting of wisdom. You are intelligent enough to have worked this out for yourself already but you haven't have you? That's too bad.
I somewhat agree with you regarding the pope's position. But the forces that can lift millions out of poverty can also result in transitions to non-CO2 emitting economies. It's not either/or.
Conservatism is an intellectually and morally bankrupt political philosophy. Would Edmund Burke have approved of the writing and sealing of the Magna Carta if he was there Ross - do you think? A bit radically progressive for his taste - don't you think? And how can a dynamic market economy actually be conservative exactly Ross? Cars built in the '50's dominate the roads of Cuba not of your country.
Just like your fellow traveller David Brooks I think you've had an inkling of the truth of what I'm saying. It must be terribly embarrassing for both of you to have backed a political philosophy that links you with Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum et al - indeed most of the present GOP. When you counsel stasis you reward ignorance: you declare your hostility to the getting of wisdom. You are intelligent enough to have worked this out for yourself already but you haven't have you? That's too bad.
I somewhat agree with you regarding the pope's position. But the forces that can lift millions out of poverty can also result in transitions to non-CO2 emitting economies. It's not either/or.
11
"Indeed, perhaps our immediate future fits neither the dynamist nor the catastrophist framework."
Having set up a strawman, Douthat proceeds to knock it down.
He didn't read the same Laudato Si' that I did.
Indeed, Douthat's column looks to be part of a reflexive knoolish campaign on the right to discredit Laudato Si' before it gets too much traction among the faithful -- and policy-minded secularists, whom it explicitly invites into dialogue.
While Douthat is correct to point out that the perspective in Laudato Si' is critical of both Panglossian technocrats and "let the unbridled free market do it" denialists, and from a soi-disant moral stance, there is little question that it reflects a Colbertian point of view:
"Reality has a well known liberal bias."
It will be interesting to see if David Brooks joins the attempt to neuter the influence of Laudato Si', to cut it down to size, so that it can eventually be Norquisted, i.e., drowned in a bathtub of misinformation from the right, since most people, even those of good will, will bother to read the whole document and will, instead, rely on pundits such as Douthat to evaluate it for them.
My advice?
Read the whole document here:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-fra...
And you'll never trust Ross Douthat to read anything for you in the future.
Having set up a strawman, Douthat proceeds to knock it down.
He didn't read the same Laudato Si' that I did.
Indeed, Douthat's column looks to be part of a reflexive knoolish campaign on the right to discredit Laudato Si' before it gets too much traction among the faithful -- and policy-minded secularists, whom it explicitly invites into dialogue.
While Douthat is correct to point out that the perspective in Laudato Si' is critical of both Panglossian technocrats and "let the unbridled free market do it" denialists, and from a soi-disant moral stance, there is little question that it reflects a Colbertian point of view:
"Reality has a well known liberal bias."
It will be interesting to see if David Brooks joins the attempt to neuter the influence of Laudato Si', to cut it down to size, so that it can eventually be Norquisted, i.e., drowned in a bathtub of misinformation from the right, since most people, even those of good will, will bother to read the whole document and will, instead, rely on pundits such as Douthat to evaluate it for them.
My advice?
Read the whole document here:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-fra...
And you'll never trust Ross Douthat to read anything for you in the future.
11
It is abundantly clear that Ross has not yet read the encyclical. The most important document of our lifetime, and he has so little to offer.
I write in as a long time Green and as an atheist. I have waited 25 years for someone of his stature to delve into the ecological issues of these pressing times. Francis speaks the truth and invites dialog to help address the most pressing issues of our time.
Let us applaud his efforts and join together in this important dialog.
I write in as a long time Green and as an atheist. I have waited 25 years for someone of his stature to delve into the ecological issues of these pressing times. Francis speaks the truth and invites dialog to help address the most pressing issues of our time.
Let us applaud his efforts and join together in this important dialog.
14
Ross Douthat's politics are not my politics but his decision to invite us along on his spiritual quest should be seen as a privilege for all of us. I have gained insight into how frightening the spiritual quest can be for someone who chose Catholicism because it presented so many absolutes. For a conservative looking for a rock solid foundation a spiritual quest is no easy voyage and today's op-ed can be seen as spirit wrestling especially for conservatives who seek out hierarchical structures ordained by God.
In an earlier essay Mr Douthat was looking for the American religion and I can only suggest one place to start. Milton: Modern Essays in Critism Edited by Arthur E Barker Oxford University Press 1965.
It is only through Milton that we see the transition from Cromwell's Puritan Theocracy to the "Liberal Puritanism" of America's founding fathers. It is hard for me to imagine America without the epic struggle portrayed in Paradise Lost.
Pope Francis' call to action echoes the call Milton's followers shouted in 1775. The time has come to stop waiting for God to come to the rescue, we were given free will and our destiny lies in our own actions. Pope Francis has given Catholicism an American bent. Catholics are no longer to be as flies to wanton boys but are to be the authors of their own salvation.
The essay by DC Allen Milton and the Descent to Light from Modern Essays in Criticism is particularly germane.
In an earlier essay Mr Douthat was looking for the American religion and I can only suggest one place to start. Milton: Modern Essays in Critism Edited by Arthur E Barker Oxford University Press 1965.
It is only through Milton that we see the transition from Cromwell's Puritan Theocracy to the "Liberal Puritanism" of America's founding fathers. It is hard for me to imagine America without the epic struggle portrayed in Paradise Lost.
Pope Francis' call to action echoes the call Milton's followers shouted in 1775. The time has come to stop waiting for God to come to the rescue, we were given free will and our destiny lies in our own actions. Pope Francis has given Catholicism an American bent. Catholics are no longer to be as flies to wanton boys but are to be the authors of their own salvation.
The essay by DC Allen Milton and the Descent to Light from Modern Essays in Criticism is particularly germane.
7
@Montreal Moe: I'm beginning to believe that God - if there is a Divine Being (perhaps there is more than one like the Q race in Star Trek?) - caused the Big Bang and then moved on to make another. There was no hanging around talking to and doing miracles for the evolving human beings. Their God is NOT listening to the prayers of high school football players, trying to decide who should win each game. I find that so ludicrous that it's not even funny to me anymore. It's sick, because we are being held back by people who believe in the 6,000 year old earth theory and we all rode dinosaurs.
So....He/She/They moved on having set in motion energy and our natural laws. Let's save this environment because we have no place else to fly off to. This idea that the elite will reach Mars and keep life going - that's even more ludicrous than the football game prayers!
Life feels so crazy right now. America is failing the world. The world needs us and we are failing. Our gun culture will hold us back. Our racism will hold us back. What a tragedy. What a waste of She/He/They's wonderful Big Bang.
So....He/She/They moved on having set in motion energy and our natural laws. Let's save this environment because we have no place else to fly off to. This idea that the elite will reach Mars and keep life going - that's even more ludicrous than the football game prayers!
Life feels so crazy right now. America is failing the world. The world needs us and we are failing. Our gun culture will hold us back. Our racism will hold us back. What a tragedy. What a waste of She/He/They's wonderful Big Bang.
3
Mr. Douthat has the right to roll his eyes at the politics of his religous leader (as he very politely does), I personally find that refreshing. Nevertheless, I think we should go more for dog person vs cat person than for catastrophist vs dynamist since that dichotomy doesn't explain the pope's position. It's quite simple, the pope has a solid scientific education and cannot therefore forget what the CO2 absorption spectrum looks like, together with the simple calculation that CO2 cannot leave the atmosphere easily this spells climate change. Once you have understood these very basic facts and empiricism backing it up rolls in you will have to try and stop it, if you like people and animals more than oil money. He didn't need to talk about fecundity since he talked about the poor. Apart from religious fanatics in 1st world countries, only poor people "overreproduce". But fret not, Mr. Douthat, an "encyclica vitae sacrae" or so, where he will tie abortion to something environmental will follow as soon as it makes political sense. We don't want to lose Mr. Douthat to the protestants, do we?
3
It's simple.
It's time to be a Realist.
It's not the time to take side but to be inquisitorial and seek the truth.
It's the procrastinators and opinionated that group think into non-action.
Trickle down economics does not work see the latest report from IMF (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf ), Finally!
More minutes we read articles (& comments like mine) is time lost in searching for and taking action to help #FixOurWorld.
What can our generation leave for our grandchildren's children??
Well done the Pope Francis I say (despite not being Catholics).
It's time to be a Realist.
It's not the time to take side but to be inquisitorial and seek the truth.
It's the procrastinators and opinionated that group think into non-action.
Trickle down economics does not work see the latest report from IMF (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf ), Finally!
More minutes we read articles (& comments like mine) is time lost in searching for and taking action to help #FixOurWorld.
What can our generation leave for our grandchildren's children??
Well done the Pope Francis I say (despite not being Catholics).
6
Ross Douthat says that, 'we might have entered a stagnationist position, a sustainable decadence...without reaching a world-altering boil'. I do not know what constitutes a 'world-altering boil' but climate change and rising oceans can not be sustained by the 2 billion people living in coastal developing countries. They can not move to higher ground. I think 'Laudato Si' speaks for those poor for whom the climate change would be catastrophic even if the world does not boil over.
6
So typical of Douhat. The world is always divided into two mutually exclusive classes. This time, it's the dynamists and the catastrophists. This naive, simple-mindedness is striking - and all too familiar of those who adhere to faith-based nonsense.
11
A richer environment requires that fauna and flora survives with us. The hummingbirds this year are 2 maybe 3 and they used to be 20 to 25 in the year 2000 when we used to watch and entertain ourselves with a whole gang of hummingbirds nosediving. This year I have seen about 10 bees. The windshield of my car does not get dirty any more with insects smashing against the window when I drive. The frogs have shut up . I saw about 3 Monarch butterflies and so far this year I saw one. I live remote on 250 acres at a headwater of a stream and hardly any other humans nearby but the animals cannot seem to come back after a year of migration . Climate change is making for very severe weather conditions and animals are having a tough time right now and I miss them.
16
@ Gudrun: I live in the Bangor Maine area and my top 'fun' priority for summer is the hummers. I live for the hummers. And I have driven myself near crazy making and remaking their food and keeping everything clean. I finally had to stop, I was exhausted doing all of it and waiting for them to buzz in. I usually have one now and so I am grateful. But oh it used to be so glorious with the dive-bombing and the sound that vibrates just right for me and their funny antics. I even wrote a song during the time none of them were coming, with a line "Ya gotta find the joy that the hummingbirds bring, even when they're not here".
I tried very hard to find plants this year that neocotinoids were not used. Most big garden centers - and small ones - didn't even know what I was talking about, they were so unaware. It really hurts to think I would buy beautiful flowers that are killing the hummers and bees!
We humans must do better. What happens if they're not here next summer? What if children born today never see hummingbirds? It's all so sad.
I tried very hard to find plants this year that neocotinoids were not used. Most big garden centers - and small ones - didn't even know what I was talking about, they were so unaware. It really hurts to think I would buy beautiful flowers that are killing the hummers and bees!
We humans must do better. What happens if they're not here next summer? What if children born today never see hummingbirds? It's all so sad.
1
Mr. Douthat pontificates from a high horse defending the hyper rich as usually. In the meantime the real pontiff has the moral and intellectual authority to mobilize humanity against scientifically supported grave threats.
Ross's sophistic and sophomoric notions of "catastophisits" and "dynamists" are silly. They are concocted as smoke screen to hide the gravity of the situation in defense of the hyper rich that would lose their shirt is there is a reversal of using dirty fossil fuels with abandon.
Ross cannot help himself to throw in his arguments one of his favored huge lies: the global poor are better off because they have become steadily less poor under current capitalist economy. This a grotesquely absurd notion since the impact of increased cash per capita among the poor can correlate with huge loses in security and quality of life. Participating in the global economy simply means they are contributing to the absurd concentration of wealth.
In fact in some parts of the world when the economy was going up infant mortality has gone up while when the economy contracted infant mortality went down. So Ross tell a mother holding in her bosom the lifeless body of an infant (as I have seen with my eyes) that wealth improved her life. More cash simply meant that Nestle could target her to push infant formula when there is no safe water to mix it contributing to infant mortality. Infant mortality is not a number it is a heart wrenching tragedy.
