The Economist and man’s relation to Nature

In the current Economist article on killing baby seals (which I wholly support, and did so even while being a vegetarian), they end by saying that because of retreating ice,

“Nature, or at least climate change, seems to have it in for seals and their clobberers alike.”

So, climate change is not, or is only contingently a part of nature. The part of nature that we cause, so it’s really a part of humanity?

Humans are natural beings. That was Darwin’s great insight! How can we, as an ultra-secular society 2 hundred years later still impose such a man/plant distinction, worthy of the Church itself?

Be a good anti-Christian and explain to someone that you’re no less natural than the backwoods your trampling with your atv.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s