View Full Version : If You Were the First Pantheist...

October 27th, 2009, 04:30 AM
...Head of State of your country, would the world be a better place for it?

Try and answer from a Pantheistic perspective please.

October 27th, 2009, 10:12 AM
So there are no power hungry Pantheists out there then?

green aventurine
October 27th, 2009, 10:32 AM
They're all too busy admiring the sea and the sun and trees and the stars to want world domination :p

October 27th, 2009, 12:32 PM

October 27th, 2009, 04:55 PM
Mmm... I try to simply see the world as always beautiful as it is right now instead of constantly being judgmental about it and thinking I somehow have the insight to know what would make it "better." I think it would be very arrogant of me to presume I (or anyone else) knows what is "best" for the WORLD. I think as ecologically-minded people, we should be well aware that what is "best" for a subset of "the world" is at odds with what is "best" for some other subset of "the world." There's really no way to reconcile this other than shoot for some nebulous "balance" or happy-medium which in of itself is not necessarily the "best" thing to do. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that I would not shoot for what is "best for the world" since it is an impossible target and would be something very arrogant for me to presume to know in the first place. :whatgives

I'd bet though, that since pantheists generally regard nature as sacred, all this foot-dragging on habitat destruction, invasive species, and climate change would stop instantly. Along with a host of other horrible double-standards concerning the treatment of our nonhuman relations. But that's being idealistic.

October 28th, 2009, 04:09 AM
Curiously, idealist do have a habit of wandering into politics.

I was not thinking so much about a dictatorial ego-centric domination of the world so much as what you might do if you found yourself in a position where you could influence or indeed invoke policy; what would you do?

The areas where I would like to effect a change would be the following (but not in any order of priority):

Stop pollution. We have known for decades what the real impact of pollution is but it remains an economic expediant for industry. Phytoplankton in the world's oceans absorb massive amounts of CO2 but we continue to kill it off with toxic dumping into the sea and then complain about climate change.

Instead of slapping green taxes on current technology give real incentives for the development of better technologies, such as hydrogen power sources.

Stop deforrestation, it doesn't provide fertile land for crops and reduces the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed from the atmosphere again.

Change the perspective on ecological matters. Instead of phrasing policies in abstract third person terms, kind to the environment, or combatative language fight global warming, illustrate the fact that what we do to the environment we ultimately do to ourselves. It isn't the environment we hurt, it's not a thing that can be hurt, it is ourselves. As people are essentially selfish they may start responding more positively if they see themselves as the benficiaries of genuine green policies?

Sacrifice a corrupt politician on every solstice...sorry, that was just wishful thinking, it would have to be at least 100 corrupt politicians!

October 30th, 2009, 07:31 AM
I would want to make some of those changes as well, and I would feel that I'd made the world a bit better. But I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.

Honestly I wouldn't want to be in a position of power like that. Too stressful, and you can never please everyone.

October 30th, 2009, 07:41 AM
I would want to make some of those changes as well, and I would feel that I'd made the world a bit better. But I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.

Honestly I wouldn't want to be in a position of power like that. Too stressful, and you can never please everyone.

Not even hypothetically?

October 30th, 2009, 08:11 AM
Lol, well I sometimes think I'd like to have that sort of power and change things for the better. But there are so many things wrong, where do you start? I'm a bit of a bleeding heart and I'd probably cause havoc by trying to change everyone/everything at once. Plus having to constantly battle with people only interested in power and money. I think I'd end up getting completely disillusioned..

October 30th, 2009, 08:36 AM
Where to start?

I still see as industrial pollution as the main area but, in order to win that I think that it is clear that the general population must be brought on side.

Clearer statements of intent on envionmental issues, such as it's not about harming an invisible third-person thing, but actually about the quality of life that we experience as individuals in our everday lives. Whatever we do to the planet we do to ourselves first.

Except for some masochists I think most people would take that on board. I mean, if people realised that allowing merchant vessels to dump contaminated waste into the sea was impacting on their quality of life, and likely to make living more expensive, then they might get up and do something about it!

October 30th, 2009, 08:44 AM
I suppose... I guess I'm in a cynical mood tonight! But people don't seem to care even when things are going to affect them, take global warming as an example.

October 30th, 2009, 08:57 AM
I think that people have a problem dealing with something in the abstract, which is where many of the environmental problems seem to be for them.

Global warming is a big concept and many don't see it happening in their own backyard; so why bother?

I understand their point of view, partly because it has been created for them and it doesn't reflect the truth.

If I were to place a machine in someone's backyard that coughed out noxious polution I'm sure they'd get the message and do something about it, but what about the family 10 or 20 doors down? Would they act or would it only happen after the cloud drifted their way?

Probably the latter!

However, if we demonstrated that what is done today affects us directly tomorrow then perhaps might demand a more effective response than just slapping green taxes on things, allowing politians to absolve their own guilt by seeming to be doing something!