Thread: What is a proper punishment for destroying The Earth?

Recently I have begun to realize that my wasteful living has ripped away from an entire generation the respect of its future descendents (assuming The Earth lives long enough to afford them such an opportunity.) It has been shown that no matter how many good things I do, no matter how many old ladies I help cross the street, no matter how many razors I hone for new straight shavers, I will still be intensely - that's right, intensely - hated in 500 years or so. Perhaps some hate me already I have burned so much carbon and continue to destroy The Earth with little or no remorse that I figure I may as well find out if there is any immediate punishment or meaningless reparations I must make in order to fulfil my debt to The Earth and its beasts (including slimy dirty humans.) <-- me

Originally Posted by beezaur

(I capitoloze Earth according to planetary science practice; it is a propoer noun. I do not worship the Earth.) ... [A bunch of other great points] ... Just think how intinsely we will be hated in 500 years or so.

I don't remember why I included both of those statements - the first one just had me laughing I guess Great point Anyway, I'm sure if you the readers are enlightened in these matters you have canceled your internet service and sold your computer to buy polar-bear sized life jackets for the arctic wildlife I am in the process of endangering so I address this message to the uninformed flatlander-minded masses:

What is a reasonable, justifiable, and adequate punishment for destroying The Earth?

It will have to be harsh, as there is only one Earth and no other earths like it. We must honor it, and keep it clean. We cannot kill it or bear false witness to the climate change all around us- wait a minute, I almost forgot- Earth is not God I keep getting off track - probably the soot in the air from burning coal clogging up my neural pathways before my time. Perhaps the loss of my habitat is my only proper punishment.

(Please bear in mind as you formulate your answer to my question, you will still be intensely hated 500 years from now. History will not distinguish you from the rest of the slime that contributed to wasting the planet)

There is a movement where people who believe that anthropogenic global warming is real are accused of partaking in a new religion. Granted, there are some true freaks with mental issues who do virtually worship Earth, but those people are very rare. I have actually been accused of worshiping Earth because I tend to use a capital E. I am a rural, conservative Christian who votes R almost exclusively. I just happen to have a thing for geoscience.

I understand the Catholic church has declared environmental destruction a sin. So, for a punishment, how about death by inquisition followed by Hell?

Scott

Technically Hog, all you could be accused of is reckless endangerment at this time. Since the earth is not dead murder is out of the question and since it would be impossible to separate any specific damage you caused out of the general melee you couldn't even be accused of battery or harm. I suppose if you are vicious enough about your destruction, for instance strip mining while logging the rain forest and smoking a cigar you could be convicted of malicious mayhem but thats it.

Originally Posted by beezaur

I understand the Catholic church has declared environmental destruction a sin. So, for a punishment, how about death by inquisition followed by Hell?

Scott

Phew! Thank God I'm not Catholic and that one of the issues my denomination has with Catholicism is the way the pope just goes around declaring new sins. I guess I'll get a pass for this one.

I think we are all suffering a punishment as we speak. Constant stress and feelings of guilt are quite detrimental to your health, you know.

So an increased Global Warming-related mortality rate is my suggestion. Who knows? This may just be one of those natural feedback cycles:

Wreck the Earth -> Wracked with Guilt -> Wreck your health -> Premature Death.

Premature Death = Only people who don't see a problem left alive.

= More people who don't see a problem and pass on that ethos to future generations.

= Future generations who don't view us with hate and scorn.




James.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Phew! Thank God I'm not Catholic and that one of the issues my denomination has with Catholicism is the way the pope just goes around declaring new sins. I guess I'll get a pass for this one.

Well I am, if only because you cannot actually stop being a catholic. At least according to the church.
Once you're baptized, your soul belongs to them . The only thing you can do is stop practising catholicism.
You can be excommunicated (which is kind of a reverse baptism) but that is a severe punishment that is / was only used in the most extreme circumstances.

It was considered worse than burning at the stake, because in that case you still got your afterlife if you repented. Incidentally, that was the whitewash argument for torture. Catholicism hinges on confession, guilt and repentance. So if you were tortured for a couple of days you would regret having committed your sins.
Thus you'd confess (if only to make it stop) and repent, and your soul was saved from and afterlife on the bbq. (hey I am not making this up)

The way the pope is defining new sins has raised an interesting point for me.
If it wasn't a sin when you were doing it, will you get punished for it?
If it wasn't a sin earlier, then why would it suddenly affect your afterlife if you did it aftyer it became a sin? What if the pope was wrong (infallibility is rarely invoked these days).
What if that sin gets repealed later on because it wasn't actually so bad? Do the people in purgatory suddenly get a note from the administration, saying 'An administrative error has been made. You will be transferred to heaven shortly. Here is a voucher for a free bowl of porridge.

It also works the other way around: what if someone did something then that is considered a sin now? If someone happily torured people under absolution from the pope, and then went to heaven, did they get transferred to hell when the church acknowledged that the whole inquisition was a bit over the top?