Ross's sophistic and sophomoric notions of "catastophisits" and "dynamists" are silly. They are concocted as smoke screen to hide the gravity of the situation in defense of the hyper rich that would lose their shirt is there is a reversal of using dirty fossil fuels with abandon.
Ross cannot help himself to throw in his arguments one of his favored huge lies: the global poor are better off because they have become steadily less poor under current capitalist economy. This a grotesquely absurd notion since the impact of increased cash per capita among the poor can correlate with huge loses in security and quality of life. Participating in the global economy simply means they are contributing to the absurd concentration of wealth.
In fact in some parts of the world when the economy was going up infant mortality has gone up while when the economy contracted infant mortality went down. So Ross tell a mother holding in her bosom the lifeless body of an infant (as I have seen with my eyes) that wealth improved her life. More cash simply meant that Nestle could target her to push infant formula when there is no safe water to mix it contributing to infant mortality. Infant mortality is not a number it is a heart wrenching tragedy.
17
Ross Douthat wrote...
"But reading “Laudato Si’ ” simply as a case for taking climate change seriously misses the depth of its critique — which extends to the whole “technological paradigm” of our civilization, all the ways (economic and cultural) that we live now."
While you have correctly described the situation you appear to be oblivious the underlying situation in Pope Francis’ sprawling new encyclical, “Laudato Si’” that he is questioning. Is an economic system based on capitalism able to do anything more that strive for the concentration of money.
I'm not a Catholic and really haven't been a "fan" of the Catholic church but Pope Francis I really like. While the Pope talks about climate change there is also and underlying message of corporations going into third world countries and buying up water rights so they can economically enslave the people. Actually they did a pretty good job of that in Texas.
Pope Francis represents the poor, you won't find a politician in the US that does. The road he would choose many would call socialism, it is also called compassion. He is truly a servant of Jesus Christ and as Pope protecting our planet by the best means possible.
"But reading “Laudato Si’ ” simply as a case for taking climate change seriously misses the depth of its critique — which extends to the whole “technological paradigm” of our civilization, all the ways (economic and cultural) that we live now."
While you have correctly described the situation you appear to be oblivious the underlying situation in Pope Francis’ sprawling new encyclical, “Laudato Si’” that he is questioning. Is an economic system based on capitalism able to do anything more that strive for the concentration of money.
I'm not a Catholic and really haven't been a "fan" of the Catholic church but Pope Francis I really like. While the Pope talks about climate change there is also and underlying message of corporations going into third world countries and buying up water rights so they can economically enslave the people. Actually they did a pretty good job of that in Texas.
Pope Francis represents the poor, you won't find a politician in the US that does. The road he would choose many would call socialism, it is also called compassion. He is truly a servant of Jesus Christ and as Pope protecting our planet by the best means possible.
38
andyreid1-amen!
The basal inescapable scientific fact is that climate change will make the planet too hot to sustain human life, whether you're rich or poor, Catholic or Muslim. Only the simplest biological organisms will survive. To think that this problem can somehow be magically solved in the future has no valid scientific basis and is akin to expecting angels from heaven to come and cleanse the planet for us.
Your article, Mr. Douthat, gives cover to the denialists by casting doubt on the urgency of the human crisis we face.
Your article, Mr. Douthat, gives cover to the denialists by casting doubt on the urgency of the human crisis we face.
29
I keep hearing about how all this industrial development has lifted a great many of the poor out of devastating poverty. I submit that the same "trickle down" policies have had some effect, basically saying that people who provided for themselves via the land now occupy space in a labor colony making less than a dollar a day and under inhumane conditions. Polluted land and rivers don't yield much with deforestation, mining, oil exploration and whatnot. None of this is done with any thought about the poor, but to further enrich the rich. I suspect this was the message the Pope was bringing. Regarding climate change, I think the people (since corporations are now people too) who have done the most to obscure the truth should pick up the tab for all of us.
15
Wait, who's the catastrophist here?
If the Pope thinks this is as bad as it gets before things fall apart, and you argue they can endure in a miserable dysfunction, maybe the Pope's provocation makes him the optimist. At least in his version, something can and should be done immediately.
Most political speech is wearisome because of this quality, but it's usually more about the desired effect than the content. One never makes a political statement without an intended ramification. Lies and vagaries are employed almost constantly by politicians to try to please everyone all the time. The Pope has a leadership role he's trying to use to motivate. Can the empirical negatives be exaggerated? Sure. Why exaggerate them, if at all?
Because we're complete sloths about doing anything decisively responsible that costs money. Moreover, it's an awfully Christian metaphor to consider all lost unless we seek redemption, and I think the climate strategy the Pope is taking is plenty Christian AND plenty accurate, which is what the encyclical on this needed to be.
As many Republicans have finally been left no respectable place to stand on their embarassing, myopic and/or greed-motivated climate-change denial, I will not be shocked to see the Fox News strategy employed here: forgetting it was ever a topic. We already see it happening on cries over gay marriage. Climate change next. Pretty soon we'll be in good shape in spite of our capacity for stupidity. There's some dynamism for us!
If the Pope thinks this is as bad as it gets before things fall apart, and you argue they can endure in a miserable dysfunction, maybe the Pope's provocation makes him the optimist. At least in his version, something can and should be done immediately.
Most political speech is wearisome because of this quality, but it's usually more about the desired effect than the content. One never makes a political statement without an intended ramification. Lies and vagaries are employed almost constantly by politicians to try to please everyone all the time. The Pope has a leadership role he's trying to use to motivate. Can the empirical negatives be exaggerated? Sure. Why exaggerate them, if at all?
Because we're complete sloths about doing anything decisively responsible that costs money. Moreover, it's an awfully Christian metaphor to consider all lost unless we seek redemption, and I think the climate strategy the Pope is taking is plenty Christian AND plenty accurate, which is what the encyclical on this needed to be.
As many Republicans have finally been left no respectable place to stand on their embarassing, myopic and/or greed-motivated climate-change denial, I will not be shocked to see the Fox News strategy employed here: forgetting it was ever a topic. We already see it happening on cries over gay marriage. Climate change next. Pretty soon we'll be in good shape in spite of our capacity for stupidity. There's some dynamism for us!
16
Perhaps if I jump off the Empire State Building I'll land on a giant air mattress and walk away unharmed. Is Mr. Douthat saying anything different?
10
Mr. Douthat a Catholic takes issue with Pope Francis's encyclical Laudato Si with sneering cynicism. He mentions that the encyclical contains even a critique of consumerism. If he would like to read even more searing critiques on consumerism and greed he might choose to read the Gospels. No comfort there for the comfortable.
Fr. James Martin of America magazine has posted 10 important takeaways from the encyclical. http://americamagazine.org/top-ten-takeaways-laudato-si Among them he stresses the effects on the poor of climate change and the widespread indifference and selfishness as a contributing factor to the problem.
Douthat claims that global capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty, but the trend now is going the other way. The world is seeing the largest crisis of mass migration in decades mostly due to climate change and crushing poverty. Environmental degradation in poorer countries will only heighten that crisis.
"Many of those who possess more resources seem mostly concerned with the masking of the problems or concealing their symptoms" writes the Pope theorizing that decision makers are "far removed from the poor".
Too true, we can argue some details but Mr. Douthat's aim seems to be masking the problem, and outright dismissing it. Global climate change will have devastating effects on our planet and the Pope has taken the right stand, a moral stand.
Fr. James Martin of America magazine has posted 10 important takeaways from the encyclical. http://americamagazine.org/top-ten-takeaways-laudato-si Among them he stresses the effects on the poor of climate change and the widespread indifference and selfishness as a contributing factor to the problem.
Douthat claims that global capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty, but the trend now is going the other way. The world is seeing the largest crisis of mass migration in decades mostly due to climate change and crushing poverty. Environmental degradation in poorer countries will only heighten that crisis.
"Many of those who possess more resources seem mostly concerned with the masking of the problems or concealing their symptoms" writes the Pope theorizing that decision makers are "far removed from the poor".
Too true, we can argue some details but Mr. Douthat's aim seems to be masking the problem, and outright dismissing it. Global climate change will have devastating effects on our planet and the Pope has taken the right stand, a moral stand.
21
There are too many of us to keep meaningfully and gainfully employed. Potable water is unsustainable with population and waste. Destroying the planet for wealth can have only one ending, ours. The wealth gap is a cancerous sore. Consumerism is self defeating. Then there are the really serious issues. Extreme, yet un-thought changes in economic and cultural and social values and methods must happen.
8
We are putting our planet at risk, and no manner of linguistic contortions or specious categorizations truly addresses the scope and irreparable damage or the horrible consequences of the violence we're doing to the biosphere. For a Roman Catholic, The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, and his position on this matter is a moral one, and he could not be more clear and less subject to compromise. How ironic then that religionists and cultural reactionaries should come out in force to erode the Pope's authoritative statement. So beyond these pages and today's critique, what we shall witness in coming days is more amplification on Jep's! carefully crafted response...that being, The Pope shouldn't be engaged in politics... I am so very hopeful that Pope Francis will respond to such morally bankrupt verbal diversions...scientific facts warning of natural global disasters are not "politics," and require a moral resolve for which there can be no compromise-- Thou shalt not kill many for the convenience of the affluent few.
14
The Pope is to bridge this world with the spiritual world. As far as scientific facts we hear mostly theory, because the scientific research is controlled by corrupted corporations, governments, and their agencies. There should be no conflict between science and religion when they both do what they are suppose to do. Science is suppose to tell us how things happen while Religion is suppose to tell us why.
1
The essential question is one of growth. Can we have unlimited growth, namely unlimited economic growth, on a planet with a finite resource base? As Douthat has framed it, the dynamist say, “of course” because technology makes our resource usage more efficient while conveniently ignoring the fact that it also takes way more energy. The dynamists point to Malthus as being dead wrong as well as a long line of catastrophists such as Donella Meadows and Paul Erlich as proof. Catastrophists (an incredibly pejorative and dismissive term) say absolutely not. It is NOT possible. Malthus, Erlich and Meadows had it theoretically correct even if their “predictions” did not happen as theorized. Climate change is a result of exceeding biophysical limits. Climate change is an issue of waste, the result of global capitalism as it is currently practiced with its emphasis on unlimited consumption.
Furthermore, Pope Francis recognizes that climate destabilization is really an issue of justice. Sustainability rests on three pillars: the economy, the environment, and justice. The economy is privileged, lip service is given to the environment and justice is completely ignored, intragenerational between the haves and the have nots, and intergenerational between us and future ones.
Furthermore, Pope Francis recognizes that climate destabilization is really an issue of justice. Sustainability rests on three pillars: the economy, the environment, and justice. The economy is privileged, lip service is given to the environment and justice is completely ignored, intragenerational between the haves and the have nots, and intergenerational between us and future ones.
11
The proposals put forth on cap-and-trade in the United States are a bad joke. They start by awarding a vested interest to existing polluters, with the filthiest polluters getting the greatest license to continue polluting. This is a system which favors the current dirty plants over cleaner new plants, which can't be built without buying rights to pollute from existing sources. Thus, it is divorced from economic principles and functions more like the sale of liquor licenses in PA or taxi medallions in NYC. The vested interest hold their place, until they are sufficiently bribed to sell their right to pollute. Thus, it is a system which is both anti-innovation and guaranteed to slow change. The Pope is quite right to denounce it as favoring greedy vested interests. When the Clean Air Act passed over 40 years ago, existing dirty coal plants got an exemption from regulation. It was assumed they would have shutdown and been replaced long ago. They weren't. That exemption kept them in operation far beyond their natural economic life and the excess pollution has been horrendous. Cap and trade would do the same.
A fairer, pro-innovation, free enterprise, and pro-economic theory approach is to put everyone on equal footing with a carbon tax. The market decides which plants and processes are uneconomical with the true, total cost of carbon-based fuels factored into the equation. This approach will speed adoption of cleaner technologies by start-up and small companies.
A fairer, pro-innovation, free enterprise, and pro-economic theory approach is to put everyone on equal footing with a carbon tax. The market decides which plants and processes are uneconomical with the true, total cost of carbon-based fuels factored into the equation. This approach will speed adoption of cleaner technologies by start-up and small companies.
158
It would be hard me (and others) to accept this particular vision of a market approach, and for good reason: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/06/united-nations-clima... . You are not allowing for a world issue that has many elements of a "tragedy of the commons." This is not to say that Pope Francis's assessments are correct or are that useful when considering the disparate international responses or global willingness to tackle much of anything.
