Global Warming and the Afterlife
The box on the right shows that I have published two books, both within the past year. Chapter 4 in Book 1 reports on global warming, and points out the greater peril of THE VENUS SYNDROME, with methane, not carbon dioxide, as the threat. Chapter 5 of Book 2 is a different take on religion, and wonders why 90% of Americans believe in the afterlife, while this figure is below 25% in most of Europe, Israel and Japan. The following synthesizes those two chapters, and anyone desiring details can go to those books, for 731 full references are provided.
Decision-makers are influenced by their constituency. If the public does not care that much about a problem, these leaders tend to ignore the significance of the issue. Conversely, if an overwhelming percentage of, say, voters, believe in something, then potential candidates take heed.
For example, most polls taken over the past few decades seem to indicate that around 90% of Americans believe in some afterlife and a God. It would thus behoove political candidates to be religious. The odds are, of course, that most of them actually believe themselves. At the national level, only Congressman Pete Stark is on record as not believing in God. However, he does not plan to run for office again. The fact of the matter is that something on the order of 90% or more of Americans would consider a black person or woman, but less than half would vote for an atheist.
As an interesting sidebar, only 5% of biological scientists in the National Academy of Sciences believe in the afterlife. Is there something this elite group knows that we don't?
Well, no. There are certain things that might not ever be known, while there are some other things that should be scientifically provable. Let's take global warming as an example. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists believe that the global average temperatures have increased over the past 50 years, and 84% say that the cause is human-induced. Only 13% believe that there is relatively little danger to Planet Earth and us. Only 1% of them believe that the TV/cable media are very reliable and 3% rate local newspapers as very reliable. You can make your own conclusions on what these numbers mean.
We all know that polls can be skewed by how you ask the question and who you solicit. So take the following any way you wish, but most recent surveys show that the American public is split about the environment being given priority over the economy and vice versa. In 2000, 67% favored the environment. Today, this percentage has slipped to 49%.
Last year 56% thought that cars and industry at large are mostly to blame, but the fault dropped to 54% this year. Slightly more feel that government should fine or tax company emissions, but only 52% to 45%. We tend to be concerned about water and air pollution, but only 37% worry about global warming.
Yet, Al Gore and others like him might be having an effect, as in 1997 only 25% said that global warming would pose a threat to their way of life (with 69% saying no), and this year the apprehension shifted to 40% yes and 58% no. All in all, though, climate change is not a huge concern to our populace.
I might add that a World Public Opinion poll reported this year that 43% of Americans felt that carbon dioxide was a pressing problem, while the returns from the world showed: Australia at 69%, Argentina 63%, Israel 54%, China 42%, Russia 32% and India 19%. Interestingly enough, 71% of those in the United Kingdom believed that this was all a natural occurrence and not a result of this gas. The recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report by more than 2,500 scientists found a 90% chance that people were the main cause and drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
How then is global warming related to the afterlife? No, nothing to do with afterlife being hell, although that might make for a entertaining movie. Simply, for both, logic seems almost irrelevant. We tend to believe what we want, heavily influenced by our upbringing. Science is not welcomed in religion, for can you imagine the fate of a political candidate who might foolishly state: the greatest immorality of religion is that there is no proof of an afterlife. It's particularly worrisome that science is failing to have much effect on public opinion. There is no simple solution, but I'm trying, with Chapter 3 on education and Chapter 5 on religion in SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dear Mr. Takahashi,
You state that we human beings tend to believe what we want. It is my observation that people tend to believe what they *need* to believe in order to maintain equilibrium, to function, and to be "happy." What people need to believe may or may not correspond with the truth or with the available evidence (as Nietzsche pointed out, for all we know the truth may be poisonous to us).
I certainly think it would be a mistake to assume that most people are motivated primarily by a desire to know the truth - and this may be a mistake that scientists are more likely to make than, say, successful politicians. The notion that, if we just get the facts known, then people will get on board for the correct solution does not appear to be born out by the available evidence.
I would also note that it seems to be the case that, for many people, hope of reward or fear of punishment in the afterlife constitutes their reason for being "good," and that, without that hope or fear, they may indeed adopt a very selfish stance. They may, for example, well adopt a "renter's attitude" toward the earth, the future, and other people - "I'll be dead in 100 years, what's it to me?
I would agree with much, if not all, of what you said. The fact that 90% of Americans believe in a God and the Afterlife, probably helps to keep most people honest and caring, with the availability of an almost necessary psychological crutch for many. There is much value there. However, my purpose of linking Global Warming and the Afterlife was to stimulate conversation on how religion might, then, best take an active role in ameliorating climate change. I took on this self-proclaimed mission to Save Planet Earth and Humanity from Peak Oil and Global Warming by first writing those two SIMPLE SOLUTIONS books pictured on the right, then, reaching out into the ether through The Huffington Post. Common sense was not working, so I posted a two-part VENUS SYNDROME (Chapter 5 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth) nightmare, hoping that fear would work. That did not make a ripple. So I tried an out of box political solution by suggesting in a five part Huffington Post series to make renewable energy FREE. That never gained any traction. Thus, I thought I'd play the spiritual card. All you who are faithful, pass thls post on to your congregation! If this fails, still to come is the joker (sort of the antipode to religion) in the deck: THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE DEAD. Details on this concept can be found in Chapter 1 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity.
