|
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/18/415429852/pope-francis-climate-change-a-principal-challenge-for-humanity Heres the full 187 page Papal Document https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2105201-laudato-si-inglese.html quote:“My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed ‘eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.’ ” quote:“Young people demand change. They wonder how anyone can claim to be building a better future without thinking of the environmental crisis and the sufferings of the excluded.” quote:“The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish. Industrial waste and chemical products utilized in cities and agricultural areas can lead to bioaccumulation in the organisms of the local population, even when levels of toxins in those places are low. Frequently no measures are taken until after people’s health has been irreversibly affected.” quote:“But our industrial system, at the end of its cycle of production and consumption, has not developed the capacity to absorb and reuse waste and by-products. We have not yet managed to adopt a circular model of production capable of preserving resources for present and future generations, while limiting as much as possible the use of non-renewable resources, moderating their consumption, maximizing their efficient use, reusing and recycling them.” Basically the pope just called out every Republican in our great nation for being an anti-christian hypocrite. No one is going to pay attention to him though, and prosperity gospel will probably prevail, thus ending Catholicism forever.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Or, everyone will listen to him and we will finally usher in the glorious socialist utopia Star Trek future
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
I think its a good thing that the pope wrote this, however I'm curious; is it still the church's position that catholics should have as many children as possible?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Or, everyone will listen to him and we will finally usher in the glorious socialist utopia Star Trek future gently caress star treck, I wanna live in teh Culture universe 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
 yea looks like the sort of dude to lead the vanguard of the revolution
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Found thisquote:Bring back LF
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I think its a good thing that the pope wrote this, however I'm curious; is it still the church's position that catholics should have as many children as possible? Francis' position is that you shouldn't "breed like rabbits" (his term) but that parenting is still good and (ideally) what you should strive towards, contraception is still not ok and there shouldn't be an outside group that decides how many kids people can have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
I'm guessing that the whole document would turn out to be in support of Distributism over proper socialism, OP.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:yea looks like the sort of dude to lead the vanguard of the revolution Wizard-kings don't lead from the van, they hang back with the standards and relics and spam healing and inspiration buffs. sheesh Ghost of Mussolini learn some tactics!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
3peat posted:gently caress star treck, I wanna live in teh Culture universe Awesome if you're in the Culture. You'd be one of the peasants on another lovely planet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Wizard-kings don't lead from the van, they hang back with the standards and relics and spam healing and inspiration buffs. sheesh Ghost of Mussolini learn some tactics! Consider who's ghost he is; tactics aren't likely to be his strong suit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
I love this Pope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
pope really getting into nine inch nails, declares god is dead
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
See what do I keep telling you? Pope for global rulerSalt Fish posted:I think its a good thing that the pope wrote this, however I'm curious; is it still the church's position that catholics should have as many children as possible? That was never a Catholic position
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:That was never a Catholic position Isn't it that sex is for conception, so God doesn't approve of condoms, but pulling out is okay? It is silly and obscene. People should have the knowledge and tools to manage their bodies. The science is there. The church fears this is the path to body consumerism and decadence - but it could be a new dawn for sex-negativity and celibacy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
I'm extremely glad to see the Catholic Church focusing much more on real compassionate social issues like poverty and wealth inequality and the environment instead of useless wedge issues like contraception and end of life definitions. I know their membership is dropping quickly, so I wonder if part of their pivot away from standard Republican issues is that everyone hates Republicans but, unlike in American democracy, your vote for what church you attend actually matters and is counted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
So when everyone was saying that he was a secret liberation theologian they were right
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Found this quote:ＤＥＨＵＭＡＮＩＺＥ ＹＯＵＲＳＥＬＦ ＡＮＤ ＦＡＣＥ ＴＯ ＢＬＯＯＤＳＨＥＤ ＤＥＨＵＭＡＮＩＺＥ ＹＯＵＲＳＥＬＦ ＡＮＤ ＦＡＣＥ ＴＯ ＢＬＯＯＤＳＨＥＤ - His Holiness Pope Francis I