Thinking globally and acting locally/regionally may, for the moment, be the best we can muster: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117459/earth-day-2014-think-globally-... . We all wish there was more clarity.
Thinking globally and acting locally/regionally may, for the moment, be the best we can muster: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117459/earth-day-2014-think-globally-... . We all wish there was more clarity.
Cap and trade successfully reduced acid rain occurrence to the point where it needn't even be discussed as a problem. Why stray from a method that has been empirically proven to work in lowering pollution levels over time at the lowest cost?
2
The division into dynamists and catastrophists is all in Douthat's mind. not the Pope's.What the Pope is asking is for a change in human attitudes towards environment and other human beings. There is no distrust of technology or science in the encyclical but there is a strong condemnation of greed, selfishness and the idolization of the free market as a way to avoid social responsibility. The biggest outcry has been against his criticism of cap and trade, which is seen by free market advocates as a successful policy. But they miss the fundamental point which is that cap and trade replaces taking responsibility for one's actions with money transactions, subject to the same greed and chase for profits that fuels the global economic system. Many see this system as a great success, having improved conditions in many countries, yet it has led to the accumulation of obscene wealth in a few hands while many people still live in appalling poverty. There is one valid criticism of the Catholic church and that is its attitude towards birth control. A population rising without end can only increase poverty and defeat any attempt to solve it.
12
Poor try to put the denialists in a good light. I don't accept your framework. If I don't believe in completely free market capitalism, I'm a catastrophist? Sorry, Ross, unfettered capitalism doesn't work and it will make the present world system unsustainable. FDR saved capitalism once when it brought the world to ruin and it was saved back in the 60s and 70s by regulation and environmental laws when it was making our atmosphere, water and ground unsustainable. Again n 2008 it came close to bringing the world to its knees but was saved once again by the people bailing out the banks.
I'm a pragmatist and a realist and that doesn't fit into any of your categories but my categories are much better than yours.
Pope Francis is proving to be a pragmatist and a realist just as FDR was.
I'm a pragmatist and a realist and that doesn't fit into any of your categories but my categories are much better than yours.
Pope Francis is proving to be a pragmatist and a realist just as FDR was.
12
So there are three camps: "dynamists," "catastrophism," and the black hole's event horizon, "stagnationist."
One.
Why is the right 'dynamist' about climate but 'catastrophist' about debt? For example, the right frequently talks about protecting "our way of life" and, on matters of debt, "not saddling our grandchildren with the bill."
Two.
Saying dynamists and catastrophists appear on the right and left is a sleight of hand that conceals something more troubling: climate catastrophists appear only on the right. Why? Think about that. Btw, science and reason are not on their side.
Three.
The global poor doing "well under this world system" is misleading: couldn't they do better under a different one? In fact, that 'reality' is so misleading that it has zero implications for environmentalism.
Four.
The lede is buried. One valid observation in this column: "it isn’t entirely clear how the planet can sustain the steadily-growing population the Catholic vision of marriage and fecundity implies."
One.
Why is the right 'dynamist' about climate but 'catastrophist' about debt? For example, the right frequently talks about protecting "our way of life" and, on matters of debt, "not saddling our grandchildren with the bill."
Two.
Saying dynamists and catastrophists appear on the right and left is a sleight of hand that conceals something more troubling: climate catastrophists appear only on the right. Why? Think about that. Btw, science and reason are not on their side.
Three.
The global poor doing "well under this world system" is misleading: couldn't they do better under a different one? In fact, that 'reality' is so misleading that it has zero implications for environmentalism.
Four.
The lede is buried. One valid observation in this column: "it isn’t entirely clear how the planet can sustain the steadily-growing population the Catholic vision of marriage and fecundity implies."
4
It's a call to love, a call to grace. A call to respecting scientific and moral (and spiritual) truth. A call to love and care for our home, other living things, each other. This is not revolutionary, this is revealing what we already know, our real purpose. Francis is merely asking each to look within while we observe what's happening all around us without. It's preposterous, but the size of the unfolding ecological disaster brought by global capitalism requires nothing less than a shift in human consciousness. A turn towards love and truth. (Pretty spiritual stuff.) Of course, the Bible ends with the Revelations and a new heaven and a new earth. Let those who have ears to see, let them see and those who have ears to hear, let them hear. I plan to reread his beautiful song to the mind and soul of humanity a few more times before this summer is out.
4
Another conservative who only sees that developing sustainable renewable energy will destroy our modern life and plunge people further into poverty...or...supplicate ourselves before big business and oil companies. Imagine a world where no one needed to pump gas anymore? Imagine not havi to worry what those ruinous Middel Eastern countries are doing because we need their oil. Entire industries can be created from green technology just like they were in then19th century when coal and oil dominated. I am not Catholic and by and large ignore the things that em innate from the Vatican. But this pope has been saying and doing things that just on their face are measured, reasonable, tolerant and smart. The Conservative mantra that what's good for massive conglomerates is good for everyone is deplorable. Profits at all costs have led us to massive wealth inequity, stagnant wages, overworked employees, people who never take vacations, and practices that are destroying the environment. I for one applaud Pope Francis' forward thinking intelligent views on this issue.
12
"We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth.”
We certainly will if we follow the pontiff's uber-world-government polemics.
We certainly will if we follow the pontiff's uber-world-government polemics.
1
I don't agree with the binary nature of Mr. Douthat's argument. Not every person is solely in one camp or another. It's quite possible to believe in existential threats--and find their roots in aspects of modernity, but also look to technology and growing sophistication in the impact of human behavior on Earth, and use that technology and sophistication to change the trajectory of those threats. Conservatives have found a way to argue against any type of environmental initiatives--by changing the argument to science they think they can rebut, all the while ignoring the other implications of the abuse of our natural resources. It's the fact that I believe in the advances that the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution has brought that gives me confidence we can do better, if we set our minds to it.
The dismay and outright rage over the Pope's views billows from the Right's smokestack like an old-fashioned power plant. It clogs the eyes, makes the throat burn. As wonderful a writer as Mr. Douthat is, he still has made an argument that belittles rather than engages.
The dismay and outright rage over the Pope's views billows from the Right's smokestack like an old-fashioned power plant. It clogs the eyes, makes the throat burn. As wonderful a writer as Mr. Douthat is, he still has made an argument that belittles rather than engages.
212
Michael Liss New York:
"Conservatives have found a way to argue against any type of environmental initiatives"
****
"Any" type? Or just those impractical enough to inflict serious economic damage without consideration of their consequences.
Be honest. Too many environmentalists would have no trouble bankrupting a state that relies on coal. All for the great good, they claim. And they'd like to see 80% of resources remain in the ground.
These are not "initiatives". It is their own brand of "austerity", which is an economic death sentence.
"Conservatives have found a way to argue against any type of environmental initiatives"
****
"Any" type? Or just those impractical enough to inflict serious economic damage without consideration of their consequences.
Be honest. Too many environmentalists would have no trouble bankrupting a state that relies on coal. All for the great good, they claim. And they'd like to see 80% of resources remain in the ground.
These are not "initiatives". It is their own brand of "austerity", which is an economic death sentence.
It's kind of like the argument: It was okay to make slaves of them, since they're food an housing were better than in the jungles of Africa. If they had only understood this, then we wouldn't have needed to chain and beat them the way we did.
1
Dynamists versus catastrophists, the final battle royale; sort of like the armageddon battle between the cockroach and the gonorrhea germ ala Tom Robbins. Pope Francis has done one really good thing, he called out the uber rich. The rest is window dressing. Cat like Ross will never understand that, no matter how many columns he writes.
4
I have skimmed Laudato Si, though not yet read it closely, in preparation for preaching about it very positively Sunday AM (I am an Episcopal priest serving a parish dedicated to Francis of Assisi). On closer reading, I'm sure I'll find things I disagree with. Already, Pope Francis' unwillingness to face the logic of overpopulation because of the RC Church's stand on birth control troubles me.
All that said, Francis' "catastrophic" call to arms against the destruction of the Creation, as well as human flourishing and community, done in the name of the market and the consumerist idolatry that infects America and much of the rest of the world is refreshing. I hope it gets a much heartier welcome among R's and people of good will world-wide than Douthat's damning with faint praise.
All that said, Francis' "catastrophic" call to arms against the destruction of the Creation, as well as human flourishing and community, done in the name of the market and the consumerist idolatry that infects America and much of the rest of the world is refreshing. I hope it gets a much heartier welcome among R's and people of good will world-wide than Douthat's damning with faint praise.
4
The Dynamist view ala Douthat works in the absence of societal decisions - aka regulation. Most important technological advances around stewardship happened in fact in response to regulation. Technologies making our cars and trucks cleaner and more efficient came about in response to regulation. Technologies for clean water were developed in response to regulation. Regulations themselves came about in response to scientific consensus about the need. Regulations drive these advances because investors see a clear market for the resulting products. Conservatives have lost sight of the power of regulation to focus our abilities on technological advancement. Douthat displays that beautifully.
4
When did the majority of informed scientists and individuals deeply concerned with climate change become "catastrophists"? The environmental consequences of our greed driven stewardship of the planet is clearly visible....one needs only read the UN Commission's conclusions..the catastrophy is already being visited upon us. Douthat in the Santorum camp and part of the problem... That's very sad....
6
Dynamists versus Catastrophists? I thought the argument of our time was dualists vs non-dualists.
What's the difference between dynamists as defined by Ross Douthat and Alfred E.Neumann's "What, me worry?"
What's the difference between dynamists as defined by Ross Douthat and Alfred E.Neumann's "What, me worry?"
6
Hey, I've got an idea! Let's take a complex issue, set up an artificial dichotomy, categorize people as being on one side or the other, and then claim that we're smart and they're stupid! What a great way to explore the world of ideas! Thanks, Ross!
12
"he doesn’t grapple sufficiently with evidence that the global poor have become steadily less poor under precisely the world system he decries — a reality that has complicated implications for environmentalism." No. It has complicated implications for nations like ours, ones that have a moral duty to help the global poor keep becoming less poor in a way that doesnt loot from future generations and other species and make the planet a hot stinking nightmare
7
You, like all most other conservatives, just can't see the Pope's opinion about the validity of human made global climate change and the inequities of capitalism as anything other than a betrayal. It would be fun to watch you folks denounce the Pope if it wasn't just the latest instance of extreme hypocrisy on the part of Republicans. Frankly, it is getting scary. Does that make me a "catastrophist?
Also, I think Republicans lost the right to challenge any science anywhere when they started the "I'm not a scientist" business.
Also, I think Republicans lost the right to challenge any science anywhere when they started the "I'm not a scientist" business.
8
The division is not between "dynamists" and "catastrophists." Nor is it between those who accept or reject science or technology or modernity. The division is between those, conservative or liberal, who believe we must make intelligent and moral decisions about our behavior and public policies, and those neo-liberal fundamentalists who believe that all decisions must be surrendered to the god of the marketplace. Science and technology are only as good as the decisions we freely make about their role in our lives; and markets are utlimately productive rather than destructive only if we create the intelligent and ethical social framework to control them.
6
I remember when the Clean Water Act was going to destroy the economy. Also the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Ross Douhat is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
52
Who are the"global poor" in that rising class of impoverished people becoming "steadily less poor"? The same global poor whose labor is exploited for pittances while the world's resources are arbitrarily destroyed by a vile consumerism infects us all, leaving us pretty much unfulfilled at day's end?
It's a statistic representing wage increases from $.80 a day to $ 3. or 4.00 per day so that those who exploit the world's resources and the world's working poor, can relax in club chairs, swill their merlots or martinis, and say, "what's the Pope taking about, isn't everyone better off because of us."
And whence arose the dualism of "dynamism" and "catastrophism"? Because the conservative right has to find a bat to swing at the Pope while ignoring his precise and cogent arguments based on evidence-based science, and not its standard ideological defense that implicitly ignores and rejects the data since we aren't "scientists" who presumably can't read either.
For those who haven't figured it out yet, this Pope's goes to sleep and wakes up thinking of ways to lift the poor out of misery and directing the rest of into a community willing to take responsibility for improving the lives of those with very little. He asks that we commit less effort aggregating wealth for personal uses while calling attention to 2 intertwined problems we all must face: unrelenting poverty and a degraded environment which creates and then sustains unrelenting poverty.
