Pope Francis

Pope Francis Really Hates Modern Technology and Economic Progress

Which is unfortunate since only technological progress and economic growth can effectively address environmental problems

|

Pope Francis
christianpost

Pope Francis has just issued his encyclical Laudato Si—"Praise Be to You"—dealing with the problem of man-made cimate change and many other environmental problems. The encylical more or less accurately recapitulates the findings of mainstream climate science with regard to the effects of human activity on the climate. Basically, loading up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases produced largely from burning fossil fuels has boosted the average temperature of the globe over the past half century or so. Fine, as far as that goes.

The Pontiff then moves on to use the problem of climate change as an example of the deep spiritual and ethical problems allegedly stemming from the whole enterprise of modernity. Climate change is not a technological and economic problem involving trade-offs, it is a moral issue. Whenever someone, even as nice a man Pope Francis is, declares something a moral issue, what they are saying to people who disagree with them is: Shut up! How dare you talk of trade-offs!

With due respect, the Pope apparently misunderstands how science and the free enterprise system works. Oh, he praises the miracles of medicine, electricity, agricultural productivity, automobiles, airplanes, biotechnology, computers. From the encyclical:

We are the beneficiaries of two centuries of enormous waves of change: steam engines, railways, the telegraph, electricity, automobiles, aeroplanes, chemical industries, modern medicine, information technology and, more recently, the digital revolution, robotics, biotechnologies and nanotechnologies. It is right to rejoice in these advances and to be excited by the immense possibilities which they continue to open up before us, for "science and technology are wonderful products of a God-given human creativity". The modification of nature for useful purposes has distinguished the human family from the beginning; technology itself "expresses the inner tension that impels man gradually to overcome material limitations". Technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings. How can we not feel gratitude and appreciation for this progress, especially in the fields of medicine, engineering and communications?

Indeed, who cannot feel such gratitude? But the Pontiff apparently has no clue as to how the progress he celebrates and which lifted billions from humanity's natural state of abject poverty came about. See below.

Laudato
vatican

II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM

106. The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly intervened in nature, but for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves. It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us. Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed".

The earth is not unlimited, but human ingenuity is. Climate change (and other environmental problems) are not moral issues that require sacrifice and abnegation; they will be solved by continued technological progress and economic growth. Anything that slows down that process will slow down the cleaning up and restoration of the natural world.

I will be addressing more of the Pope's musings in subsequent analyses. Perhaps I should send him a copy of my new book, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century (St. Martin's Press, July 21).

NEXT: **Updated: Suspected Charleston Shooter Dylann Roof Arrested, Manhunt Over

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Pope Frank (and his predecessors) long for a return to the Church of the 12th Century, when they were absolute arbiters between man and god (and you better not deny god).

    1. “The earth is not unlimited, but human ingenuity is.”

      ” they will be solved by continued technological progress and economic growth”

      Anyone else find it odd that in a short article by a science writer on a ranking cleric, it’s the science writer who makes emotional statements of faith? The cleric sticks pretty much to science.

      1. That economic freedom leads to technological progress and economic growth is an empirical fact.

        1. One of the following five sentences is an empirical fact. Can you spot it?

          “The earth is not unlimited, but bee ingenuity is.”

          “The earth is not unlimited, but salmon ingenuity is.”

          “The earth is not unlimited, but walrus ingenuity is.”

          “The earth is not unlimited, but human ingenuity is.”

          “The earth is not unlimited, but baboon ingenuity is.”

          1. trueman mixes in stupidity when lies aren’t enough.

            1. “trueman mixes in stupidity”

              You missed the point. It’s faith, not stupidity. No one is calling Ron Bailey stupid.

              1. No, it’s empirical observation. Tell me, what is the limit on human ingenuity? Show your work.

                1. Tell me, what is the limit on human ingenuity? Show your work.

                  According to Bailey, there is no limit. Show my work? It’s an article of faith. The work is in the believing. Once you believe it, you’ve done all the work you need.

              2. Faith IS stupid. Grow up. There’s no such thing as Santa Claus either.

                1. “Faith IS stupid”

                  A lot of the things that make being human worth the trouble are stupid. Take Love for instance.

          2. Bees, salmon, walruses, and baboons do not have the human capacity for reason. They are unable to discover new resurces, find new uses for them, and find ways to make the ones we have available more productive.

            You need to read Julian Simon’s “The Ultimate Resource”. Not all human technological and economic progress involves using up more stuff. Most of it involves using what we already have to meet more needs. For instance, we are growing more food than ever before, and returning more farmland to the wild to grow trees and become forests again because our agricultural technology is still improving. We are using less of what nature provides to get more of what we want. That is economic growth.

            1. “Bees, salmon, walruses, and baboons do not have the human capacity for reason.”

              But on the other hand, humans don’t have the bee capacity for reason.

