Continuation of yesterday’s post:
3. Just to take one of the examples from the talk: energy. Of course gas is in many, many respects much better than coal or oil, even including fracking. Nevertheless, it does not solve the problem of limited fossil energy source that will run out at some point in the future (some point that may come before end of times – and we are explicitly told not to base our decisions on calculating when this is most likely to occur). This aspect was somehow left out of the talk.
Or: Fewer people die in connection with energy production from nuclear energy than with that from coal. How much might that have to do with the fact that nuclear power is a high-end technology mostly used by rich countries, using qualified workers and because of its very danger potential run with tight security measures, while coal mining often uses cheap and easily displaceable labour that makes enhanced security uneconomical?
4. Which leads to economic interest: The video points out that environmental exaggeration may prolong and increase poverty. This is true. But on the other hand, there are many, many cases where the few may make a lot of money by exploiting natural resource, and the bill is paid by the many (in term of lack or bad quality of drinking water, or respirational diseases due to industrial smog, or part of the beauty of creation destroyed by the extinction of species, etc.)
Now the few who profit from irresponsible behaviour have the money to try and influence public opinion in their favour (had it in the past, at least, and are, after what seems to me to have been a lull, increasingly successfully employing it in that direction again). Anyone seeing this, and rightfully resenting it, may have my excuse to quite some extent for playing the knight in shining armour for those who cannot, on their own, defend themselves. (They should not lie, of course, no true knight would, but they may well honestly be swept by their enthusiasm for the good cause into some imprudence).
5. Finally, there is an aspect about risks that did not feature very much in the talk either.
Who of our readers does have some sort of insurance? I do. It does seem highly improbable that I will ever do anything that will make my indemnity insurance worthwhile. However, if I ever should accidently burn somebody’s house down, or similar, it would utterly ruin my life financially. The yearly equivalent of some six or eight (secondhand) trivial novels seems a small price to pay against that risk.
In regard to this marvel, material creation, the maximum sum that might be to pay if we in some way significantly damage it might be rather large. I do not think it likely I will ever burn down someone’s house. For many of the things discussed under the category of ‘environmental scare’, I have no clue how much more or less likely it is for us, mankind, to drop that fateful smouldering match. It seems to err on the side of caution in regards to the one earth that has been given to us, on which God Himself has trod, would not be an entirely impious thing.