I would have found it unimaginative.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Space exploration = "male entitlement"?
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
BSM1
What? Me worry?
So is that a "no" on the sea level rising anywhere you know?
illykitty
RF's pet cat
I'm personally interested on your perspective. Maybe the problem isn't the (entire) content but how it's presented. Of course there's some people who will never see eye-to-eye with those ideas, but some more reasonable people might find this difficult to read simply because of the choice of words and tone. I personally read it as sounding harsh, angry, hateful and so on. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how it seems from the way it's written. It's quite off putting, to me at least.
So any good ideas that may be in there is lost, due to the communication being so hostile.
illykitty
RF's pet cat
So far, it's claimed a few pacific islands, it will only get worse from there.
I honestly doubt that you read the articles that refute you, but just in case you do, here's just one of the many:
Sea-level rise has claimed five whole islands in the Pacific: first scientific evidence
According to the article, the sea level is rising an average of 3 mm per year. Of course it can get worse than that with land based glacier melting.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
That would be an obvious "yes" as per the link.
So, do you believe that the moon landing was a hoax? Evolution? Vaccines? Spherical planet? All BS, right?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Sooo..in all the world the only damaging sea level rise is in a handful of Pacific islands? If you read the article they say this has been going on for 20 years but so has the natural erosion and wave action. Even the most rabid climate changer may have to "yeah, but.." on this one.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
But my question was how high has the sea level risen in your land. Obviously you don't seem to have an answer.
For those that aren't aware, ecofeminism is a subfield of academic study that relates to what the opinion piece writer is talking about. It's not one I've looked into a lot myself, but when I was taking an environmental ethics course in grad school, it was one of the perspectives we were introduced to.
If you believe in narratives that orient around sex and gender, a picture can be painted of "masculine" ideals and goals being conquest-oriented. Colonization is an extension of that, whether it's other continents, other nations, or other planets. The other picture is of "feminine" ideals and goals which are more caregiving-oriented. Colonization has no place in that picture, as the focus is instead on stewardship, sustainability, and preservation. In general terms, ecofeminism sees connections between our planet or "feminine" ideals and exploitation of women and the earth by "masculine" ideals or male-dominated societies. I'm not a fan of telling the story that way, but I can't deny it has its merits. The trouble with these ideas is they aren't really falsifiable. It tells an interesting story, but it's not a testable hypothesis as far as I can tell.
It's worth asking though - why colonize other planets? I look at how humans behave, and how poor our caregiving of our own planet has been, and I just shudder at the very thought. There's something to the idea that only a culture infatuated with "masculine" colonialist narratives would want to do this. A culture focused on "feminine" caregiving would look at this child wanting to out out and play, take one look at their room, and shout "no - your room is a mess! When you clean your room, then you can go out and play."
If you believe in narratives that orient around sex and gender, a picture can be painted of "masculine" ideals and goals being conquest-oriented. Colonization is an extension of that, whether it's other continents, other nations, or other planets. The other picture is of "feminine" ideals and goals which are more caregiving-oriented. Colonization has no place in that picture, as the focus is instead on stewardship, sustainability, and preservation. In general terms, ecofeminism sees connections between our planet or "feminine" ideals and exploitation of women and the earth by "masculine" ideals or male-dominated societies. I'm not a fan of telling the story that way, but I can't deny it has its merits. The trouble with these ideas is they aren't really falsifiable. It tells an interesting story, but it's not a testable hypothesis as far as I can tell.
It's worth asking though - why colonize other planets? I look at how humans behave, and how poor our caregiving of our own planet has been, and I just shudder at the very thought. There's something to the idea that only a culture infatuated with "masculine" colonialist narratives would want to do this. A culture focused on "feminine" caregiving would look at this child wanting to out out and play, take one look at their room, and shout "no - your room is a mess! When you clean your room, then you can go out and play."
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Again, the link covers that, unless you think that "my land" somehow has it's own unqiue oceans that are magically isolated from the hydrological cycle and the rest of the *globe.
*if you makes you feel better, interchange "globe" with "flat disk".
Curious George
Veteran Member
While I am familiar with the concept, I was hoping that you would explain it without the narrative at all. People, especially those triggered by feminism, can get very rattled by any feminist jargon.
I was interested in an argument that suggests we shouldn't use another planet floating off in space. It seems strange to suggest that colonization of a planet, which does seek to exploit the planet is somehow wrong morally. With regard to sustainability, colonization does not seek to just explode planets for no other purpose. Would colonization be depriving the planet of anything the planet needed? And for what purpose does a planet need?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I don't think you've fully read the article that thread was about.
Ultimately all questions of "should" and "shouldn't" are grounded on ideologies and values. One's milage varies on any particular narrative, yeah? Pardon for not responding in the manner you wished for - I was aiming to keep things a bit more on-topic by saying a few words about the ecofeminist take on it.
I'm not one to couch things in terms of morality, but you're right that the idea is foreign to many in my country. Western culture in general is pretty depauperate when it comes to ethics pertaining to non-humans. While there have been some visionaries - some of who draw upon older ways of thinking for inspiration - by and large Western folks don't even recognize non-humans as persons, much less valid moral subjects. Anthropocentirsm is the rule in Western society - it's all about humans and only humans matter (and in many cases, only certain types of humans). Exploitation of non-humans is irrelevant, because non-humans are not persons and don't have needs (except that they are, and they do... albeit not to most Westerners).