              1. Don’t overestimate yourself.

                1. Too late for that.

              2. Sure they do.

      2. trueman admits to simply making up ‘facts’ if it suits his claims. He is a liar and nothing he posts has any credibility at all. None.

      3. “The cleric sticks pretty much to science.”

        *Actual document contains moral and philosophical arguments in regards to technology and how humans interact with it that has absolutely nothing to do with science and are not validated by any scientific methodology whatsoever.*

        I really only see several possibilities for making such a factually incorrect statement. One, basic lack of reading comprehension, in which cause I suggest further education. Two, mtrueman is not reading the same document at all. Or three, mtrueman is blatantly lying about the contents of this piece. Personally I lean more heavily towards ‘liar’ than ‘fool’.

        1. I don’t see anything here that addresses my point. I understand you prefer to quibble, but beware. I am probably as good a quibbler as anyone else here.

          1. Actually, it’s not a quibble, it’s a complete rebuttal. Your ‘point’ is factually incorrect. So the answer is that, shockingly, you’re incorrect because the ‘cleric’ is making arguments based on faith and specifically disregards science in making that point. He invokes anthropocentric concepts to describe natural and material objects and has arguments based on a noble savage mythology that has never historically existed. Those are faith-based arguments that deliberately ignore factual evidence.

            Technological progress and economic growth are historical phenomena that have repeatedly shown an improvement in the material living conditions of populations. It’s observable phenomena justifying a statement, which is distinctively not an argument from faith, but of actual, material results.

            So again, I get that you think that your point was some brilliant criticism of Bailey’s ‘faith minded’ perspective, but you’re actually made an entirely moronic argument that requires one to:

            1. Ignore everything actually said by both Francis and Bailey to be taken seriously.
            2. Fundamentally not understand what ‘science’ or ‘faith’ mean.

            1. What does science tell us of our capacity for ingenuity? Infinite or something less?

              1. What does the Pope or mtrueman tell us of our capacity for ingenuity? Well, since they both take this fallacy that it’s about ‘infinite’ ingenuity or resources seriously, not much.

                1. “”The earth is not unlimited, but human ingenuity is.”

                  ” they will be solved by continued technological progress and economic growth”

                  These are both statements by the writer Ron Bailey. If you want them explained, best thing to do is address your questions to him. Neither the Pope nor myself are in a position to speak for Bailey.

      4. So is “9/11 was an inside job” an empirical fact, or an emotional statement of faith?

        (Bear in mind, in case anyone wasn’t aware, mtrueman is a 9/11 Truther)

        1. “So is “9/11 was an inside job” an empirical fact, or an emotional statement of faith?”

          It is neither. It’s called speculation. Otherwise known as the first step along the path to wisdom.

    2. This, pretty much. And Papa Franky’s a socialist, so this wasn’t really a surprise at all.

      Moral arbitration in the hands of one enlightened being on earth? Check!

      Destruction to the heretics for doing things like having a toaster and not tithing to the proper masters? Check.

        1. HaHA – that was for the environment’s own good, right?

          Or, if you prefer Lysenkoism, nature reacts to socialism differently. Capitalism defined science before and only capitalism can hurt the environment. Socialism only helps nature, therefore the pollution would have occurred anyway!

          Isn’t cognitive dissonance fun?

  2. Totally not a communist, I’m told.

  3. Thank god the Catholic Church has gotten on board. Now we can dispense with smarmy terms like Carbon Offsets and Carbon Credits, and just call them what they are- Indulgences.

    1. +1 Gaia’s Basilica

    2. Yummy. Maybe this rebranding will work. Either progressives will get turned off and suddenly realize how religious the whole thing is or it will become some kind of super powerful mythology tour de force. Or option three, everything just sort of keeps going like always.

    3. Envirofascism is a religion, so of course they should be recognized for what they are.

      1. “Envirofascism is a religion”

        Be careful not to underestimate the danger or the attraction. Envirofascism is more than a religion, which is merely a set of practices that mediate between this world and the world beyond. Envirofascism is about this world, only this world, and how people should best live in it.

  4. He seems to like so many other authors to have a decent idea like “This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology” and then proceeds to run it into the ground.

    1. How is that straw man a decent idea? “Decent” like it does a good job of duping people into thinking this papal bullshit qualifies as an argument?

  5. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit.

    Which economists are making this claim? Economics revolves entirely around the concept of “scarcity”. The type of “economics” that ignore scarcity is called “politics”.

    1. Pay attention to the central bankers and their 2% inflation forever goal. It’s not like fiat money is attached to reality anyway.

      1. Do you have a point?

  6. It’s obvious he wants to get back to the glory days of Catholicism, before Luther, when everyone was too busy being diseased, poor, and superstitious to notice and rebel against the high-on-the-hog life of the church oligarchy.

  7. He also wears a dress, employs pedophiles and believes in a magical man in the sky.
    It’s like when your parents try to jump on a trend and be hip, but a billion times worse.

