Posted: May 01, 2018 11:43 pm
by Ken Fabian
I think discussions about AGW with the religious probably work best when talking about stewardship of the world we occupy and the ethics of activities that bring benefits but entail outside costs principally bourne by others (in terms of geography and in terms of time). What won't work is attacking their religiosity as a path towards winning their acceptance of climate science.

Perhaps portrayal of the finite limits of the world as an inbuilt test for the world's occupants - tests of observation, intelligence and ethics that can encompass both secular and religious concern, that tests our institutions as well as individuals, including governance and accountability as well as science and education; how we deal with scarcity other than by (ultimately unsustainable) endless development and growth that subsumes poverty within continuing glut that comes with accumulating externalised costs that ultimately exceed the benefits.

Whether it's in religious terms or not, it seems that humanity has, at least potentially, all that it needs to deal with problems like AGW - 'god given gifts' if you like - to foresee the consequences of our actions and weigh up our choices, with respect to accountability for our intergenerational responsibility to others for longer term externalised outcomes as well as our immediate needs.