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Isn't it that sex is for conception, so God doesn't approve of condoms, but pulling out is okay? Pulling out is not ok. Anyway let's stop making this thread about sex when we could be talking about the impending economic revolution. Which is more important to you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Pulling out is not ok. Determining how much energy a person can sustainably use over their lifetime is inherently tied to how many people there are on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:I'm extremely glad to see the Catholic Church focusing much more on real compassionate social issues like poverty and wealth inequality and the environment instead of useless wedge issues like contraception and end of life definitions. Membership is only dropping quickly in certain areas, globally we're currently pretty much the same size as at the beginning of the 20th century. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
We are nowhere near the point of global population being unsustainable environmentally or impossible to feed, literally every major global problem is one of economics and politics. Overpopulation is a localized problem. This Pope is cool, people like to whine about the dumb and bad things he believes but for an old white man who's lived his life in service to an old and conservative religion, he's pretty rad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Agreed. American Science Pope FTW
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:We are nowhere near the point of global population being unsustainable environmentally or impossible to feed, literally every major global problem is one of economics and politics. Overpopulation is a localized problem. If we keep growing total energy use at current rates the surface of the earth will be hot enough to boil water in 400 years regardless of how that energy is generated. http://tinyurl.com/q7tj94w So if you take a view that is practical, we're already unsustainable. There are essentially 2 options for avoiding the extinction of all life on Earth and we will be forced to pick some combination of them sooner or later: 1) Lower the average energy use per capita, either through improved efficiency or a by a lower average standard of living. 2) Reduce the total human population of the Earth. Right now, today, we have failed to have progress on either of these fronts. People are using more energy than ever and there are more people than ever. While there may be some theoretical, fictional, world where we could have more people and be sustainable, it is not this world today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
If you put a bitchin wah guitar solo over this it could almost be Maggot Brain pt. 2
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:If we keep growing total energy use at current rates the surface of the earth will be hot enough to boil water in 400 years regardless of how that energy is generated. "If we extrapolate from literally the beginning of the industrial revolution to twice as long in the future, then we have problems".
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"If we extrapolate from literally the beginning of the industrial revolution to twice as long in the future, then we have problems". Do you believe that the current human population and energy use is sustainable? As an absolute fact of physics we cannot maintain a 3% increase in energy use per year as a global community. This is not an extrapolation from many years like you claim. It's per year growth *currently*. edit: It's extremely important to establish the impossibility of perpetual growth, p.s, because its a core tenant of our global economic systems. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Do you believe that the current human population and energy use is sustainable? As an absolute fact of physics we cannot maintain a 3% increase in energy use per year as a global community. This is not an extrapolation from many years like you claim. It's per year growth *currently*. The extrapolation is assuming growth is constant for the next 400 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The extrapolation is assuming growth is constant for the next 400 years. Do you believe that the current human population and energy use is sustainable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Do you believe that the current human population and energy use is sustainable? Energy use or growth? Because you're scared about the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Energy use or growth? Because you're scared about the latter. The environmental crisis prompting this encyclical is the intersection of people being unwilling to use less energy and being unwilling to not have children. It's really important for people to understand that there isn't some miraculous technology that is going to let 7 billion people all drive a car to work, or run their A.C when its too hot out. It's also important to understand that the perpetual growth demanded by capitalism is impossible, and that our economic systems must eventually change. If the church is going to tacitly endorse continuing population growth through calling birth control sinful then they must support slashing energy use by westerners. That's fine, but I wanted to specifically call out the poster who claimed that sustainable population growth beyond 7 billion was only a matter of shuffling resources around. In fact, it would require a vast reworking of our cultural traditions of growth and consumption on a scale that is unimaginable to the average american. In conclusion, its not really accurate to say I'm scared about the latter because its the intersection of the two that creates the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Energy use or growth? Because you're scared about the latter. Are you going to respond in good faith or just try to gotcha him? The population in the West is starting to decline (slightly) but Asia still has a long way to go to catch