    In other words:
    FUCK OFF, Your “Holiness”.

  8. This pope is the new Dalai Lama.

    1. Which is not sayin’ much.

    2. Whateva.

  9. The Pope (especially this Pope) publishes an entire work of moral scolding based on a fallacy. I’m shocked.

  10. They say the Pope’s been a life-long drunken sodomizer who now only mounts altar boys on weekends. Judging by all the envirofascist hammer & sickle filth always spewing forth from his pie-hole it seems far more likely he’s still a seven-days a week/no days off ch’mo.

  11. Some environmentalists believe that the biggest impact humans have on the environment is by making more humans. Is the pope about to tell Catholics to use birth control? If not, perhaps he should STFU about the earth shit.

  12. The first thing I ever learned about economics was the “allocation of scarce resources.” Dude is like 80 and doesnt know that free markets allocate resources in the best and most efficient way possible. Sounds like all of congress

    1. Don’t criticize his age, Gillespie will be uoset with you…today.

  13. It is the false notion that “an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed.

    Actually, the result of technology is that actual physical resources make up a increasingly small portion of consumption. Of course, what is one to expect from a guy who decries a “paradigm (that) exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object”. The entire spiel of pretty explicitly anti-rational.

    At one point, even though I disagreed with the Catholic Church, I could respect the logic from which they derived their doctrines from premises I disagreed with. I’m finding that increasingly difficult.

    1. Besides, we have an entire solar system available to us, full of energy and raw materials, all conveniently floating in space. The amounts of energy and resources we have are immense.

  14. When the Pope endorses your cause, you know you are the wrong side of history. I think the closest they’ve come to being right was being opposed to communism, but that was really all about Marxist rejection of religion and not opposition to their goals.

    1. I think it’s fair to say that they rejected the Marxist flavor of communism. But communism in general is supported by no small proportion of the Catholic clergy, thus Pope Frannypants

    2. You know who else was opposed to communism not because they disagreed in principle but because it represented competition?

      1. Willy P Hitler

      2. JFK?

    3. John Paul II actually seemed to be pretty genuine in his hatred of communism for its opposition to/oppression of individual rights, of course religion being one of them. He also helped bring down a lot of banana republic dictatorships, unlike the current pope, who actually came from one and supports the ideologies therein.

  15. You want a more socially progressive Pope, youget a progressive Pope in all areas.

  16. “This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly intervened in nature, but for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves. It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us. Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational.”

    Either I am reading this wrong or the commie pope just denounced science as evil.

    Do they have woodchippers in Rome?

    1. If you’re reading it wrong, so am I.

    2. Do they have woodchippers in Rome?

      We could always just reopen the colosseum and outsource the chipping to a lion…

    3. There are a couple places that sell them – Luther’s sells the Wurttemburg 4560 and then there’s the Zwingle! 199 (based out of Zurich).

      The Zwingle is a little smaller and more compact, but the chipping is a bit faster, more efficient. 5 year warranties on both models.

  17. In related news:

    Vatican appoints a really wacky character that believes there are just too many people on earth to be part of the Pontifical Academy of Science.

    The Holy Father has appointed Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Potsdam and director of the Institute for Climate Impact in Potsdam, Federal Republic of Germany, as ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences[sic]

    He’s a controversial appointee because, in addition to being a radical promoter of the theory of man-made climate change, he is an atheist and an advocate of population control. He once said the carrying capacity of the earth is less than one billion; considering the earth currently holds more than seven billion people, this would mean he favors the reduction of the vast majority of mankind.

    He’s an evil man. A typical leftist.

    1. S?, el Popo no es bueno.

    2. the carrying capacity of the earth is less than one billion

      Does he expect the Earth to tip over?

      1. No, it will just implode from the weight and go supernova…

      2. Earth’s little turtle legs can only carry so much before breaking.

  18. Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit.

    I’m only “confrontational” with my computer and printer. Sometimes my phone. The coal and oil in the ground don’t give a shit if they’re dug up and burned.

    And all of this seems to be based on your lie that humans used to be ‘in tune’ with nature. We used to destroy forests, ruin soil and hunt animals to extinction, sometimes just for sport. It’s hard to believe the Head Catholic is peddling the noble savage bullshit. I thought only Adam and Eve lived in tune with nature.

    1. There is a good reason that a chicken’s tail is often referred to as ‘the Pope’s nose’.

      1. Shouldn’t it be a bull’s tail then?

    2. Also, the amount of anthropomorphic nonsense is stunning. Material objects don’t extend a friendly hand you idiot, they’re things. They are not people, and they do not have emotional responses.

      If we’re ‘confrontational’ with resources now, we were downright monstrous when we were practicing slash and burn, using slavery for labour, etc. Less technology doesn’t make magically use resources better. The noble savage myth needs to die.