You got it right, Pope.
It's a statistic representing wage increases from $.80 a day to $ 3. or 4.00 per day so that those who exploit the world's resources and the world's working poor, can relax in club chairs, swill their merlots or martinis, and say, "what's the Pope taking about, isn't everyone better off because of us."
And whence arose the dualism of "dynamism" and "catastrophism"? Because the conservative right has to find a bat to swing at the Pope while ignoring his precise and cogent arguments based on evidence-based science, and not its standard ideological defense that implicitly ignores and rejects the data since we aren't "scientists" who presumably can't read either.
For those who haven't figured it out yet, this Pope's goes to sleep and wakes up thinking of ways to lift the poor out of misery and directing the rest of into a community willing to take responsibility for improving the lives of those with very little. He asks that we commit less effort aggregating wealth for personal uses while calling attention to 2 intertwined problems we all must face: unrelenting poverty and a degraded environment which creates and then sustains unrelenting poverty.
You got it right, Pope.
30
The productivity of the ‘innovators’ is all going to the elite 1 percent, kept from the majority, as our lowering living standards and security proves. This results from deliberate policies to this end, and is the part Ross leaves out. He keeps going further out from reality to justify his pro right wing stance.
Ross has to explain why the richest, most ‘advanced’ democracy, with it’s famous constitution, also has the most poverty among the 1st world nations. And is behind in green energy, infrastructure repair, h/c access, with the most insecure middle class, with the widest gap between CEO pay vs average earners. And the most biased, abusive criminal justice system. And the most billionaire dependent elections and....I’m tired of typing already.
These things interest the Pope, but not Ross.
Ross has to explain why the richest, most ‘advanced’ democracy, with it’s famous constitution, also has the most poverty among the 1st world nations. And is behind in green energy, infrastructure repair, h/c access, with the most insecure middle class, with the widest gap between CEO pay vs average earners. And the most biased, abusive criminal justice system. And the most billionaire dependent elections and....I’m tired of typing already.
These things interest the Pope, but not Ross.
22
The cult of global warming has found a new leader. Repent! The end of times is near!
3
A Papal Encyclical at odds with the positions taken by Ross' conservative bosses. I was wondering how he was going to wiggle out of following it without looking like a Cafeteria Catholic. Too bad he didn't succeed.....
13
Douthat's criticism of the Pope & the scientists behind Climate Change has reached that shrill level of fanaticism that comes from trying to deny the trends that grow more & more obvious each and every day. The hottest May on record. The last fifteen years having a string of the hottest years on record in a row.
Douthat's biggest error is that this Pope is the first Pope that people have respected as well as agree with in my lifetime. The Right's attempts to demonize this Pope will backfire.
Ocean acidification makes the current level of emissions unsustainable already. Is Ross prepared for oceans that harbor toxic phytoplankton & the loss of species that is happening faster than any other in all of history?
Douthat's biggest error is that this Pope is the first Pope that people have respected as well as agree with in my lifetime. The Right's attempts to demonize this Pope will backfire.
Ocean acidification makes the current level of emissions unsustainable already. Is Ross prepared for oceans that harbor toxic phytoplankton & the loss of species that is happening faster than any other in all of history?
15
I'm aghast that Mr. Douthat concludes that we would simply let the present tragic trajectory simply continue it race to a sustainable bottom. Why would we bequeath such a world to our coming generations? To get the last possible comforts? There is ample evidence that this is the trajectory. There is ample evidence that we have the means to alter it.
For now, we still have the means. The Arctic Ocean's and Siberian tundra's methane hydrates won't wait for us to get all the way to a Douthatian minimum. These massive beds contain 100-350 gigatons (that's 100,000-350,000 billion tons) of methane, and are already releasing massive amounts of methane. If that process cascades, the environment truly is cooked. Those who pay attention to this process are few. And they would be rightly frightened at language seen in this page.
For now, we still have the means. The Arctic Ocean's and Siberian tundra's methane hydrates won't wait for us to get all the way to a Douthatian minimum. These massive beds contain 100-350 gigatons (that's 100,000-350,000 billion tons) of methane, and are already releasing massive amounts of methane. If that process cascades, the environment truly is cooked. Those who pay attention to this process are few. And they would be rightly frightened at language seen in this page.
25
New Scientist reports hydrates & clathrates are not at risk--o/wise you are correct...evolving consensus, sotto voce, is that if crash decarbonization is underway by 2024, hope is not unreasonable--but H. semper unsapiens has never shown planetary discipline or foresight...thermageddon & cascading ecollapse will likely render us nugatory.
Pope Francis's document says "We must be grateful for the praiseworthy efforts being made by scientists and engineers dedicated to finding solutions to man-made problems." Ross Douthat translates that into "This is a document ... that excoriates the modern scientific mind-set as, in effect, a 500-year mistake."
Ross, you need to go to school to learn how to read what's written, not what you wish had been written.
Ross, you need to go to school to learn how to read what's written, not what you wish had been written.
23
Phony dualism. No, dishonest.
Either you think things will be OK or you think we're on the eve of destruction.
Really?
Scientists warned about the danger of air pollution and water pollution. So what did we do? We regulated emissions. In fact, that avoided what would have been a disaster had we done nothing. Consider that today's motor vehicles emit less than 1% of the pollution of a 1960s vehicle. Suppose we had 100 times as much air pollution.
So, in fact, the "catastrophists" are the folks who want to take sensible action to avoid catastrophe.
And the dynamists? Who the are they? The ones who don't?
Either you think things will be OK or you think we're on the eve of destruction.
Really?
Scientists warned about the danger of air pollution and water pollution. So what did we do? We regulated emissions. In fact, that avoided what would have been a disaster had we done nothing. Consider that today's motor vehicles emit less than 1% of the pollution of a 1960s vehicle. Suppose we had 100 times as much air pollution.
So, in fact, the "catastrophists" are the folks who want to take sensible action to avoid catastrophe.
And the dynamists? Who the are they? The ones who don't?
17
One of the first steps in understanding what anyone writes is to “come to terms “ with the author, as the great Mortimer Adler reminded us in his classic "How to Read a Book."
Douthat has done none of that. Instead, he creates his own vocabulary and terms, a vocabulary and terms that have no connection to the vocabulary and terms used by Francis to convey his message.
In addition, Douthat fails to put the encyclical in context of history. He makes no connections to how Francis' position on the environment is in solidarity with his predecessors: from Paul VI to Benedict XVI. Douthat would have us believe that the teaching in this encyclical is that of a maverick and having no relationship to what other popes have said; but this is not true. Has he read what other pontiffs have said about the subject or paid attention to the numerous footnotes and quotes by Francis? He provides not evidence that he has.
He also fails to take note of a theme prominent in much of what Francis has written and said prior this encyclical: solidarity. Francis emphasizes the solidarity of all God’s creatures, especially the solidarity we human beings have with the rest of creation.
That, i.e, solidarity, is why his "call to action goes beyond the environment" and addresses other issues that diminish human dignity.
Douthat has done none of that. Instead, he creates his own vocabulary and terms, a vocabulary and terms that have no connection to the vocabulary and terms used by Francis to convey his message.
In addition, Douthat fails to put the encyclical in context of history. He makes no connections to how Francis' position on the environment is in solidarity with his predecessors: from Paul VI to Benedict XVI. Douthat would have us believe that the teaching in this encyclical is that of a maverick and having no relationship to what other popes have said; but this is not true. Has he read what other pontiffs have said about the subject or paid attention to the numerous footnotes and quotes by Francis? He provides not evidence that he has.
He also fails to take note of a theme prominent in much of what Francis has written and said prior this encyclical: solidarity. Francis emphasizes the solidarity of all God’s creatures, especially the solidarity we human beings have with the rest of creation.
That, i.e, solidarity, is why his "call to action goes beyond the environment" and addresses other issues that diminish human dignity.
13
The best "catastrophists" are also "dynamists." They too recognize the potential of human intelligence and behavior to improve upon the present civilization. They don't fully depend on markets, and they don't fully depend on governments. What they really depend on and believe in is the ability for human beings to place their civilization in the context of the limited resources of the natural world, and acknowledge the destructive externalities of the US and global economies, in order to change them. That is real dynamism.
I think Pope Francis is encouraging all people to be "dynamist catastrophists."
I think Pope Francis is encouraging all people to be "dynamist catastrophists."
6
When this Pope sees fit to allow women a seat at the Church table and stops treating them like brood sows capable only of endless childbirth , then maybe the world can take seriously his concern about the climate change that is affected by overpopulation. Forests stripped , natural resources overtaxed , energy and industrial output achieved by the use of coal fired pollutants , all related to populations spiraling out of control.
Women alone are tasked with the perpetuation of the human race. Women comprise approximately one half of the world's population. In all modern societies, women enjoy full citizenship and have been integrated into all aspects of the employment spectrum. They lead countries and businesses. They participate in military combat, fly military aircraft , and are well represented in the upper military echelons. They have seats in all federal and state governments , including access to the White House in the United States.
The Catholic religion , however , continues to enslave women in a medieval cage that has absolutely no relevance in today's world.
A recent Guttmacher report revealed that well over 90% of Catholic women of child bearing age use contraception. Given the fact that it takes several hundred thousand dollars to properly raise and educate a child , what choice do these women have ?
Until the Church releases women from the thrall of this primitive dogma , climate discussion is both premature and hypocritical.
To basically ignore that
Women alone are tasked with the perpetuation of the human race. Women comprise approximately one half of the world's population. In all modern societies, women enjoy full citizenship and have been integrated into all aspects of the employment spectrum. They lead countries and businesses. They participate in military combat, fly military aircraft , and are well represented in the upper military echelons. They have seats in all federal and state governments , including access to the White House in the United States.
The Catholic religion , however , continues to enslave women in a medieval cage that has absolutely no relevance in today's world.
A recent Guttmacher report revealed that well over 90% of Catholic women of child bearing age use contraception. Given the fact that it takes several hundred thousand dollars to properly raise and educate a child , what choice do these women have ?
Until the Church releases women from the thrall of this primitive dogma , climate discussion is both premature and hypocritical.
To basically ignore that
10
Your vision of Catholic women as 'enslaved' and in 'thrall' is unsupported by even your own stat of 90% of them ignoring church teachings and using contraception. And there are plenty of Catholic women leading governments, business and the military. Where are these 'medieval cages'? And 'brood sows capable of only endless childbirth'?
As a Catholic, educated, professionally successful woman with no children, I find your comments baselessly insulting and out of touch with the reality of Catholic women's lives.
As for your view that climate discussion is premature and hypocritical, I and millions of other Catholic women warmly welcome the Pope's progressive steps.
As a Catholic, educated, professionally successful woman with no children, I find your comments baselessly insulting and out of touch with the reality of Catholic women's lives.
As for your view that climate discussion is premature and hypocritical, I and millions of other Catholic women warmly welcome the Pope's progressive steps.
The problem with your position is that if you and the other deniers are wrong, science (based on actual facts and natural principles) tells us that we are likely in for a truly global catastrophe that will cost humanity way more than you can imagine. And due to the inertia of changes in our earth systems, it will likely be impossible to reverse. Fair trade-off vs keeping our SUV's?
4
It's a fundamental truth that every generation believes that "things can only get worse from here." Some can be understood more easily than others. The generation that went through World War One, for example, would be forgiven for thinking that humanity as a whole was doomed. Certainly the generation of World War Two, dealing with genocide on an industrial scale as well as millions upon millions dead within half a decade, would be forgiven for thinking the same.
And yet the overall progress of humanity has been towards greater prosperity, longer life spans, and increased innovation.
So what right have we to be so pessimistic? We've avoided nuclear annihilation (something that could not be guaranteed in 1960), and the world's population has significantly increased without any indication that a Malthusian catastrophe is likely anytime soon. Can we get over our own doomsday scenarios and start to be a bit more optimistic about our future?
Are there problems? Heck yes, BIG problems. But these are problems that humanity has given birth to, and these are problems that we can solve. Provided we don't handicap ourselves before we even start.
And yet the overall progress of humanity has been towards greater prosperity, longer life spans, and increased innovation.
So what right have we to be so pessimistic? We've avoided nuclear annihilation (something that could not be guaranteed in 1960), and the world's population has significantly increased without any indication that a Malthusian catastrophe is likely anytime soon. Can we get over our own doomsday scenarios and start to be a bit more optimistic about our future?