up with Western energy output and within the next century Africa's going to see a similar explosion in energy consumption and heat output. This is on top of the West still seeing increases in energy consumption/heat output. And, clearly, Asia and Africa have enormous populations that don't show many signs of starting to experience the post-industrial decline in birth rates. South America is often forgotten in discussions like these, but will be a large factor as well. It's pretty obviously not going to continue on a straight incline for the next four centuries natch but the rate of growth is concerning even if the world population is going to level off, and there's good reason to think that we're going to continue to increase total global population (towards no positive result, really) while also having all of those people clamor for the exuberant and wasteful levels of consumption we participate in here in the West. That's not a good thing for the planet. The Planet's cookin', Cloud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The environmental crisis prompting this encyclical is the intersection of people being unwilling to use less energy and being unwilling to not have children. Except that current trends are to develop and use technologies that use less energy, and people are choosing to not have as many children. Brannock posted:And, clearly, Asia and Africa have enormous populations that don't show many signs of starting to experience the post-industrial decline in birth rates. This is also demonstrably untrue. The world's largest country is greying at a very fast rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:26
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The environmental crisis prompting this encyclical is the intersection of people being unwilling to use less energy and being unwilling to not have children. It's really important for people to understand that there isn't some miraculous technology that is going to let 7 billion people all drive a car to work, or run their A.C when its too hot out. It's also important to understand that the perpetual growth demanded by capitalism is impossible, and that our economic systems must eventually change. If the church is going to tacitly endorse continuing population growth through calling birth control sinful then they must support slashing energy use by westerners. That's fine, but I wanted to specifically call out the poster who claimed that sustainable population growth beyond 7 billion was only a matter of shuffling resources around. In fact, it would require a vast reworking of our cultural traditions of growth and consumption on a scale that is unimaginable to the average american. 48% of the world is already below replacement rate fertility, so I dunno where exactly you're getting "being unwilling to not have children" from. Brannock posted:Are you going to respond in good faith or just try to gotcha him? The population in the West is starting to decline (slightly) but Asia still has a long way to go to catch up with Western energy output and within the next century Africa's going to see a similar explosion in energy consumption and heat output. This is on top of the West still seeing increases in energy consumption/heat output. And, clearly, Asia and Africa have enormous populations that don't show many signs of starting to experience the post-industrial decline in birth rates. South America is often forgotten in discussions like these, but will be a large factor as well.  There's also good reason to think that high fertility levels in much of the world could be made to crash with actual effort on the part of the developed countries, but that goes against the narrative. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:48% of the world is already below replacement rate fertility, so I dunno where exactly you're getting "being unwilling to not have children" from. The decisions I'm referring to were made in the past. We're already destroying the environment; it isn't a future hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:
Thanks for providing this data, I was having trouble finding concrete numbers in this specific format.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:32
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The decisions I'm referring to were made in the past. We're already destroying the environment; it isn't a future hypothetical. Okay well I'm sorry your parents didn't kill themselves on reading The Limits to Growth or whatever, but you're going to get nowhere fast arguing that we're all doomed, and the only way to survive is to impoverish ourselves for eternity.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Except that current trends are to develop and use technologies that use less energy, and people are choosing to not have as many children. This is a common misconception. Efficiency, as currently deployed, doesn't reduce energy use. It instead moves energy use to other applications. As a society we say "oh, we saved a TJ of energy here, we can now use it to do something else".
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay well I'm sorry your parents didn't kill themselves on reading The Limits to Growth or whatever, but you're going to get nowhere fast arguing that we're all doomed, and the only way to survive is to impoverish ourselves for eternity. I obviously didn't say that. You're just trying to bait an argument that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:04 |
|
Salt Fish posted:I obviously didn't say that. You're just trying to bait an argument that doesn't exist. You're right, I was too nice, and left out the prospect that you're arguing in favor of megadeaths or an extended hegemony over the poor nations. I apologize, and will be more careful in the future.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:35
|
|