      1. I was going to say the same thing, but I thought maybe it could all be called a metaphor. Looking at it again, I think you’re right. It’s all a bunch of mystical mumbo-jumbo about material objects. It’s one thing to think the wafer is the body of Christ. This is way crazier.

  19. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods.

    The pontiff doesn’t even know what he is talking about. The earth’s goods are goods because people turn them into goods. A resource today may not be the resource tomorrow ?try whale oil, for instance. Like Ron said, what is not limited is human ingenuity.

    Besides, the pontiff (as I assume this is his encyclical) begs the question by assuming that growth means creating the same shit in perpetuity. We don’t use rotary dial phone any more, your excellency ?we have smarter and much more compact phones which are actually more recyclable. We’re actually using the earth’s bounty in a more rational way than ever before, thanks to technology and freer markets.

    1. He’s Argentinian. They don’t believe in that crap.

      1. +1 evita.

  20. “This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit.”

    Obvious straw man argument here. I’m not aware of anyone who believes the “lie” that natural resources are “infinite.”

    Rhetorical devices aside, I’m pretty sure serious environmentalists who favor carbon controls do so precisely because they believe there is too much fossil fuel available to be burned, not too little like Pope Malthus seems to think. We aren’t exactly running out of iron ore, copper, aluminum, etc., either.

  21. This Francis character is off-the-charts “liberation theology” looney. A loathsome fellow indeed.

  22. Of course its a moral issue for the Pope. And he states clearly why it is…that a changing climate disproportionately impacts the poor, and will do so even more so in the future…in addition to the fact that it is his understanding God wants people to care for the earth, and AGW is harming it.

    And he is not the only religious leader or sect to say the same. Numerous faith leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed the Lambeth Declaration petitioning for more action on solving the climate crisis, with this statement “I wholeheartedly welcome the Papal Encyclical Laudato Si, a major contribution to tackling climate change, which is one of the great moral challenges of our times.” Signed by leaders of the Jewish, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal and Muslim communities.
    http://www.gazetteandherald.co…..s_to_poor/

    Recently 300 Rabbis signed a similar letter and petition, citing both biblical sources as well as the immorality of climate change’s impact on the poor, and poorest countries.

    http://theshalomcenter.org/tor…..ate-action

    Evangelicals are now even stating the same, like climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe who pleads the case for action from not only a science perspective, but a moral one.

    1. Its a moral issue for all of them. When the Pope calls for actions like sacrifice, that is his proposed solution…its part of the sphere of potential solutions to a recognized problem. You disagree? Fine, get behind different solutions. But you’ve got a lot of work to do, Ronald, to even get your libertarian and right wing adherents to even believe that solutions need to be offered to a “non-problem.” The Pope is way ahead of you.

      1. Jackand Ace|6.18.15 @ 12:45PM|#
        “Its a moral issue for all of them.”

        Jack’s here to promote his religion, folks. Ask him about fracking and earthquakes; he was delirious several weeks ago, hoping mankind would have to return to the stone age.

      2. The “Pope is way ahead of you . . .” ,unless you’re a woman. Then, it’s a sin to use birth control pills.

        Tell me – if this Pope is so “ahead of his time”, why is he so fucking backwards on artificial birth control?

    2. …a changing climate disproportionately impacts the poor…

      Most everything disproportionately affects the poor. That’s why they are poor: they lack resources like knowledge, transportation, business contacts, etc.. They are also disproportionately helped by improvements in technology that reduce costs or increase efficiency.

      Technology is the solution to AGW and poverty, alike. But you and this pope don’t get it. Malthus was wrong and so are Malthusian leftists.

      1. Did you see me say technology is not part of any solution to the problem of AGW? Reread.

        1. Did you see me say technology is not part of any solution to the problem of AGW?

          Hey Jack, what’s your opinion on fracking?

          *Proceeds with delusional flipout about the dangers of technology.*

          Actually, you’re on the record for discarding solutions that lower carbon emissions if they don’t fit with your emotionally determined idea of what constitutes ‘good technology’. It’s what makes your claims of it being a ‘moral’ problem so hilarious.

          1. Technology begins and ends with fracking? Nuclear isn’t technology? Batteries aren’t technology? Wind farms and solar aren’t accomished without technology?

            You said it, please show where I am on the record against those other “technologies”

            1. Re: Jackass Ass,

              Technology begins and ends with fracking?

              Stop obfuscating. If you think fracking is dangerous because “earthquakes”, it is completely valid to question your proposition regardless of the existence of other technologies.

            2. Actually I’m pointing out that you’re arbitrarily against certain technologies that would lower carbon emissions, stressing both their real and imagined downsides while completely ignoring or waving off the problems of what you constitute ‘good technology’. Your opinion on technology in relation to the environment is worthless because of your blatant inconsistency and bias.