One of the concepts talked about in environmental ethics is the distinction between "vital needs" and "peripheral needs." Vital needs are needed for your very survival, while peripheral needs are not. It has been proposed that where the peripheral needs of a species conflict with the vital needs of another, it's the peripheral needs that need to give. That isn't how humans in modern Western cultures behave, though.
There's also the concept of the invasive species, which is well-established in the ecological literature outside of the realm of philosophy. It is well-known that whenever you introduce a population of organisms into an environment, changes result. Sometimes, the changes are minor, but other times they can be quite dramatic. Species are typically called invasive when their impacts adversely affect native species. Those adverse effects can range from a decline in population to outright extirpation from an area.
There are also other concepts from ecology that play into the narrative, such as habitat destruction and nutrient cycles and the like. The long and the short of it is, when humans muck about, there are consequences (that they usually ignore, often willfully). Why should only human needs be of consideration? For a species that allegedly is so intelligent and can consider things beyond itself, it sure does act like a selfish, entitled little brat.
Curious George
Veteran Member
You are pardoned.
I understand the argument when another species is involved. What I am having a hard time wrapping my head around is how this is applicable when no other species is involved. Certainly the idea of colonization does include bringing other species along to colonize as well, but I don't know that there are any other species on Mars.I'm not one to couch things in terms of morality, but you're right that the idea is foreign to many in my country. Western culture in general is pretty depauperate when it comes to ethics pertaining to non-humans. While there have been some visionaries - some of who draw upon older ways of thinking for inspiration - by and large Western folks don't even recognize non-humans as persons, much less valid moral subjects. Anthropocentirsm is the rule in Western society - it's all about humans and only humans matter (and in many cases, only certain types of humans). Exploitation of non-humans is irrelevant, because non-humans are not persons and don't have needs (except that they are, and they do... albeit not to most Westerners).
One of the concepts talked about in environmental ethics is the distinction between "vital needs" and "peripheral needs." Vital needs are needed for your very survival, while peripheral needs are not. It has been proposed that where the peripheral needs of a species conflict with the vital needs of another, it's the peripheral needs that need to give. That isn't how humans in modern Western cultures behave, though.
There's also the concept of the invasive species, which is well-established in the ecological literature outside of the realm of philosophy. It is well-known that whenever you introduce a population of organisms into an environment, changes result. Sometimes, the changes are minor, but other times they can be quite dramatic. Species are typically called invasive when their impacts adversely affect native species. Those adverse effects can range from a decline in population to outright extirpation from an area.
There are also other concepts from ecology that play into the narrative, such as habitat destruction and nutrient cycles and the like. The long and the short of it is, when humans muck about, there are consequences (that they usually ignore, often willfully). Why should only human needs be of consideration? For a species that allegedly is so intelligent and can consider things beyond itself, it sure does act like a selfish, entitled little brat.
Is it that there might be, or might one day be? Is the argument based on subjecting our earth species to other planets? Or is the argument just based on the philosophy behind the colonization. Let me be clear, I do not think, if Mars was teaming with life we would hesitate more. On the contrary I think we would escalate our efforts. I am asking if the same concepts can apply to planet barren of life that do to a planet with life.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
This is the problem with the GW/CC hoax. There is no definable scientific proof or examples, just maybe's, could be's, innuendo, and anecdotal evidence. If there were any scientist that was willing to say without a shadow of a doubt that catastrophic climate change existed let alone causing any discernible damage he or she would be the featured story on every news network in the world. BTW, sea ice (ice already in the water) will not raise the water level one iota as it melts. It's called displacement--that's real science. Have a nice day.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It's like my mom became aware of "radical Islam" due to emails from her brother in New Jersey. It took me awhile to get her to understand that there is enough legitimate stuff wrong with Islam without a need to invent stuff like was she was being emailed - that sent her into low Earth orbit.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
And that they are usually white...
and have violent explosions coming from their nether regions...
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but deniers of AGW are quickly approaching deniers of evolution on a crank level. And no one has claimed that sea level change will come from melting Arctic ice, nice strarwman. It is the melting of Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets along with thermal expansion that will cause sea level rise.
But one cannot deny the melting of Arctic ice. For the last couple of thousand years or so the Antarctic ice mass has been slowly increasing and warming is still not quite strong enough to reverse that. That is not the case with Greenland:
Greenland's ice sheet is driving global sea level rise. One section is melting 80% faster.
They can apply, though as mentioned, questions of values and "ought" or "ought not" are endlessly subjective.
For some humans, the measure of value is "this person must be human and the same race/ethnicity as me." For other humans, the measure of value is "this person must be human." For yet others, it is "this person must be a living, biological organism and being human doesn't matter." And for some, it is "this person can be living or non-living, human or non-human." Different cultures address it in different ways. In traditional animistic cultures, while many non-living things are considered persons, not all of them are. It depends a lot on the relationship the culture has with that aspect of reality. A tight, more frequent relationship usually means something will be considered to have agency or its own spirit or needs, whether alive or not. The measure of value is more about relationships than of what something is.
In thinking about that, humans basically have no meaningful relationship with extra-planetary bodies. It means that humans - including some animists - would assign no value to these entities as persons or agents. The important persons are the ones in our backyard - the land, the sea, the sky, and all the creatures dwelling there. In some cases, one might conclude that utilizing extra-planetary persons to help our friends here on earth would be warranted. For others, it wouldn't track this way - they'd honor the personhood of extra-planetary persons regardless of being close to them or not.