Are there problems? Heck yes, BIG problems. But these are problems that humanity has given birth to, and these are problems that we can solve. Provided we don't handicap ourselves before we even start.
1
Is Mr. Douthat telling us that Pope Francis, a chemist before he entered the priesthood, has an antiquated scientific mind?
8
Did you actually read the World Bank page you linked your article to? It said that 1.2 billion people are still living in abject poverty. And it also says that the amount of people earning less than 1.25 a day has been cut down by quite a bit.
1.25 a day?!? Will that buy someone on a Polynesian island the houseboat they'll need when their island is flooded in six feet if water?
1.25 a day?!? Will that buy someone on a Polynesian island the houseboat they'll need when their island is flooded in six feet if water?
9
Martin Wolf, in the Financial Times, distills a more dire view from two economists, Gernot Wagner and Martin Weitzman:
"As concentrations of greenhouse gases rise, scientists argue, so do median expected increases in temperature and, crucially, the likelihood of extreme outcomes. At 400 ppm, the chances of a 6C rise are near zero. At 550 ppm, the chances are only 3 per cent. But at 700 ppm, they may exceed one in 10. This distribution is itself uncertain, as are possible economic costs. But, on the path we are now on, we have a significant chance of transforming the world into something not seen for tens of millions of years, with uncertain, but potentially devastating consequences."
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e144719e-0dcb-11e5-aa7b-00144feabdc0.html...
And the commitment on sea level has already not been factored in:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-miami-new-york-17925
"As concentrations of greenhouse gases rise, scientists argue, so do median expected increases in temperature and, crucially, the likelihood of extreme outcomes. At 400 ppm, the chances of a 6C rise are near zero. At 550 ppm, the chances are only 3 per cent. But at 700 ppm, they may exceed one in 10. This distribution is itself uncertain, as are possible economic costs. But, on the path we are now on, we have a significant chance of transforming the world into something not seen for tens of millions of years, with uncertain, but potentially devastating consequences."
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e144719e-0dcb-11e5-aa7b-00144feabdc0.html...
And the commitment on sea level has already not been factored in:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-miami-new-york-17925
4
I know it's hard to fathom, but rather than "catastrophism," this Pope is urging engagement, rational decision-making, and a global paradigm where Every Life Matters, and the runaway consumerism of the world (America is particularly guilty) in the face of actual starving children in desolate poverty.
Stagnation is not an option.
Stagnation is not an option.
36
What comes between growth and decay is not stagnation, but rather completion and fulfillment. People grow up to be adults. Buildings are finished and are then used and maintained. Any entity must find a harmonious coexistence with its environment. Only cancers grow without limit, and they therefore produce the conditions that bring about their end.
Machinery and now robots open the possibility of relieving mankind from the necessity of labor. The deepest threat our civilization faces is that we will not confront this issue honestly and decide it democratically and wisely. If the benefits of robot productivity belong solely to those who own the robots, the resulting economy has no need for most of the world's population.
The choices we make will open up or close off many possibilities, which have been explored by science fiction. Our leaders do not seem to read much science fiction, and certainly do not think in science fiction terms. The pope seems to be a welcome exception.
Machinery and now robots open the possibility of relieving mankind from the necessity of labor. The deepest threat our civilization faces is that we will not confront this issue honestly and decide it democratically and wisely. If the benefits of robot productivity belong solely to those who own the robots, the resulting economy has no need for most of the world's population.
The choices we make will open up or close off many possibilities, which have been explored by science fiction. Our leaders do not seem to read much science fiction, and certainly do not think in science fiction terms. The pope seems to be a welcome exception.
28
i haven't seen this level of intellectual--and I mean intellectual, not political and not religious, but intellectual--irresponsibility from anybody since, earlier this week, all the Republican candidates blathered about having no idea what the Charlestown murder's motives were, but gosh, it must be part of the war on Christianity.
This is a shameful column, written by somebody with the education and position to know more and to do better.
This is a shameful column, written by somebody with the education and position to know more and to do better.
287
Just when you thought you had Malthus back in the bottle...The pope's scientific background should lead him to the inevitable relationship between host and culture. Nature (in his mindset, God) can attain a balance but it might not be pretty. The church and western culture soundly rejected zero population growth fifty years ago and thirty years later discovered tipping points. Better gin up that NASA budget, Ross.
7
I can assure Ross Douthat that no one in the business of managing energy, plant engineering, facilities management, or general cost control ever, ever weighs dynamism versus catastrophism as they decide to re-lamp, upgrade the HVAC, or shift load. This column isn't just your average ivory tower nonsense. This is epic ivory tower nonsense.
55
Maybe facilities managers and the like should back up a step and view the bigger picture.
They view it with the same goals as Francis: saving energy. They are eagerly embracing every energy-saving measure they can get, and they're working cleaner for it. Francis is advocating a moral motive for an engineering revolution, which is only one more reason to get behind it. My remark about Douthat argued that Ross has zero understanding of the realities of energy technology on the ground, and a dilettante's delight in academic silliness. No one manages energy, saves kilowatts or cuts his carbon footprint with navel-staring nonsense like this. Francis might understand it; after all, the Pope has a science background and he is managing one some the world's most complicated and precious real estate. Francis also has a humble man's understanding of the value of money, and a contempt for waste. I doubt Ross Douthat can get into any operational details of this issue, and that's where it lives. None of it lives in the realm of this dynamism versus catastrophism blather, though I do appreciate Douthat setting us another excellent example of what happens when a forced hot air system needs to be shut down.
It's just been so much fun watching conservatives squirm since the encyclical. It's all about capitalism and that doesn't sit well with the folks who have bet their souls on trickle-down-economics and unfettered markets. Ross, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
78
Energy drives development; development drives standards of living and demands for more energy. China and India are raising their standard of living, China years ago noted that 35 million formerly in poverty were rising.
So while I and many others purchased and installed lots of energy saving things, installed solar (n arizona) to capture most of our electric energy needs, that population growth and rising standards of living (an often stated goal of hope by many including this Pope) will eclipse all of our puny efforts.
Mitigation is needed, the search for ways to harness hydrogen from sea water for fuel has been going for over 55 years and still no working models.
But when the calls are for drastic energy cuts, we have made no progress is cutting life styles in advanced countries and developing ones merely sneer at such request to deny them these luxury uses of carbon power.
The Pope brings no new ideas to the table and old ones that often don't work and ones many think will work (carbon trading ) he rejects.
So while I and many others purchased and installed lots of energy saving things, installed solar (n arizona) to capture most of our electric energy needs, that population growth and rising standards of living (an often stated goal of hope by many including this Pope) will eclipse all of our puny efforts.
Mitigation is needed, the search for ways to harness hydrogen from sea water for fuel has been going for over 55 years and still no working models.
But when the calls are for drastic energy cuts, we have made no progress is cutting life styles in advanced countries and developing ones merely sneer at such request to deny them these luxury uses of carbon power.
The Pope brings no new ideas to the table and old ones that often don't work and ones many think will work (carbon trading ) he rejects.
2
I have not read "Laudato Si" yet. But what I have read and heard from others who read the encyclical, the arguments are not structured on imminent peril, but rather on the welfare of the global poor. Pope Francis sees the poor down trodden in systemic ways by capitalism, climate change, and media that is less than truthful and informative for the poor. I agree with Matthew Carnicelli that "Laudato Si" is informed by "The Declaration of a Global Ethic". I look forward to reading the encyclical.
8
The Church must understand that there is a limit to how many humans this delicate planet will support. And it seems we have surpassed this number. It's no longer empty: the aphorism "be fruitful and multiply" is no longer applicable.
It's too bad that the idiotic Paul Ehrlich's overblown apocolyptic hyperventillations caused people to reject the notion that the planet might be overpopulating. It has.
This must be recognized and dealt with. Now.
It's too bad that the idiotic Paul Ehrlich's overblown apocolyptic hyperventillations caused people to reject the notion that the planet might be overpopulating. It has.
This must be recognized and dealt with. Now.
7
So the plan is for "change (to protect the earth's climate) to be persistently postponed", eh, while "dynamist" free marketers and technocrats, um, will tread water--rather than plunging onward with their plans to squeeze profits from the environment and workers as they seem at present to be doing. And we'll have "chronic but manageable problems", which will all, um, work out, well, indefinitely. Which would be better than facing the prospect of disaster and taking strong action to prevent it. I guess that's my plan for avoiding the tests that the doctor wants to do on my heart. I'll just take a cue from Ross and plan on persistently postponing them. I'll be fine, just fine...
18
There are technologies, now and under development, to combat climate change: e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/04/01/how-techno... Many on the political right obstruct progress in reducing coal and oil use, and water and air pollution. I am surprised by their short-sightedness and lack of concern about their children's and grandchildren's future quality of life. It's hard to believe that air pollution affects only left wingers' health. But, of course, climate change affects the entire earth. Population growth is highest in poor countries, where some people starve. When one sees human energy devoted to hostility and violence within and among nations, it is hard to imagine that the will and ability to halt climate change and poverty will exist any time soon.
Many American and European Catholics use birth control.
Many American and European Catholics use birth control.
10
Douthat's columns have become as tiresome as they are predictable with his endless bag of low rhetorical tricks: false equivalents, gross inaccuracies, straw men, diversionary ploys and, as in today's piece, patronizing sophistry. NY Times readers deserve better than a weekly pseudo-intellectual shell game in the service of corporate greed and hard right authoritarianism.
74
Ross, I am aghast at your critique of Pope Francis. You very well know what he is saying is true, if you take off your partisan glasses. You say, there are the Dynamists and the Catastrophists both on the Left and the Right. And you categorize him as a liberal Catastrophist. You have skirted the real issue again with your superior vocabulary. The fact is 21st century modernity has enabled a look into the future which looks very bleak if we don't act NOW. If The Pope gives short shrift to free markets, it is because it is not working. The only result is agree to disagree. Does it accomplish preservation of our Planet? NO. The stalemate just continues while Earth is plundered. The Pope is using the scientific paradigm in a theological way because the call to action is coming from their Church people go to extraordinary lengths to keep their faith. There would be a grass-root level of personal responsibility to make man's carbon foot-print as small as possible. If the document shows a frank contempt of the leadership class, it is because they failed the people abysmally in cahoots with the greedy oligarchs and corporations who just plunder Earth's resources which are finite - yes, finite. And unsustainable! The scientists are not whipping this out from nothing. There is evidence, there is proof. And the future is definitely not stagnation because that time is past. As for the poor of the world getting poorer - how do you explain the widening inequality?
38
Because the poor need cheap energy doesn't mean the rich do (me, you, Douthat). Time to clean up after ourselves.
12
Ross, Pope Francis' climate encyclical is not a critique solely of modernity by pointing out that greed contributes to poor stewardship of the earth; in the Bible, Timothy 6:10 states that "the love of money is the root of all evil." The Pope is pointing out a human problem of the ages in a current incarnation.
24
"Warmist" and "alarmist" are just so yesterday.
Now Ross has the Pope pinned as a "catastrophist."
Funny. I was just reading yesterday that the extinction rate for vertebrates is 100 times greater than "normal." Was that news? Or was that just "catastrophizing"?
Speaking of the news, it used to come before the weather. Now the news and weather are all mixed together what with rainstorms, and tornados, and flash floods, and heatwaves and drought.
The television "meterorologist" used to be just good teeth and hair and a bit of banter with the news and sports guys. Now they're all intermingled. Politics, weather disaster, light feature, more weather, sports, weather warning.
Is this just the natural evolution of television meteorologists, or have they all turned "catastrophist."
With Francis not an option on the ballot, vote for a guy named Bernie. He'll start putting it right.
Now Ross has the Pope pinned as a "catastrophist."
Funny. I was just reading yesterday that the extinction rate for vertebrates is 100 times greater than "normal." Was that news? Or was that just "catastrophizing"?
Speaking of the news, it used to come before the weather. Now the news and weather are all mixed together what with rainstorms, and tornados, and flash floods, and heatwaves and drought.
The television "meterorologist" used to be just good teeth and hair and a bit of banter with the news and sports guys. Now they're all intermingled. Politics, weather disaster, light feature, more weather, sports, weather warning.