              That’s why your moral posturing is so hilarious. You don’t actually care enough to see things beyond your limited emotional perspective. “It’s a moral problem, even the Pope says so! But we can’t frack and massively cut the number of carbon emissions down, because *delusional nonsense*.”

              1. I’m against fracking because it isn’t a solution to adding carbon to the atmosphere. Period. It’s like saying I should be for a new, improved, more efficient oil well, because, you know…technology!

                1. See, there we go. “I’m against technologies that actually do lower carbon emissions . I’ll ignore the negative environment impact of every other clean energy technology but fracking is just the worse.” Arbitrary. Inconsistent. Biased.

                  I’m against fracking because it isn’t a solution to adding carbon to the atmosphere. Period.

                  Actually JackandAce, by lowering carbon emissions, it is a solution to adding less carbon in the atmosphere. Period. Almost like that would be useful if someone honestly thought they had a moral obligation to decrease the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere. And that’s ultimately the goal, decreasing, not never adding carbon at all, Jack. It’s literally impossible to prevent carbon entering the atmosphere because the geosphere and biosphere exist. If we’re bringing that annoying ‘science’ thing into the argument.

                  Yeah, JackandAce, you care so much. Enough to reject innovations that actually achieve or move your goal because you think its product is icky and your end goal is nonsensically idealistic.

                  1. Here is the point… We have to get away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Fracking is a technology that simply keeps us on it. The fact that it’s a fossil fuel slightly better than oil is meaningless in the long run. We have limited ability to invest… Much better to use it on renewables. Fracking is not helpful.

                    1. Firstly, we don’t have to get away from fossil fuels as soon as possible because the data show only small (maybe miniscule) rises in global temps, so far. Secondly, there are trade-offs in the real world and the trade-off that you demand is a sharp drop in the world standard of living for an unnecessarily rapid curtailment of fossil fuel use. That drop in the global standard of living would precipitate a backing out of many technologies and solutions.

                    2. Yes you do, at least according to science and math.

                      http://www.nature.com/nature/j…..14016.html

                      Note that it says burning all of the fossil fuels is incompatible with limiting warming to 2 degrees.

                    3. You may want to consider this quote from the study:

                      ‘” Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 ?C. ”

                      And to achieve something like that, we have to start working now, as it won’t be easy, and that is not the pace we are on.

                2. Natural gas is also a product of fracking. When it replaces coal and oil there are fewer pollutants (I don’t know about CO2).

                  So, why are you against fracking, again?

                  1. See above.

        2. Here’s the deal asshat, you object to innovation when those responsible for innovation make a buck off their innovation. Just like Franny. You are one of Old Mexican’s Marxians.

          I used to think OM was a bit hyperbolic, but seeing the idiotic logic your ilk uses he’s right. Fucksticks like you want a newer version of the “New Soviet Man” which created zero innovation in 80 years of existence. You ignore the universal failure of decades of state sponsored solutions. Basically it’s why you should be regarded as a moron.

    3. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Of course its a moral issue for the Pope.

      Just like for the Temperance Movement, drinking was a moral issue.

      And he is not the only religious leader or sect to say the same.

      No wonder, since Climate Change or “The Volcano God Is Angry At You Sinners!” is an entirely religious issue, not a scientific one.

      Glad we agree on something, Jackass.

    4. And he is not the only religious leader or sect to say the same.

      Lots of religious leaders are wrong. Heck most major religions will say openly that theirs is the only way, and therefore most of them are wrong by definition.

      Evangelicals are now even stating the same…

      Some, yes. Most aren’t. Most people can look at the historical record and realize that climate changed before man and will continue if we all die.

      “The curious task of [social scientist] is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

      1. More and more evangelicals are finding their voice. If you are one, you probably know Sojourners. Here is their call to change even more minds.

        http://sojo.net/magazine/2014/…..ate-change

        Note how they too call it a moral issue, much to Ronald’s chagrin, I guess.

        1. More and more evangelicals are finding their voice. If you are one, you probably know Sojourners.

          I am, and I have no idea who they are.

          Being wrong isn’t new nor interesting. Most Christians like “conforming to this world”. They love the world instead of what (who) they should love.

          Majority doesn’t make right.

        2. Birth control pills. . . ‘ Sin or science,?

          1. You asking me? it’s all about health. What, because I agree with the Pope on climate change, I have to agree with everything he stands for? You agree with everything Nick Gillespie stands for? Matt Welch? Chapman? No?

    5. Not replacing co2 in the atmosphere means we would have had less food today than we do. Do you think having less food at higher cost eould have helped the world’s poor.

      I’m afraid you do.

