Not exact matches
The second and perhaps
most fundamental area requiring joint attention by
ecological and political theologians is the
problem of properly conceptualizing and expressing the relationship between nature and history.
That people were essentially a
problem, even a pollutant, rather than a resource; that social, political, economic, and
ecological catastrophe was right around the corner, unless drastic steps were taken to stabilize and then reverse world population trends - these were the themes, familiar to even the
most casual student of the American anti-natalist lobby, that set the agenda for Budapest and Mexico City.
That
ecological connection in a thousand forms remains our
most serious
problem.
But it is a technology that has proven problematic in developed and developing countries — witness the
ecological problems brought on by the Three Gorges — and
most of the undeveloped locations for hydropower are located in the west of the country while the majority of electricity use is in the east.
For example, if one reads the literature on biological invasions published in the 1990s, one will find few efforts by ecologists to present the full picture of the impacts of introduced species — for instance, that a small number cause great health, economic, and / or
ecological problems,
most have little known impact, and a small number have a positive impact.
However, I have very little idea what the effects of AGW on humanity will be beyond the fact that it is an
ecological disaster which can kill lots of people in the developing world (excellent reasons to do whatever it takes to get rid of it, in my opinion) and so I have a
problem with responding to the argument that we need do nothing because at least as far as the DEVELOPED world is concerned AGW will be at
most a nuisance.
Climate change not only threatens more people, animals, and
ecological systems around the world than the Gulf spill; it promises to be a
problem that will continually wreck havoc for centuries while harming the world's poorest and
most vulnerable people with drought, floods, killer storms, rising sea levels, and vector borne disease.
Thus we see that neither on grounds of public health nor on
ecological factors is climate change likely to be the
most important
problem facing the globe this century.
In the next post in this series, I'll look at a couple of
ecological indicators to determine whether climate change may over the «foreseeable future» be the
most important
problem from the
ecological perspective, if not from the public health point of view.
Here I'll examine whether, notwithstanding that climate change is likely to be outranked by other factors when it comes to human well - being, whether it is likely to be the
most important global
ecological problem if not today, at least in the foreseeable future.
For Marxists, ecosocialism involves the recognition that the environmental /
ecological question is the
most important
problem that we face in the 21st century: If we don't recognize its centrality, our politics will be irrelevant.
...
Most impressive about Feral is its focus on finding constructive solutions to
ecological problems.