Is this just the natural evolution of television meteorologists, or have they all turned "catastrophist."
With Francis not an option on the ballot, vote for a guy named Bernie. He'll start putting it right.
43
Ross Douthat is a "conservative" who does not believe in conservation. Res ipso loquitor, as the lawyers, not necessarily the priesthood, say: "The thing speaks for itself."
28
Douthat is upset because the Pope's call to action goes beyond birth control, abortion and homosexuality. Can't wait to see the Catholic Republicans squirm when the Pope addresses Congress.
59
The permafrost is melting, Ross. That IS a catastrophe. We're on the eve of global catastrophe and I am grateful that Pope Francis used urgent language demanding that we do something and do it NOW. I know nice, civilized people such as yourself do not like to use extreme language. But you better get over that little nicety. Pope Francis has. God love him. And keep him safe.
68
I agree with all the commenters here... It is funny and kind of sad how Mr. Douthat will rather denounce the pope than to give up his false idol; his conservative ideology of greed and selfishness.
141
So when it is an issue of Sexual Ethics Douthat finds that honor and tradition lie with submission to the holy Mother Church. When it is an encyclical that takes a position on Environmental or Economic Ethics he makes it clear that in the end his divinity is the free market.
58
If I translate this correctly...
A Dynamist believes that progress has been good and we can fix anything when it gets bad enough. Sort of like shoot first and aim later.
A Catastrophist thinks that even though we are now standing on our hind legs, we need to keep our heads up and think ahead.
Sort of like keep your eyes on the road.
If that is the case, then better to side with a Catastrophist who may be wrong until proven so rather than a Dynamist who, if wrong, is a disaster for both groups.
A Dynamist believes that progress has been good and we can fix anything when it gets bad enough. Sort of like shoot first and aim later.
A Catastrophist thinks that even though we are now standing on our hind legs, we need to keep our heads up and think ahead.
Sort of like keep your eyes on the road.
If that is the case, then better to side with a Catastrophist who may be wrong until proven so rather than a Dynamist who, if wrong, is a disaster for both groups.
30
I love how conservatives are never at a loss to make up new words when the old ones can't fit into the changing times or their old arguments.
It sounds to me like cata.....catastra......catrophis, oh, heck, whatever he just made up are those who believe the science on climate change while the other new word he uses to describe the other side are the science deniers.
But since California is running out of water and Florida may be under water in a hundred years we have to distract from that.
So, pick up the Hot Line to Frank Luntz and have him poll test some new phrases and take it from there.
It sounds to me like cata.....catastra......catrophis, oh, heck, whatever he just made up are those who believe the science on climate change while the other new word he uses to describe the other side are the science deniers.
But since California is running out of water and Florida may be under water in a hundred years we have to distract from that.
So, pick up the Hot Line to Frank Luntz and have him poll test some new phrases and take it from there.
19
Pascal's Wager as an argument for believing in God is pretty weak, especially when considering how ridiculous it sounds with similarly unlikely claims in place of a particular god with particular attitudes. Would you believe in Thor on argument of Pascal's Wager? I didn't think so.
But Pascal's Wager as an argument for being careful about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) -- AGW being a claim backed with overwhelming evidence -- is about as strong as arguments get.
Take AGW seriously. If you're wrong, you merely overracted and unnecessarily slowed birth rates and economies. If you're right, you saved our offspring's future.
Blow off AGW. If you're right, you get a more populated world and a little more prosperity. If you're wrong, you end modern civilization and maybe the entire species.
One way of separating the wise from fools is to see which option they choose.
Of course, there are always the sociopaths who don't care about what future generations will endure. However, most of us aren't sociopaths.
But Pascal's Wager as an argument for being careful about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) -- AGW being a claim backed with overwhelming evidence -- is about as strong as arguments get.
Take AGW seriously. If you're wrong, you merely overracted and unnecessarily slowed birth rates and economies. If you're right, you saved our offspring's future.
Blow off AGW. If you're right, you get a more populated world and a little more prosperity. If you're wrong, you end modern civilization and maybe the entire species.
One way of separating the wise from fools is to see which option they choose.
Of course, there are always the sociopaths who don't care about what future generations will endure. However, most of us aren't sociopaths.
23
Tell that to the Republicans, please.
There are too many inconsistencies in this piece for me to get at any central core. I guess I have to take my points of disagreement, one by one:
1. "Our most polarizing debate"--defined by Douthat as the tension between "dynamists and catastrophists." Funny, that's the last pairing I would have expected. When I hear our "most polarizing debate", I don't think of climate change even, but any of the following: guns; race relations; income inequality; the proper size and role of government. I must have missed something on the way to philosophy class.
2. Population growth in an age of dwindling resources: Where was Douthat when the Pope, in a bit of vernacular--urged Catholics not to think they needed to "breed like rabbits." Francis already had this encyclical in mind when he upended centuries of Catholic teaching to make every act of procreation, truly procreative.
3. "We might have entered a kind of stagnationist position, a sustainable decadence, in which the issues Pope Francis identifies percolate without reaching a world-altering boil." Where did this come from? The Pope has drawn a line in the sand: either we get serious about climate change now, or we go down the tubes. I suspect Douthat is one of the very few trying to suggest a middle road between science deniers and science believers as if there were a 3rd way. If one truly buys into climate change, there is no delaying effect. It's now or never before earth is uninhabitable.
1. "Our most polarizing debate"--defined by Douthat as the tension between "dynamists and catastrophists." Funny, that's the last pairing I would have expected. When I hear our "most polarizing debate", I don't think of climate change even, but any of the following: guns; race relations; income inequality; the proper size and role of government. I must have missed something on the way to philosophy class.
2. Population growth in an age of dwindling resources: Where was Douthat when the Pope, in a bit of vernacular--urged Catholics not to think they needed to "breed like rabbits." Francis already had this encyclical in mind when he upended centuries of Catholic teaching to make every act of procreation, truly procreative.
3. "We might have entered a kind of stagnationist position, a sustainable decadence, in which the issues Pope Francis identifies percolate without reaching a world-altering boil." Where did this come from? The Pope has drawn a line in the sand: either we get serious about climate change now, or we go down the tubes. I suspect Douthat is one of the very few trying to suggest a middle road between science deniers and science believers as if there were a 3rd way. If one truly buys into climate change, there is no delaying effect. It's now or never before earth is uninhabitable.
62
If the pope hates poverty, he's going to have to come to terms with capitalism. It's still the best route out of it.
As for his appreciation for all God's creations, from the embryo to the planet, well, it's likely capitalism will do its part there as well. Certainly, "radical change" is unlikely. The head of the Catholic Church, of all people, should understand this.
As for his appreciation for all God's creations, from the embryo to the planet, well, it's likely capitalism will do its part there as well. Certainly, "radical change" is unlikely. The head of the Catholic Church, of all people, should understand this.
2
How would you compare the US with Germany and the Scandinavian countries?
They all have better economic mobility than the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility
They all have better economic mobility than the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility
2
Independent:
As I see it, we have not really addressed the effects of globalization and technology on our system. Both parties tried the "usual suspects" -- ex., tax cuts, stimulus spending -- but neither was successful.
Focusing on growth and creating middle class jobs, versus just a bigger safety net, is the preferable answer, in my view.
The road to reducing inequality leads directly through businesses, big and small. Getting big business, especially, to do more for American workers, and to do more in this country, in general, will require incentives (ex., reductions in corporate taxes for big businesses, regulatory burdens for small businesses, etc.) There's been no engagement.
It is why a republican interested in jobs and growth is the what we need right now, in my view. Enough federal government-centric solutions. The answers lie outside government, and an anti-business posture (unfortunately where the Democratic Party is right now) is not in the country's best interests.
As I see it, we have not really addressed the effects of globalization and technology on our system. Both parties tried the "usual suspects" -- ex., tax cuts, stimulus spending -- but neither was successful.
Focusing on growth and creating middle class jobs, versus just a bigger safety net, is the preferable answer, in my view.
The road to reducing inequality leads directly through businesses, big and small. Getting big business, especially, to do more for American workers, and to do more in this country, in general, will require incentives (ex., reductions in corporate taxes for big businesses, regulatory burdens for small businesses, etc.) There's been no engagement.
It is why a republican interested in jobs and growth is the what we need right now, in my view. Enough federal government-centric solutions. The answers lie outside government, and an anti-business posture (unfortunately where the Democratic Party is right now) is not in the country's best interests.
1
This might be true if we had an actual capitalist free-market system. Unfortunately the ruling oligarchy has created a system where they accumulate fantastic wealth while the rest of us get crumbs. Crony Capitalism is likely to be the death of capitalism and what remains of liberal democracy.
2
Douthat thinks he's more Catholic than the Pope.
Specifically, he thinks the Pope is wrong to be "drenched in frank contempt for the existing global leadership class."
A long formal Encyclical that is "drenched in frank contempt for the existing global leadership class" wins me over. When you're right, you're right.
And Ross, when the Pope says it in an Encyclical, it IS Catholic. That's it. If you are far more right wing than the Pope, then you're not right anymore, you're just wrong.
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives this background to the use of Encyclicals as the Pope just did:
"Leo XIII published a series of encyclicals on social and other questions which attracted universal attention. We may mention especially "Inscrutabilis" (21 April, 1878) on the evils of modern society; "Aeterni Patris" (4 Aug., 1879) on St. Thomas Aquinas and Scholastic philosophy; "Arcanum divinae sapientiae" (10 Feb., 1880) on Christian marriage and family life; "Diuturnum illud" (29 June, 1881) on the origin of civil authority; "Immortale Dei" (1 Nov., 1885) on the Christian constitution of states; "Libertas præstantissimum" (20 June, 1888) on true liberty; "Rerum novarum" (16 May, 1891) on the labour question; "Providentissimus Deus" (18 Nov., 1893) on Holy Scripture; "Satis cognitum" (29 June, 1896) on religious unity.
"Pius X has shown the same favour for this form of document, in his instructions on intervention in politics to the people of Italy, and in the pronouncement on Modernism."
Specifically, he thinks the Pope is wrong to be "drenched in frank contempt for the existing global leadership class."
A long formal Encyclical that is "drenched in frank contempt for the existing global leadership class" wins me over. When you're right, you're right.
And Ross, when the Pope says it in an Encyclical, it IS Catholic. That's it. If you are far more right wing than the Pope, then you're not right anymore, you're just wrong.
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives this background to the use of Encyclicals as the Pope just did:
"Leo XIII published a series of encyclicals on social and other questions which attracted universal attention. We may mention especially "Inscrutabilis" (21 April, 1878) on the evils of modern society; "Aeterni Patris" (4 Aug., 1879) on St. Thomas Aquinas and Scholastic philosophy; "Arcanum divinae sapientiae" (10 Feb., 1880) on Christian marriage and family life; "Diuturnum illud" (29 June, 1881) on the origin of civil authority; "Immortale Dei" (1 Nov., 1885) on the Christian constitution of states; "Libertas præstantissimum" (20 June, 1888) on true liberty; "Rerum novarum" (16 May, 1891) on the labour question; "Providentissimus Deus" (18 Nov., 1893) on Holy Scripture; "Satis cognitum" (29 June, 1896) on religious unity.
"Pius X has shown the same favour for this form of document, in his instructions on intervention in politics to the people of Italy, and in the pronouncement on Modernism."
46
"Rerum novarum" is my personal fave.
3
Ross Douthat profoundly disagrees with Pope Francis, as hard as he seems to try to avoid it. Ross Douthat, I believe is Catholic. Must be tough. It used to be so convenient to be Catholic and be conservative. The two don't necessarily go together so well any more.
181
This encyclical will separate a lot of wheat from chaff in the Catholic Church in the U.S.
1
Some have opinioned that the Pope should stay out of politics. All religion is politics. The history of religion suggests that all doctrine have only been established with political force. This Pope is a global political leader. It will be interesting how the right winged wing of the Republican Party deal with their Christian values compared to the Pope's Christian values.
126
The Pope should stay out of politics, but climate change and the burning of fossil fuels is not about politics. It is about science.
12
They certainly love it when the Pope chimes in on abortion and homosexuality. These so called Catholic politicians can not pick and choose their moral issues, according to their structure, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and speaks for him on earth. In essence they are dismissing the message from God. Pretty arrogant if you ask me, but then that really is the entire qualifying behavior of anyone from the GOP. As a Christian, I wish they would stop identifying as one, for I can not see anything that remotely resembles the Christianity of Jesus.