  23. Our mascot loves it. Oh she’s the best. I love her.

    Elizabeth S. Bruenig ?@ebruenig 11h11 hours ago
    Spending the night awake reading up for #LaudatoSi, praying for #Charleston. It’s a vigil.
    3 retweets 10 favorites
    Reply Retweet3 Favorite10

    Elizabeth S. Bruenig ?@ebruenig 35m35 minutes ago
    #LaudatoSi is good. It opens by observing we can see the sickness in our souls made visible all around us. That is sinking in today.
    3 retweets 10 favorites
    Reply Retweet3 Favorite10

    Elizabeth S. Bruenig ?@ebruenig 6h6 hours ago
    #LaudatoSi reads like poetry and hits every high note from Augustine to Bonaventure to Benedict XVI.
    17 retweets 32 favorites
    Reply Retweet17 Favorite32
    More

    Elizabeth S. Bruenig ?@ebruenig 6h6 hours ago
    #LaudatoSi is also ultra-beastly on the ethics of private property, atomism, and authentic encounter.
    4 retweets 8 favorites
    Reply Retweet4 Favorite8

    Elizabeth S. Bruenig ?@ebruenig 6h6 hours ago
    #LaudatoSi is very Franciscan. It’s deeply concerned w/ moral ecology. It sees unity in all — “In Him all things hold together.” Col. 1:17
    10 retweets 12 favorites
    Reply Retweet10 Favorite12

    Elizabeth S. Bruenig ?@ebruenig 6h6 hours ago
    Also very evident that #LaudatoSi is much, much more than a climate change encyclical. It’s an ecology encyclical.
    16 retweets 26 favorites
    Reply Retweet16 Favorite26

    1. It’s a vigil.

      Oh, so that’s what she calls it when she’s in her bunk…

  24. It’s amazing how many people give a shit what some hooting ape in a funny hat has to say. And it’s amazing how many people have a hard time understanding those of us who don’t. The WaPo gives it a try here.

    So in sum, here we have a leader of one of the world’s dominant churches articulating ? and soon, coming to the U.S. to further articulate ? a vision in which science and faith are partners in a communal quest to protect the vulnerable from the rampant profit motive and exploitation of the Earth.

    1. Re: Warty,

      a vision in which science and faith are partners in a communal quest to protect the vulnerable from the rampant profit motive and exploitation of the Earth.

      It is as if the point of reconciliation for the left when it comes to religion was that theological religion and state mysticism shared the same dream of human control. Nothing to do with salvation, but to be part of something greater. You know, hide personal mediocrity behind a lofty cause whatever it may be.

      1. Nothing to do with salvation, but to be part of something greater.

        Actually, not even that because salvation was supposed to be the ultimate goal. Global warming alarmism by the Pope and Christian progressives is the marker of a population that prioritizes the terror of inconveniences in this life over the blessings that await them afterwards. It’s also idolatrous in its presumption that mankind can fully manipulate the natural order to suit his whims.

    2. …quest to protect the vulnerable from the rampant profit motive…

      These people evidently don’t think about their words. Profit is made possible by adding value. Everybody–even the poor–benefits from value add. Profit is a good thing for the poor.

    3. I guess Bailey is one libertarian who gives a hoot. He even promises to give more hoots.

      1. Re: Jackass Ass,

        I guess Bailey is one libertarian who gives a hoot.

        I don’t think his hoots are the same as your Volcano God Angry! hoots.

        1. Stop comparing my hoots to Baileys. My hoots are better!

          1. Your hoots are even more idiotic than Franny’s cause you don’t actually believe his sky god scenario.

    4. The Pope. Who still refuses to endorse birth control pills as being an “acceptable form of family planning”.

      And now he is some sort of science guru?

      No. I refuse to call him anything but a misogynist asshole.

  25. The Papacy – the same office that once burned other Christians as heretics, gave Spain half the world on a political whim, deigns to autocratic secular authority, one of the wealthiest organizations on the planet, historically opposed to self-ownership, that falsified legal documents to solidify its own political power, supported a “crusade” to attack economic and political rivals?

    No! Say it ain’t so!

    I think Papa Franky read up on his Borgia books and thought, “Hey, this guy knew what to do!”

  26. There is nothing wrong with modern technology, especially if it helps us to harness renewable energy and helps wean us off of fossil fuels. Sequestering all that carbon straight up into the atmosphere is environmentally unsustainable.

    1. But you see, modern technology is IMMORAL. Things were so much better when we were serfs, tied to the land, sustainably maintaining the earth and our rulers, who were God-chosen to be our betters. Just like Franky.

      ANY advancement away from antique and medieval tech is immoral because the earth and God have united to say that’s how the earth was created and how it should remain. Hence, technology is immoral.

  27. Also: I guess it’s official that climate “sinners” and “heretics” will actually be sinners and heretics now.

    Auto da fe to return?

  28. When I’ve got the time, I’ll read the encyclical, then I’ll comment.

    What do you guys propose to do?