...



Ok sorry for being OT.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well I am, if only because you cannot actually stop being a catholic. At least according to the church.
Once you're baptized, your soul belongs to them . The only thing you can do is stop practising catholicism.
You can be excommunicated (which is kind of a reverse baptism) but that is a severe punishment that is / was only used in the most extreme circumstances.

It was considered worse than burning at the stake, because in that case you still got your afterlife if you repented. Incidentally, that was the whitewash argument for torture. Catholicism hinges on confession, guilt and repentance. So if you were tortured for a couple of days you would regret having committed your sins.
Thus you'd confess (if only to make it stop) and repent, and your soul was saved from and afterlife on the bbq. (hey I am not making this up)

The way the pope is defining new sins has raised an interesting point for me.
If it wasn't a sin when you were doing it, will you get punished for it?
If it wasn't a sin earlier, then why would it suddenly affect your afterlife if you did it aftyer it became a sin? What if the pope was wrong (infallibility is rarely invoked these days).
What if that sin gets repealed later on because it wasn't actually so bad? Do the people in purgatory suddenly get a note from the administration, saying 'An administrative error has been made. You will be transferred to heaven shortly. Here is a voucher for a free bowl of porridge.

It also works the other way around: what if someone did something then that is considered a sin now? If someone happily torured people under absolution from the pope, and then went to heaven, did they get transferred to hell when the church acknowledged that the whole inquisition was a bit over the top?

...



Ok sorry for being OT.

One of the finest off topic rants to date! Made me smile!

Agreed, very tasteful!

Am I going to be punished now, or in 500 years? (I'm not good at hypothetical situations, too concerned with details).

I respect the environment as much as possible because I love nature, the outdoors, animals etc. I just can't bring myself to litter, or throw something away that is still useful, or dump chemicals into the groundwater, or whatever. But if the climate is changing, there really isn't much I can do.

This reminds me of the old fable of the bullfrog and the scorpion. Poignant, but true.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well I am, if only because you cannot actually stop being a catholic. At least according to the church.
Once you're baptized, your soul belongs to them . The only thing you can do is stop practising catholicism.
You can be excommunicated (which is kind of a reverse baptism) but that is a severe punishment that is / was only used in the most extreme circumstances.

It was considered worse than burning at the stake, because in that case you still got your afterlife if you repented. Incidentally, that was the whitewash argument for torture. Catholicism hinges on confession, guilt and repentance. So if you were tortured for a couple of days you would regret having committed your sins.
Thus you'd confess (if only to make it stop) and repent, and your soul was saved from and afterlife on the bbq. (hey I am not making this up)

The way the pope is defining new sins has raised an interesting point for me.
If it wasn't a sin when you were doing it, will you get punished for it?
If it wasn't a sin earlier, then why would it suddenly affect your afterlife if you did it aftyer it became a sin? What if the pope was wrong (infallibility is rarely invoked these days).
What if that sin gets repealed later on because it wasn't actually so bad? Do the people in purgatory suddenly get a note from the administration, saying 'An administrative error has been made. You will be transferred to heaven shortly. Here is a voucher for a free bowl of porridge.

It also works the other way around: what if someone did something then that is considered a sin now? If someone happily torured people under absolution from the pope, and then went to heaven, did they get transferred to hell when the church acknowledged that the whole inquisition was a bit over the top?

...



Ok sorry for being OT.

Thats pretty much the exact same questions Martain Luther had some while back. His resolution of the question is basically that....The pope can't make up new sins. If it ain't in the bible instituted directly by God man can't decide its a sin, of course the ten commandments we have are pretty comprehensive

I am not Catholic, but I suspect the issue in Rome was whether or not environmental destruction falls under an older category of sins.

But regardless, I think we can agree that avoidable destruction of the environment in any way is not a moral thing. To me the "sinfulness" of an act that causes greenhouse warming would depend upon whether or not it is in excess of need, i.e., gluttony.

This begs the important question, is it a sin to fart, if that fart is the result of gluttonous overeating?

But what if you pass a very stinky fart, one loaded with sulfur compounds? Sulfur creates aerosols, which have a cooling effect. So are stinky farts permissible, but ordinary odorless, methane and CO2 laced farts sinful?

Scott

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Thats pretty much the exact same questions Martain Luther had some while back. His resolution of the question is basically that....The pope can't make up new sins. If it ain't in the bible instituted directly by God man can't decide its a sin, of course the ten commandments we have are pretty comprehensive

As a further aside: The Roman catholic church itself broke away from the original Christian Church in 1053A.D. I would say it has steadily gone downhill ever since.

The original Christian church is still going strong, it is called Eastern Orthodoxy.

Jusy a FYI for anyone who uses the Roman Catholic church (or protestant denominations, for that matter) as a basis on which to judge Christianity.