6
And certainly the Christian right participates in politics.
6
Climate change denial Douthat style:
"Finally, it’s possible to believe that climate change is happening while doubting that it makes “the present world system ... certainly unsustainable,” as the pope suggests. Perhaps we’ll face a series of chronic but manageable problems instead; perhaps “radical change” can, in fact, be persistently postponed."
Possible to believe that, Ross? Which climate scientists are saying that?
The consensus as I understand it is that climate change is likely to be non-linear. That is to say, x amount of CO2 does not translate directly into x amount of temperature change. There is likely to be a point when a self-reinforcement mechanism kicks in, where warming releases massive amounts of methane, which leads to more warming, which leads to more methane, in a runaway cascade. And if that happens there won't be a thing we can do about it.
"Finally, it’s possible to believe that climate change is happening while doubting that it makes “the present world system ... certainly unsustainable,” as the pope suggests. Perhaps we’ll face a series of chronic but manageable problems instead; perhaps “radical change” can, in fact, be persistently postponed."
Possible to believe that, Ross? Which climate scientists are saying that?
The consensus as I understand it is that climate change is likely to be non-linear. That is to say, x amount of CO2 does not translate directly into x amount of temperature change. There is likely to be a point when a self-reinforcement mechanism kicks in, where warming releases massive amounts of methane, which leads to more warming, which leads to more methane, in a runaway cascade. And if that happens there won't be a thing we can do about it.
231
due to climate change being nonlinear, that has to be taken into account and it means that we need to be more motivated to do everything possible as quickly as possible and avoid the run-away-cascade.
3
The positive feedback loops are well underway in the Arctic leading to doubly accelerating warming.
5
Ross Douthat may believe it, Leonard, but I'd like to see him come up with solid scientific evidence of his belief. Without that, it's like so many of his beliefs - fantasy.
p.
p.
Climate change and ecodisaster is not coming, it's been here for quite awhile. And the failure to recognize that WE are as much a part of the environment as a tree or a river is part of the failure to comprehend the problem. An inconvenient truth is that the damage is already well underway and even if all human activity stopped tomorrow it would continue for a hundred years, but no one would care, we'd all be dead. We are an adaptable species and will adapt to our lessened environment and we can listen to stories of the glorious past in our plastic cubicles on our implanted entertainment devices.
77
this is terribly pessimistic and a justification to do do nothing. Of course there is a lot that can be done and must be done starting with compassion for other forms of life not just ourselvss and quality of children not quantity.
3
Perhaps Francis recognizes the reality of science and common sense.
159
I thought Douthat wanted us to go back about 100 years or so?
20
He'd be happier a few hundred years back, when his world view would have been mainstream.
2
There are about 1.2 billion people in the world (over 40% of them in Latin America) who might take the pope’s “call” as something other than any leader’s politically correct exhortations. That leaves about 6 billion who aren’t Roman Catholics mostly indifferent to the “call” – and most of them live in countries building middle classes for the first time in history on the back of cheap and plentiful, if dirty, energy. Don’t expect those 6 billion to soil their knickers in the haste to genuflect. And those most likely to accept his encyclical are precisely those who are doing a ton already to mitigate sources of carbon emissions – how many in India, China, Russia and the third world, our greatest polluters, are even aware that Pope Francis penned an encyclical?
It doesn’t help his case that he counsels “sacrifice” to super-charge and speed humanity’s march to the green.
There was a time when religious leaders focused wisdom on purely religious matters, where they perhaps have some reasonable claim to authority, at least to their own faithful. Today, it seems that everyone’s a scientist, including the head of an institution that sought to burn Galileo lacking a complete and public cave for his heresies.
The truth is that since the Industrial Revolution, the polluting, secular world has brought more human beings out of abject, subsistence poverty than any other force in human history. That wasn’t done with windmills and ethanol, and that ain’t “Laudato Si’ ”.
It doesn’t help his case that he counsels “sacrifice” to super-charge and speed humanity’s march to the green.
There was a time when religious leaders focused wisdom on purely religious matters, where they perhaps have some reasonable claim to authority, at least to their own faithful. Today, it seems that everyone’s a scientist, including the head of an institution that sought to burn Galileo lacking a complete and public cave for his heresies.
The truth is that since the Industrial Revolution, the polluting, secular world has brought more human beings out of abject, subsistence poverty than any other force in human history. That wasn’t done with windmills and ethanol, and that ain’t “Laudato Si’ ”.
4
But it only works when it's regulated. Unregulated, it brings everything down as it's come close to doing 3 times. Some of those countries reaching some middle class status are trying to do it the right way. They aren't necessarily using us as their model, thank goodness.
The pope is appealing to many of us who aren't catholic because we recognize the wisdom of his words. Comparing an enlightened pope like Francis who believes in science to the clergy who wanted to burn Galileo is a completely invalid comparison. It undermines your whole argument.
By the way, religious leaders seldom ever limited their wisdom to purely religious matters. I'm sure I can find many more times when they didn't than you find when they did.
The pope is appealing to many of us who aren't catholic because we recognize the wisdom of his words. Comparing an enlightened pope like Francis who believes in science to the clergy who wanted to burn Galileo is a completely invalid comparison. It undermines your whole argument.
By the way, religious leaders seldom ever limited their wisdom to purely religious matters. I'm sure I can find many more times when they didn't than you find when they did.
7
sacrifice is not always going back to drudgery. There is beauty in riding a bike in quiet not noise and clean air. The trade off is that one does not get there quite as fast but that is relative and also there is a lot of health gained in doing things manually. There is a lot of health in eating chemical free food that nurtures the soil as well as the person eating it and then afterwards composting to create more good soil. The entire principles of sustainable life is harmony with nature -- yes work harder physically but not necessary drudgery and who need so much money that one build a house that one is ratteling around in the size of a parking lot..... wealth is not necessarily entertaining. It is a question of values.
8
"There was a time when religious leaders focused wisdom on purely religious matters" -- pray, tell me when was this time in history where religious leaders did not influence other than purely religious?
8
Pope Francis squandered an opportunity to write a truly great encyclical on modern genocide.
The Vicar of Christ on Earth had a rare moment to author an inspiring tome on the horror of modern war both nuclear, cyber as well as genocide, ethnic cleansing, refugees etc.
Hopefully, the next encyclical will be on these more profoundly important topics.
The Vicar of Christ on Earth had a rare moment to author an inspiring tome on the horror of modern war both nuclear, cyber as well as genocide, ethnic cleansing, refugees etc.
Hopefully, the next encyclical will be on these more profoundly important topics.
7
Perhaps you should write your instructions to the Pope directly, Michael, as I doubt that he will see them here.
2
Michael, if the environment keeps going the way it's going now, the level of destruction will render all other "genocide" quaint.
8
There is no argument.
Climate change is real, it's here, right now, and is man made.
Five years before Ross Douthat was born science classes at the University of Oregon were teaching man made climate change. Everything they taught us is happening. CO2 emissions are warming the planet, polar ice caps are melting, glaciers are melting, the Greenland ice sheet is melting. The oceans are rising, becoming more acidic. Storms are more intense, rain is more intense, droughts are more intense.
As the prophet said,
It doesn't take a Weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Climate change is real, it's here, right now, and is man made.
Five years before Ross Douthat was born science classes at the University of Oregon were teaching man made climate change. Everything they taught us is happening. CO2 emissions are warming the planet, polar ice caps are melting, glaciers are melting, the Greenland ice sheet is melting. The oceans are rising, becoming more acidic. Storms are more intense, rain is more intense, droughts are more intense.
As the prophet said,
It doesn't take a Weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
386
One of the great things about being a dynamist is that new technology allows us to see a catastrophe coming before it is upon us. Unfortunately stagnationists run our current Congress and would like nothing better than to ignore science, technology and any solutions that might hurt their benefactors, the lobbyists, the corporatists and the greediest. Sorry about that last one. I couldn't resist.
133
"For instance, he doesn’t grapple sufficiently with evidence that the global poor have become steadily less poor under precisely the world system he decries — a reality that has complicated implications for environmentalism."
The poor need cheap energy, no doubt. That doesn't mean the rich do -- me, Douthat, you. We're all very well off, and can now easily afford to pay for clean energy (or subsidize our citizens who can't).
I pay for 100% green offsets from my electricity company -- it costs me an whopping $2.22/month extra (5.0%). I pay another $5.00/month towards the construction of 500 kWh/month of clean energy. Renewables are getting cheaper year-by-year, and don't have the large negative externalities (about $150 B/yr in the US) that fossil fuels do.
Americans emit 11 times more CO2, per capita, then do Indians. We've emitted 27% of all CO2 since 1900; China 12%, India 3%. It's time to stop using the poor as an excuse for our own profigate ways, and accept out own moral responsibilities.
The poor need cheap energy, no doubt. That doesn't mean the rich do -- me, Douthat, you. We're all very well off, and can now easily afford to pay for clean energy (or subsidize our citizens who can't).
I pay for 100% green offsets from my electricity company -- it costs me an whopping $2.22/month extra (5.0%). I pay another $5.00/month towards the construction of 500 kWh/month of clean energy. Renewables are getting cheaper year-by-year, and don't have the large negative externalities (about $150 B/yr in the US) that fossil fuels do.
Americans emit 11 times more CO2, per capita, then do Indians. We've emitted 27% of all CO2 since 1900; China 12%, India 3%. It's time to stop using the poor as an excuse for our own profigate ways, and accept out own moral responsibilities.
516
Thank you, David Appell!
p.
p.
4
Ross, you make a very good point: billions of Chinese, Indians and other impoverished people have seen an unprecedented improvement in their daily lives because of modern markets and development.
They aren't Catholic, it's true, but the breed like they are.
The United States is consuming less petroleum than in past years because demand is down. If you curb uncontrolled population growth demand will go down.
It's hard to be a pope in the city...
They aren't Catholic, it's true, but the breed like they are.
The United States is consuming less petroleum than in past years because demand is down. If you curb uncontrolled population growth demand will go down.
It's hard to be a pope in the city...
19
I thought you people were critical of China's 'one child' law.
2
Imagine the world with a few billion or so fewer people. I just bet you can and if so, you can also imagine cleaner air water and enough food to feed the people. The key to a sustainable future is complex, but must begin with fewer people consuming less of dwindling resources. Sustainable growth depends on population limits.
5
Amen. The elephant in the room that no one talks about. Couldn't the Catholic church at least encourage birth control. It's really not that doctrinally painful. Just a baby step, without the baby.
6
Ross, I get that you are being critical of the Pope, but after two readings I didn't understand the reasoning, and I don't feel like trying again.
I don't consider myself a slouch when it comes to understanding people's arguments, whether I agree with them or not. But this? It reminds me of the convoluted small print language that you see in, for example, credit card agreements. Am I alone in wondering how this slipped by into print? Or aren't op-ed writers subject to the discipline of being copy-edited? Next time, Ross, plain English please. Maybe you were trying too hard to sound erudite.
I don't consider myself a slouch when it comes to understanding people's arguments, whether I agree with them or not. But this? It reminds me of the convoluted small print language that you see in, for example, credit card agreements. Am I alone in wondering how this slipped by into print? Or aren't op-ed writers subject to the discipline of being copy-edited? Next time, Ross, plain English please. Maybe you were trying too hard to sound erudite.
344
I'm going to try my best to slip the word "dégringolade" into a conversation tomorrow just to sound erudite like Ross.
7
Ross loves to read to himself. Douthhat and other Catholic conservatives fall over themselves when hierarchs refuse the sacraments to politicians. Now he, like Jeb Bush have no role in climate change. It's called hypocracy.
6
I agree with you. Should the Harvard man Douthat stick to movie reviews?
3
It's funny how Ross Douthat ties himself in knots to say that the Pope is right when he agrees with the Pope and that the Pope is being apocalyptic when he diverges from Douthat's view.
377
I take that pretzel with a grain of salt.
7
It's funny how liberals apoplectically despise old, white males who blur the lines between church and state... except when they call for expanded world government and a reversal of human progress.
There is a mountain of items to oppose the pope on.
abusetracker
popecrimes
He needs to clean his own house. And if he cleans it as is needed, the church will and should disolve.
abusetracker
popecrimes
He needs to clean his own house. And if he cleans it as is needed, the church will and should disolve.