    1. Ah, I see you’ve already started commenting. You must be fast readers!

      1. It leaked over a week ago, Cupcake. Check out the Popehat blog (duh)

  29. Ronald, I see you have a problem with the Pope’s proposed solution (sacrifice) to the problem of AGW. Any problem with solutions offered by Rand Paul? Has he proposed any solutions? Does he even think AGW is a problem? Sounds like you are going to opine even more on the Pope’s solutions…nothing on solutions from supposed Presidential candidate Paul?

    1. Sacrifice disproportionately hurts the poor.

      Socialists don’t really care about the poor.

      1. The Pope decries the ‘moral problem’ of climate change because of its effect on the poor. He demands sacrifice, which ultimately demands the poor have access to fewer resources, more expensive energy, and lack of social mobility. And no, it would not be only the rich ‘sacrificing’. Based on even the more moderate end of the century predictions of climate change advocates going after just the 1% (or 10%, or 50% for that matter, not to mention how much pollution is caused by developing nations). So to prevent the poor suffering they should suffer. Basically, the Pope is a fool.

        1. Given modernity, how can anyone believe what the Catholic Church says? What it sells is nonsense.

      2. This^^^^…why does Franny hate teh poorz.

    2. I’m sure Rand Paul is not against individuals willingly making sacrifices.

      Are there any Democrat candidates who don’t favor using the government to force individuals to make sacrifices against their will?

      That’s what being a progressive is all about, isn’t it? Being progressive is about enthusiastic support for using the coercive power of government to force individuals to make sacrifices for the “greater good”.

      No, Rand Paul isn’t a progressive.

      1. The solutions preferred by both democrats and the Pope involve government action. So be it. I rarely argue here the efficacy of ANY solution offered by anybody. It’s really all I have ever suggested…just have a solution The problem here at Reason, in general, is that solutions are never offered. Exceptions? Yeah, like with Niskanin.

        But I’m all ears…maybe Paul has offered one. Carbon tax? Greater investment in renewables? Anything at all? If his solution is to sit on the sidelines and let everything proceed just the way it is now, that’s not offering any solution at all. At least the Pope offered one.

        1. I’ve offered all sorts of solutions. Most of them involve getting rid of every other form of taxation except for a sales tax on carbon intensive products.

          I believe Bailey is more optimistic about technology eventually being the answer. He’s also written about the need for freedom as people adapt to change.

          There are people on the left who–quite reluctantly–have looked to capitalism for solutions. Have you ever read Jonathan Porrit’s Capitalism: As if the World Matters?

          He’s basically a Marxist, but he makes the point in that book that all economic goals–including goals like social justice and economic equality–must be put on the back burner until the environment is sufficiently protected, and that if it requires capitalism to accomplish that, then that’s what a real environmentalist should embrace.

          He makes an argument, with that in the background, that market capitalism is acceptable from an environmental standpoint so long as the externalizes of things like greenhouse gases are accounted for by way of taxation. I can dig you up a Hayek quote that says more or less the same thing with a different emphasis–Hayek wrote that it’s okay to tax externalities like pollution so long as it’s done within a system of free market capitalism.

          1. So, I would point out that if the only solutions on offer are socialistic in nature, then that’s a failure of the left–not libertarians. In fact, if the reason you can’t get your solutions implemented, much less retained, is because the left’s solutions are so damn retarded, then condemning science “deniers” for that is likely to make an environmental catastrophe inevitable. And that won’t be because of the “deniers”, it’ll be because so many on the left would rather let the planet burn than propose something that might sound like it came out of the mouth of Ronald Reagan.

            1. I will check out that book.

              Here was my point in asking Ronald that question. It seems like effort misdirected when you criticize someone else for offering solutions. For arguments sake, let’s call his side the GOP since Rand is there.

              They haven’t offered any solutions, including Paul, because they don’t accept that it’s a problem. Or that man is the cause of the problem. They have ceded the “solution battlefield” to someone else. Sure, there are some exceptions…you, Faison, Niskanin. But not many, certainly none who are running for President…including Paul.

              1. Are you Amish? Horse, buggy, no modernity?

                Until you go off fossil fuels, I don’t care what you have to say. You’re a hypocrite.

                Fuck off.

              2. 6 months ago or so I responded to your claim (and you praised me for doing so) with several steps we could take to reduce CO2. I’m forgetting some now, but I remember a few:

                Move to the newer and safer forms of nuclear.

                Check out the book “Prescription for the Planet,” which advocates a self-sustaining three-part solution: Breeder nuclear, plasma torch incineration, and “boron cars”. He’s working on the plasma torch business in Russia now, with the government’s backing.

                Make it more convenient to use electrically powered yard tools (to lengthy to explain how and why here).

                Fund research into cold fusion and other fusion longshots.

                Do more experimentation with geoengineering techniques, like the iron salting in the Gulf of Alaska that massively increased the salmon count. (Geoengineering isn’t as risky as claimed, because it can be shut down if bad side-effects become apparent.)

                Fund red teams to massively scrutinize and criticize consensus climate science, and a “science court” to hear both sides argue their cases. It may be that the problem has been exaggerated–if so, we should find out now, not later.

