Who are we to say that the earth was put in our stewardship?

Question

We are part of the earth cycle, and have no right to deliberately alter that cycle.

Answer 1

Might makes right.  Being the dominant species on Earth gives us that right until something stronger takes it from us.

Stating we "have no right to deliberately alter [the earth cycle]" is exercising that very principle of stewardship.  

Any other questions?

Answer 2

That's a double edged sword and an interesting question.  On the one hand, one could easily interpret your remark about being part of the earth cycle and having no right to deliberately alter that cycle to mean that human industry has in many cases interfered with the earth's cycle and we had no right to advance civilization by doing things like draining swamps and building dams.  At the extreme, it could even be said that our use of petroleum and other natural resources- even cultivation of the land, mowing and weeding our lawns-deliberately altered natural earth cycles.

Somehow I don't think that is what you meant.

On the other hand, if it turns out we are now altering the earth's cycle by contributing to and accelerating natural processes by doing so, we have no right to do that either.

And I don't think that is what you meant, either; the key to unlocking your rather fuzzy logic is of course, the word 'stewardship.'  At it's core, stewardship of the earth is one of the basic tenents of the Christian faith; I can't speak for other faiths, but a person is free to accept or reject any faith (in the U.S. anyway) and interpret the tenents of that faith, so you may reject the concept of stewardship if you like, at least based on the freedom to choose according to faith.

Inferring from your question that you are suggesting we are not stewards of the land-and therefore have no responsibility to care for it, rather that we should go on about our daily lives however suits us-it is then contradictory to say that we have no right to deliberately alter the earth's cycle.

Yet, even if the conclusion is that we have no responsibility to be stewards of the earth, we do share a responsibility to one another-you do not have the right to throw trash out on your neighbor's property, or pollute the air that other people breathe, or divert the flow of a river so others do not have access to water...or block others from access to their land.  According to the normal expectations of society, we do not have the right to deprive others from what we consider today a normal, healthy life.

So we have two choices; one is to exploit advancing technology to avoid interfering with the earth's natural cycles in whatever way we can.  The other is to regress by rejecting social and technological adaptation to the strains that 6 billion + human beings are putting on the planet and its resources.  The status quo-whether one accepts AGW or not-will eventually force that regression.

Which, exactly, are you proposing?

Answer 3

The Left just can not stand it because that it is not under their control.

Answer 4

We have already altered the Earth's atmosphere accidentally.  Now we are trying to take responsibility for the huge impact that mankind has on the world.

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times."

"Stewardship" is more of a religious term for mankind's responsibility in my experience, but you don't have to be religious to realize man is the only species capable of effecting the Earth in such a way and the only species that can take responsibility.

Answer 5

Why do we think we have the "right" to pollute?  Why was it OK to cut down the ancient old growth forests for cash? You have it all wrong!

Answer 6

Wow. "Boom" makes some profound, intellectual, valid points. (S)he should definitely get your 'best answer' award! Boom's answer exemplifies the complexities facing a global population that is putting a lot of stress on the very planet that gives us life.

"Going Cranky", on the other hand, makes less profound, less intellectual and less valid points as (s)he says [and I quote]: "We have the right to survive, so get out of our way polar bear, fish, whales, deer and anything else I got a hunger for. and tree's to to keep us conferable need to come down." Going Cranky's answer exemplifies the arrogance, avarice, ignorance, stupidity, neglect, sloth and hubris that has set in among billions of people in the world. And his use of the English language is impeccable!

Whether you're Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, agnostic or atheist, you certainly must have a modicum of understanding about how our Earth works. You certainly must recognize that all creatures - all plant and animal species, and all of Earth's natural beauty and bounty - are here for a purpose.

We, as the 'superior' species on the planet, should also assume responsibility for taking care of it. Instead, we have been terrible stewards of the Earth, all for the sake of our own profit, comfort and convenience. So we continue to squander our Earth's resources, rape the land, plunder the tremendous bounty that was once ours, and tarnish all of the planet's natural beauty.

I hate to tell you this, "Going Cranky", but if the polar bears, fish, whales and deer "get out of our way", YOU won't be able to survive on this planet. EVERY SINGLE SPECIES SERVES A PURPOSE ON THIS PLANET until nature itself eradicates them from the Earth. EVERY SINGLE SPECIES DESERVE TO BE HERE, including:

elephants; mountains; mangrove forests; wetlands; Venus fly traps; meadows; human beings; tsetse flies; remote Eskimo tribes; wheat fields; whales; mosquitoes; horse shoe crabs*; rare, poisonous Amazonian frogs; spiders; rain forests; coral reef; 'uncivilized' tribal units in the Brazilian jungles; krill; palm trees; soil; Bengal tigers; honey bees; butterflies; kittens; swamps and every other element or creature on Earth. We are co-dependent on one another, and if man destroys all the other species on Earth, WE WILL DIE!!!

Who are we to say that the Earth was put in our stewardship? Most religions claim that God directed us to take on that responsibility. But it's in our own best interests to assume that role if we want to survive.

Our grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren will pay dearly for our irresponsible squander, senseless squalor, selfish waste, unbridled greed, and aberrant self-destruction. And whether you believe in "God" or an evolutionary 'big-bang' theory, or an "intelligent designer", or "Mother Nature", or "Allah", you will someday have to step up to the plate and confess: "I was part of the problem, not part of the solution. I contributed to the ruination of the very planet that gave me life."    -RKO-  06/29/08

Answer 7

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Answer 8

We have the right to survive, so get out of our way polar bear, fish, whales, deer and anything else I got a hunger for. and tree`s to to keep us conferable need to come down

Answer 9

The only people who would say that are the ones who are egotistical.