1
"Finally, it’s possible to believe that climate change is happening while doubting that it makes 'the present world system ... certainly unsustainable,' as the pope suggests. Perhaps we’ll face a series of chronic but manageable problems instead; perhaps “radical change” can, in fact, be persistently postponed."
This is one of the most outrageous, outright lies I have ever read in the opinion pages of the Times. The science on climate change is clear. If we do not radically curtail the emission of greenhouse gases, we face disaster.
I generally welcome a diversity of opinion, even when I find myself disagreeing with a columnist more of ten than not, but the Times should not pay a columnist to lie.
This is one of the most outrageous, outright lies I have ever read in the opinion pages of the Times. The science on climate change is clear. If we do not radically curtail the emission of greenhouse gases, we face disaster.
I generally welcome a diversity of opinion, even when I find myself disagreeing with a columnist more of ten than not, but the Times should not pay a columnist to lie.
559
Well said, Josh. All that was missing from Ross' column was a "We are Koch" ad.
16
Well, obviously indoctrination trumps science. These days the hallmark of 'conservative' mindset.
16
The “catastrophists" might conclude after reading Mr. Douthat that no awareness, no understanding the gravity is sufficient to motivate us to behave responsibly. And while Neither Pope Francis or Mr. Douthat offer credible concrete alternatives to the status quo, we opt for convenience? And what should we say to ourselves, while milling the candied malls of a techno-fix? Only lies comfort us now. The lies that comfort us today, funnel us forward towards more and more disruptive choices tomorrow. Pope Francis should cry in despair, but for his irreconcilable faith in humanity.
3
The huge masses of poor people in developing countries could not survive without the use of carbon-bearing fuels. The food they eat every day depends on oil and petroleum products.
The governments in these countries have no intention of ding anything. India has already said as much, while China relies on disregarding the agreements they have signed.
The governments in these countries have no intention of ding anything. India has already said as much, while China relies on disregarding the agreements they have signed.
6
In fact, China has stepped up its divestment from coal, a move demanded by the intensity of air pollution there. See "...The country has a serious air quality crisis on its hands. Three gigawatts worth of coal power-producing plants were closed in 2014, and 18 gigawatts have been closed to date in the country. China pledges to eliminate 20 gigawatts of capacity over the next five years."—http://fortune.com/2015/06/06/divesting-from-coal/
10
Sort of like the huge masses of rich people in the US (who consume much more carbon-bearing fuels per capita than any other country).
7
If the huge masses can't survive without substances that are ruining our ecosystem, then there are just too many humans. There were around 2 billions humans when we developed artificial nitrogen fertilizer which has enabled our population to reach 7 billion and climbing. The present human population can never live sustainably without ecological collapse by removing many ecological niches that the ecosystem needs for its dynamic equilibrium. Our greed for more cannot save us.
4
There are Catastrophists, and then there are Catastrophists. It's one thing to "summon deaf heaven with bootless cries" about the perils of universal health care. It's quite another thing to warn of the dangers of relentless degradation of the environment in pursuit of profit.
101
It is refreshing to finally see someone acknowledge the contradictions in the Pope's recommendations. Exponential population growth is inconsistent with conservation of resources. And the poor too have also benefited from exploitation of energy and other resources. Almost everyone is going to have to change his lifestyle if we are going to head off environmental disaster.
28
Right on. We are not only going to have to change our lifestyles, but we are going to have to have fewer kids. Then we are going to have to keep our fingers crossed and hope that we haven't emitted too many greenhouse gassed and pray (figuratively, that is, to whatever god or talisman that fits one's fancy) that we are right on top of the heat/ice cycle and can slowly glide down to a new ice age some 80,000 years hence.
2
Ross, it sounds to me as if Pope Francis is on to something here - on to the realization that what's ultimately required is a revolution in human consciousness.
IMHO, perhaps the very first seeds of this revolution were sowed in 1993, with the issuance of "The Declaration of a Global Ethic".
The Global Ethic was an attempt by eminent theologians of every persuasion, including a former Vatican II participant, Hans Kung, to arrive a more universal formulation of ethics. These theologians concluded that four of the biblical Ten Commandants, and the "Golden Rule", were common to every community of faith and ethics. But they went farther than this; they reformulated these Commandants to meet the challenge of the modern age. Thus,
– “Thou shall not kill” became “Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life”.
– “Thou shall not commit adultery” became “Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women”.
– “Thou shall not steal” became “Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order”.
– “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor” became “Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness”.
Seen from a conservative religious perspective, these reformulations might be considered radical. But IMHO, they are no more radical than the actual lives of the men and women at the center of our planet's spiritual traditions.
Ross, I suspect that Pope Francis has read the Global Ethic.
IMHO, perhaps the very first seeds of this revolution were sowed in 1993, with the issuance of "The Declaration of a Global Ethic".
The Global Ethic was an attempt by eminent theologians of every persuasion, including a former Vatican II participant, Hans Kung, to arrive a more universal formulation of ethics. These theologians concluded that four of the biblical Ten Commandants, and the "Golden Rule", were common to every community of faith and ethics. But they went farther than this; they reformulated these Commandants to meet the challenge of the modern age. Thus,
– “Thou shall not kill” became “Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life”.
– “Thou shall not commit adultery” became “Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women”.
– “Thou shall not steal” became “Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order”.
– “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor” became “Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness”.
Seen from a conservative religious perspective, these reformulations might be considered radical. But IMHO, they are no more radical than the actual lives of the men and women at the center of our planet's spiritual traditions.
Ross, I suspect that Pope Francis has read the Global Ethic.
164
It's only an encyclical, so it certainly could not address everything. It also is meant to be a call to arms. Moderating the language would garner a yawn rather the uproar the document generated. Sometimes a bit of catastrophizing is called for in order to wake up the audience - ideas can then be discussed, modified, and the process moved forward.
96
Uh, addressing what Church teaching should be is what an encyclical IS.
2
I wondered how Douthat would have his cake and eat it too on the Pope and climate change.
Once again, he ignored the issue and reframed it to fit his fixation. That is what makes him a hack, and in his eyes and the eyes of other RW mis self identified conservative american hacks, an intellectual. intellectual.
Seems the human population is divided in two between dynamists and catastrophists. Seems, that this bipolar scale is today's tool for, like de Maistre, rejecting the Enlightenment in favor of catholic dogma. Not news. Not credible. Not self respecting. Not intellectual. Not valid. just another fool's game.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8578/8578-h/8578-h.htm
Once again, he ignored the issue and reframed it to fit his fixation. That is what makes him a hack, and in his eyes and the eyes of other RW mis self identified conservative american hacks, an intellectual. intellectual.
Seems the human population is divided in two between dynamists and catastrophists. Seems, that this bipolar scale is today's tool for, like de Maistre, rejecting the Enlightenment in favor of catholic dogma. Not news. Not credible. Not self respecting. Not intellectual. Not valid. just another fool's game.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8578/8578-h/8578-h.htm
250
great comment!
3
"Dynamists" of unending greed
Off heedless pollution they feed
If problems arise
They close both their eyes,
The Pope cares for people in need.
Off heedless pollution they feed
If problems arise
They close both their eyes,
The Pope cares for people in need.
282
Maybe the pope is waiting for others to see the implications for population growth. Didn't he already make a remark about not needing to overdo family size?
119
I think the "remark" was more entertainingly framed within a lapidary context.
1
He did. I'm glad you mentioned that.
6
Diana, You make an important point. The pope has limited political capital and he is spending it wisely.
11
I can see criticizing the papacy for suborning child rape, or preaching against condoms in AIDS-ravaged Africa, or treating women like serfs, or demanding fecundity regardless of the consequences for the child, the parents or the world. But Mr. Douthat seems to be fine with those things. What really gets his sacrificial goat is that the pope dares to believe climate scientists. Since when does the Church put scientific consensus ahead of dogma?! Ask Galileo. He'll tell you how popes are supposed to deal with (here Douthat spits on the ground) "scientific consensus."
Douthat has long championed inaction in the face of climbing CO2 levels. In his column, "The Right and the Climate" (7/26/10), he agrees with apologists who opine that "… a warmer world will also be a richer world," and that the best action to take would be no action.
Douthat is welcome to his opinion, but frankly who cares what a blinkered, regulation-hating, more-Catholic-than-the-pope uber-conservative thinks about anything, much less the proper approach to impending climate disaster? Only a fanatic would worry more about the Church not being able to preach fecundity than he would mass starvation.
The Church has a lot to answer for, and a liberal-sounding pope is probably a clever P.R. ploy to lure back the flock. I never thought I'd say it, but as an atheist I think I like Francis a lot more than Douthat does. And it is fun to watch a Catholic columnist try to excommunicate the pope.
Douthat has long championed inaction in the face of climbing CO2 levels. In his column, "The Right and the Climate" (7/26/10), he agrees with apologists who opine that "… a warmer world will also be a richer world," and that the best action to take would be no action.
Douthat is welcome to his opinion, but frankly who cares what a blinkered, regulation-hating, more-Catholic-than-the-pope uber-conservative thinks about anything, much less the proper approach to impending climate disaster? Only a fanatic would worry more about the Church not being able to preach fecundity than he would mass starvation.
The Church has a lot to answer for, and a liberal-sounding pope is probably a clever P.R. ploy to lure back the flock. I never thought I'd say it, but as an atheist I think I like Francis a lot more than Douthat does. And it is fun to watch a Catholic columnist try to excommunicate the pope.
763
And Douthat has his own unique way of melding the right-wing agenda with a narrow Catholicism. I found the conclusion he draws to be naïve and counter-intuitive. And it goes without saying that he carries an arrogance that "knows better than the Pope" All Republican Catholics will have to come across that way.
80
It's not like this comment is a shock coming from this commenter, together with the chorus of "Likes" that accompanies every post.
I personally am tiring of the Galileo angle - don't you know that Galileo was actually born 100 years after Christopher Columbus was born!
Cut the Pope a break for trying to encourage discussion across many subjects. This is not an Encyclical just about the Environment.
God bless
I personally am tiring of the Galileo angle - don't you know that Galileo was actually born 100 years after Christopher Columbus was born!
Cut the Pope a break for trying to encourage discussion across many subjects. This is not an Encyclical just about the Environment.
God bless
6
"Douthat is welcome to his opinion, but frankly who cares what a blinkered, regulation-hating, more-Catholic-than-the-pope uber-conservative thinks about anything, much less the proper approach to impending climate disaster?"
Apparently you. You go out of your way to read Douthat every weak. You go out of your way to comment acerbically on everything he says. Apparently, you even read Douthat in such detail that you can recall and quote from columns written years ago.
We all perfectly understand and have come to expect gemli's weekly retort to Douthat's writing. But it's a little rich for gemli to argue (even rhetorically) that no one should care. Every ideologue needs an opponent toward whom they can direct their overabundant enmity.
Apparently you. You go out of your way to read Douthat every weak. You go out of your way to comment acerbically on everything he says. Apparently, you even read Douthat in such detail that you can recall and quote from columns written years ago.
We all perfectly understand and have come to expect gemli's weekly retort to Douthat's writing. But it's a little rich for gemli to argue (even rhetorically) that no one should care. Every ideologue needs an opponent toward whom they can direct their overabundant enmity.
8
Mr. Douthat's penchant for coining categories of philosophical thought (i.e., we "stagnationist") leads him into a narcissistic cul-de-sac. But that's where he likes to be: a place where he can criticize decadence as a question of right or wrong thinking, without worrying about real-world solutions.
227
We might just muddle along and hope some scientific breakthrough will save us; or we can try and do something and prevent a future catastrophe at the expense of economic growth just in case the doomsayers are correct.
I vote for the latter.
I vote for the latter.
468
But how will greedy people afford solid gold commodes?
11
Who exactly does Ross refer to here: "the existing global leadership class?"
4
your comment made me realize that the message sent by ross is basically"
"hmmmmm..... that light in the tunnel? could be the end of the tunnel but it might be a train that will soon be barreling down on me..... aha! if it's a train some free market genius will sell me a ticket!
"hmmmmm..... that light in the tunnel? could be the end of the tunnel but it might be a train that will soon be barreling down on me..... aha! if it's a train some free market genius will sell me a ticket!
4