    3. I am not Catholic. So I don’t have to listen to him.

  30. He’s just trying to recruit people who have an affinity for dogmatic views.

  31. I thought that to be pope, you at least needed to be a Catholic.

  32. “It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit.” Who specifically is going around telling this lie, and who exactly is gullible enough to believe it? Papa, no matter how much everyone on this planet tries to conserve everything, it’s all going to run out eventually. And perhaps in the natural order of things, maybe this is what is supposed to happen. Everything has a beginning and an ending, and that includes the existence of the human race on this planet. Deal with it.

  33. “Climate change is not a technological and economic problem involving trade-offs, it is a moral issue. Whenever someone, even as nice a man Pope Francis is, declares something a moral issue, what they are saying to people who disagree with them is: Shut up! How dare you talk of trade-offs!”

    Climate change is a technological and economic problem in a sense. The question of whether the climate is changing for the worse because of greenhouse gas emissions is scientific question. The question of how much it would cost us in GDP per capita to combat such climate change effectively is an economic problem.

    But the question of whether we should care more about polar bears than our own standard of living is a moral question. But just because I concede that these are moral questions doesn’t mean I have to agree with the solutions the is proposing for climate change. So many people are confusing these issues–and the Pope’s position is a great opportunity to help people sort that out.

    P.S. The question of whether it is appropriate for the government to force people to sacrifice their own standard of living for the benefit of polar bears is also a moral question.

  34. A position statement on economic growth from the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy:

    1) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection (for example, biodiversity conservation, clean air and water, atmospheric stability), and;

    2) There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and the ecological services underpinning the human economy (for example, pollination, decomposition, climate regulation), and;

    3) Technological progress has had many positive and negative ecological and economic effects and may not be depended on to reconcile the conflict between economic growth and long-term ecological and economic welfare, and;

    4) Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with widespread affluence, and;

    More at http://steadystate.org/act/sig…..statement/

    1. This is garbage.

      People making less than $1.25 a day don’t give a shit about the environment. They care about their children not starving to death. Even in wealthy nations, the wealthier people are, the more willing they are to make sacrifices for the environment.

      Furthermore, cross culturally and without exception, births rates are positively correlated with infant mortality–if you’re poor, surviving children are the way you save for retirement. And the more you have, the more likely some are to survive. Meanwhile, the more opportunities women have to make contributions to the family income by working outside of the home, cross culturally, the fewer children they have. Both lower infant mortality rates and opportunities for women are positively correlated with economic growth.

      You know why China is such a mess environmentally? It’s partially because property rights are poorly enforced, and a well connected polluter can shit all over someone else’s property and never get sued for it. If that happened in the United States, the plaintiff’s attorneys would end up with a majority of the polluter’s stock and all the seats on the polluter’s board of directors.

    2. A position statement on economic growth from the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy

      Yes, that position statement amounts to little more advocating mass suicide.

    3. Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with widespread affluence, and;

      Economic growth isn’t a “goal”, it is something that simply happens because humanity improves.

      The good thing is that for politicians to set a “goal” of a steady state economy is as pointless and ineffective as it is for them to set a “goal” of economic growth.

      1. Economic growth isn’t a “goal”, it is something that simply happens because humanity improves.

        This is something I have seen a number of lefties believe in. They think the entire economy, and not just (part of) the financial sector, is directed from Wall Street boardrooms. That everybody wakes up every day and just carries out the great plan set in motion by top men. I suppose it’s unsurprising they think this way; it is, after all, how they want the economy to be run, albeit with their own top men in charge.

        The actual working of the economy completely flummoxes them.

    4. You are a fucking idiot. Dolts like you want to sentence billions of people to perpetual poverty so you can drive a Tesla and pat yourself on the back for caring about Gaia…fuck off.

    5. Directive 10-289++

  35. I wonder how much fossil fuel is needed to make renewable energy sources.

    1. Or should I say renewable energy source infrastructure.

  36. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  37. Due respect to the Pope? Oh, hell no!

    1. Give him all the respect he is actually due…

  38. I thank God I am not Catholic and pity anybody whose faith demands obedience to this whacko.

  39. Why doesn’t the Pope just leave it in Almighty God’s hands? Hummmm

  40. This is the same Holy loser who demeans libertarians.

    1. Well, he may be a senile and deluded Christian Marxist, but at least he isn’t the head of the Holy Inquisition anymore, like the last one was.

  41. I admit I was wrong: I thought popes could couldn’t get any more arrogant, ignorant, and evil than the head of the Inquisition himself, Joe Ratzinger; Pope Francis proves me wrong.

  42. Catholicism and Malthusianism: a match made in heaven.

  43. Had a feeling the first latin american pope would be a communist in all but name.

  44. I’m just glad he isn’t living here and seeking amnesty for himself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.