Interesting thoughts. I have a collective consciousness belief regarding god and the after life. Based on Neural Network processing theory, the processing power of neural nets, Brains, connected by even a low bandwidth, forms a single collective consciousness of factorial power. This meta mind is capable of storing a person's soul. The meta mind is also smarter and more influential then any individual or subgroup. God is not just the world meta mind, God is the "ideal" meta mind and thus our creation. Magic and prayer work within this meta mind. A proper religion thus educates people to project a good and kind god and to love each as one would wish to be loved. The Gospels present this very well. Buddhism also.
Fanaticism, literalism is the problem with religions. The Christians controlling the USA have Rapture beliefs. the conservative interior secretary Watt infamously said "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generation
It's time that literalism was viewed for what it is:
a mental illness.
Hello Mr Takahashi. If we want people to really care about the issues of global pollution and warming, then those people need to realize that the Earth that they inherit is the one they leave behind. To understand what I'm saying I'd highly suggest that you check out the video below. It's about a family whose child recalls, in very accurate and specific detail, events of his past life. The child only a few years old, recalls himself in a WWII battle in which he was killed, can recall specific people, places and events in his past life most of which are verified in the video. It's a truly enlightening investigative report. Please see the video for yourself and pass it along to your colleagues. Not only does the public need to have a fire lit underneath them, so do our scientists and knowing that you can't have a renters attitude about Earth will give this movement the added push it needs to get things done.
http://www
I most definitely agree with your last sentence However, I'm a skeptic about many of the paranormal and related beliefs which cannot be verified. The Great Randi will give anyone a million dollars if credible proof can be provided for many of these phenomena. No one has even gotten close to qualifying. People who see ghosts and UFOs no doubt see something, and most are sincere about their experience. But like religion, it is difficult to truly understand the reality, if any. You might want to click on SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity mentioned in the box on the right and follow-up as you wish. Someday, my blog will cover this topic. The web site can be found at the end of my
Thank you for the response Mr. Takahashi. I too was a skeptic and it took me some time and some of my own exciting paranormal experiences before I started looking at these subjects. Again, I do urge you to watch the video and decide for yourself. After viewing if you decide that there might be just a hint of truth in it, please forward it to your colleagues. There's no smoke and mirrors and an application of common sense will need to be applied when viewing. As a scientist I think you owe it to yourself and to your field to see what other scientists out there have worked on diligently and verified n this field. Know that the University of Arizona or the University of Virginia have worked years verifying the paranormal. All it takes now is that other scientists, such as yourself, look at the data that has been discovered. The fate of the planet is also dependent on scientists passing along this type of information to the general public.
Thank you again.
http://www
Wow, the computer arbitrarily sent out my unfinished and unreviewed response. Anyway, if it ever becomes official, I just wanted to add that my my blog site can be found by going to the end of my HuffPo bio.
I agree strongly with you, Pat, that one's upbringing has a significant impact on what we are disposed to believe. Indeed, I think that my secondary education exposure to Jesuit views have disposed me to critically evaluate issues before making decisions. I suppose if I had spent the same amount of quality time with the Franciscans, I'd tend to fly by the seat of my pants more often. I can't swear that it's the Jesuit influence but I differ from the view you pose that 'science is not welcomed in religion.'
Any sort of war between the two has been mostly imagined or distinctly on the periphery. A close examination of the history of science and religion supports me on this. With me, my faith informs my reason and reason informs my faith. I find it rational to accept the possibility of an afterlife and not require proof. Yet I understand clearly the need for good data, sound interpretation, verifiable predictions, and multiple demonstrations of results when it comes to the empirical world. Where the two magisteria interact, I expect that one will ultimately yield if its premises are vacuous.
I do not believe I am alone in this mode of reasoning. But I don't expect to hear much from us curious souls in no man's land when the two antipodal views take up all the available discussion bandwidth.
You have provided one of the more articulate rationalizations I've seen. I would very much value your reasoned review of Chapter 5 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity (see box on right). You are among the 90% in our country who believe without proof, and, as the greatest country ever, we must be doing something right. Conversely, as only 5% of National Academy of Sciences biological members believe, one wonders if the best might yet be to come.
Ordered Simple Solutions for Humanity a moment ago. Looking forward to a good read, and I'll go straightway to Chapter 5.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
