| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Rob R |
Dig for victoryDig for victory says Rowan Williams. |
||||||
| dpack |
fine by me | ||||||
| ros |
wonder how much land the church will give over to allotments then,
do they still have the odd acre or 1000 in ownership? |
||||||
| Nick |
Re: Dig for victory
Is it very wrong that I wondered why Blackadder would be involved with this until I got to Ros' post? |
||||||
| vegplot |
I wonder of composting of human remains would ever become viable, on a voluntary basis of course. A variation on green burials. | ||||||
| vegplot |
Food grown in Africa should be used to feed Africans first and foremost. |
||||||
| ros |
luckily for once the vested interest of the commentator was included |
||||||
| AnneandMike |
Nice to hear some sense from this guy for a change. It also beats reading about some old bones being tramped around the country and the 'magical' effect they have on people.
Whatever happened to the enlightenment??? |
||||||
| cab |
I wonder how many air miles an archbishop clocks up. | ||||||
| Behemoth |
Heaven is a guilt free trip. | ||||||
| Ixy |
Not only the food, but the water aswell - they are effectively flying their water over to us bit by bit, and they need it more than we do!!?? 
|
||||||
| boisdevie1 |
Yes, exactly. Pot, kettle, black. And how can you take seriously somebody who belives in the sky fairy? |
||||||
| Ixy |
So no religious people have anything valuable to contribute to society, or have ever done anything worthwhile, and deserve respect for that rather than just being written off entirely based on that one aspect of their mentality that you don't agree with? |
||||||
| boisdevie1 |
Not quite. But in our society because he is the Archbishop of Canterbury his opinion seems to carry far more weight than the opinions of say, you or I. |
||||||
| cab |
A better question would be why ought the views of a religious scholar be treated seriously in any area outside of religion. Really, the whole reason why this is news is because of who he is; what qualification has a bishop got in talking about the environment? |
||||||
| cab |
Indeed. As an atheist, I feel it only fair to point out that jetting around the world on religious business seems like a bad place to start from if you're going to tell people to cut down your food miles. |
||||||
| Behemoth |
In that most of our activities are based on morals/choices/socially acceptable norms and he deals in these sort of things. If we are going to assert that something is 'wrong' we need a moral framework from which to judge it. Traditionally men in frocks have been involved in that. |
||||||
| Rob R |
As another athiest; it doesn't matter about his air miles if he is addressing food miles, his food miles matter. His air miles belong in another discussion.
He is saying the right things and some people do listen, you don't need a qualification to have morals. |
||||||
| cab |
I kind of see that; but the miles put in by bishops flying to conferences and the big anglican bishop meetings puts him in a dubious moral position to preach from. I don't accept the moral authority of a bishop, as I'm an atheist. So I question the validity of that traditional moral framework that lifts him into a position to make such a comment (that, considering his lifestyle, sounds hypocritical to me). |
||||||
| cab |
I sort of agree with that too, but I wouldn't separate out air miles of personal flight from air miles of food. To address one without the other misses the point perhaps more than not doing so does. |
||||||
| sean |
Dr Williams also said that the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions meant looking at attitudes to travel. He had tried to have a “flight-free year” last year, but tight schedules meant that he had had to fly back to London from Paris and make a day-trip with other faith leaders to Auschwitz.
From the original article. So could do better, but not that bad. |
||||||
| Behemoth |
And likewise the peer reviewed scientific paper on the environmental damage of air-freighted food vs GYO, that's delivered at a conference in Seattle. |
||||||
| Rob R |
Not really, air miles is important mainly because of the emissions, food miles are far more important to all of us for many varied reasons. An Archbishop is one person who travels with his job, as noted above, not everyone is like him. When it comes down to food all of us are like him- we all have to eat. You can't say that only the virtuous unknowns can speak on such important matters because people listen to famous people. I didn't exactly like Jade Goody and what she stood for but I wouldn't pick apart her excesses to challenge her views on cancer, for example. |
||||||
| cab |
Indeed he could. And it is good that he acknowledges that. |
||||||
| cab |
Indeed, its quite right to be despairing of such a thing. |
||||||
| cab |
And as in this context he's talking about environmental damage caused by air freighted food, thus home-grown being better, its kind of wrong to concentrate on the one. (cut)
This all reminds me rather of when the world cup was held in Italy. Jack Chartons Rep. of Ireland team was blessed by the pope, and immediately the odds at the bookies were slashed as people put money on them. I don't at all resent the bishop speaking out on this, what I dislike is the attention paid to this when more often than not serious climatologists would be ignored. If Jade Goody were to have spoken out against air travel, it strikes me that would have been just as valid as a bishop doing so, and equally un-newsworthy. |
||||||
| Nick |
Who would you rather speak out about it? Someone who's perhaps more qualified and virtuous (say, an environmental scientist who doesn't fly), or Jade Goody/Rowan Williams, who have no grounds at all to speak out, but are listened to by people because of their position? And, when I ask who you'd rather, base it on getting the message across, rather than, perhaps, the noble but fanciful position that unknown scientists are able to engage with Joe Public. |
||||||
| Rob R |
Nick has pretty much said it all. It's a bit like newspapers reporting on such matters- should we not let them & instead refer everyone to the peer reviewed journals that the majority will not read?
As sean pointed out, he did mention travel. Although I don't know the number of people who fly every year, I bet it is far less than those who buy imported foods and don't even consider the implications. It's far easier to buy imported foods and never look at the label, less easy to fly without realising that you're burning fuel to achieve it. That aside, if it is wrong to concentrate on one and not the other, it must surely be more wrong to say nothing about either. |
||||||
| cab |
I'd not treat it as an either or, I'd rather both spoke out on it, but I'd prefer it if less media emphasis was put on what the celebrity said than the better informed scientist; to put our faith in the fickle world of celebrity to change behaviour, to throw more grist to the media celebrity-mill, is in a way a furtherance of the same problematic way of viewing the world that has got us in to this mess.
So when a celebrity goes off message, what do you do? |
||||||
| Ixy |
I don't see why cutting down on food air miles but not professional air miles is bad - he's cut down on total air miles. He can't not visit places without flying as part of his job, although he has as much as possible. Also, I don't see why being a bishop means you can't comment on environmental issues, or other important issues - why not? How do we know he's not a keen climatologist in his spare time, putting aside the bishopry? Would he be much of a leader if he never commented on such things? |
||||||
| cab |
I didn't say that it is.
I never said that he couldn't. |
||||||
| oldish chris |
I'd like it if they'd update Genesis in the light of recent realisations to state: "and God said "I've just spent half of eternity getting things just right, now don't go and muck it up- OK?" | ||||||
| Ixy |
Oh right - glad we got that cleared up. |