In light of statements like this, I don't understand how anyone who's a Christian--or even a reasonably compassionate person--can not be an environmentalist. While the American press debates whether climate change is really happening or is really influenced by human activities, this Nambian journalist states plainly that not only is it happening, but it's one of the greatest threats to Nambia's future development. This is one of the most terrible truths about climate change: those who are least to blame for it are most vulnerable to it, and those who are most to blame for it are least willing to believe it even exists. Could there be a better example of an opportunity for us to care for our neighbors? But we would rather stand around debating how much of the responsibility is really ours, while our actions continue to destroy them. Tell me again, we say: Who exactly is my neighbor? Can't I find a loophole somewhere in my responsibility toward him?
In our Step It Up Atlanta planning meetings, we've been discussing how to build the connection in people's minds between climate change and social justice. To me, the connection is so obvious as to be self-evident. Even apart from the danger of climate change, environmentalism and social justice ought to always be so closely intertwined as to be inseparable. People find easy excuses for themselves by dividing them: they argue that humans are more important than fish or sea turtles, and so they care more about social issues than environmentalism. But the reality is that they aren't separate at all. You can't distinguish between caring for your human and your nonhuman neighbors, because they are all your neighbors. Real compassion has nothing to do with the one who is receiving compassion; it has to do with the one giving it. A man who is kind to a dog will also be kind to his neighbor, because he understands that compassion and mercy are virtues we must practice all the time, toward everyone and everything around us. Because real compassion has nothing to do with the worthiness of the one receiving it. And practicing carelessness toward sea turtles builds a habit of dispassion that will eventually spill over toward people, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"A man who is kind to a dog will also be kind to his neighbor, because he understands that compassion and mercy are virtues we must practice all the time, toward everyone and everything around us."
Sadly, I have to disagree with you there. There are plenty of people who love animals and, yet, are very hateful towards people. Unfortunately, this sort of person has become the stereotypical "animal rights activist" to many conservative folk. Honestly, I think a large part of conservative aversion to environmentalism stems from a reaction against this stereotype.
Regarding the overall point of the post, I think most people—among those who acknowledge climate change but haven't jumped on the Al Gore bandwagon ;-)—are still unconvinced that a) global climate change is as bad as "they" say it is, b) that humans are contributing to global climate change as much as "they" say we are, or c) both of the above.
In other words, the issue isn't compassion, but convincing them that a) global climate change really is as bad as "they" say, and b) there is something we can do about it.
Well, you're right; some people love animals and hate humans. What I should have said is that a man who is cruel to a dog will eventually also be cruel to his neighbor. Because compassion has to do with who you are, not who you're with.
As for the debate about global warming, the problem is that there isn't any real debate--not in a scientific sense. It seems to me that the debate we hear is caused, not by actual scientific questions, but by people not wanting to face reality--especially if it means changing their lifestyles. Read this blog for a better perspective on that.
Post a Comment