Toward a green manufacturing economy

This is interesting and relevant to some of the stuff I was talking about here.

Just in time for Reformation Day!

My birthday’s coming up (it actually falls on the same day as a certain Reformer’s) and my parents sent me, a little on the early side, a box of goodies including Alister McGrath’s new book Christianity’s Dangerous Idea (thanks, Mom and Dad!).

Despite the title, which seems to be a jab at Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, the book doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the theism/atheism debate. The subtitle of McGrath’s book is “The Protestant Revolution–A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First,” and the “dangerous idea” in question is described this way:

The “dangerous idea” lying at the heart of Protestantism is that the interpretation of the Bible is each individual’s right and responsibility. The spread of this principle has resulted in five hundred years of remarkable innovation and adaptability, but it has also created cultural incoherence and social instability. Without any overarching authority to rein in “wayward” thought, opposing sides on controversial issues can only appeal to the Bible—yet the Bible is open to many diverse interpretations. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea is the first book that attempts to define this core element of Protestantism and the religious and cultural dynamic that this dangerous idea unleashed, culminating in the remarkable new developments of the twentieth century.

So, really, we’re talking about Protestantism’s dangerous idea. Still, this looks like a fascinating book, and I’m happy to see someone carrying the torch for Protestantism. Not sure when I’ll get around to reading it (it clocks in at over 500 pages), but I’m looking forward to it.

Newt the environmentalist?

Apparently Newt Gingrich is seeking to reinvent himself as a conservative environmentalist. David Roberts at Gristmill is skeptical, and contends that Newt-brand conservatism will always sacrifice the environment to its economic agenda when push comes to shove.

Personally, I say with the endless parade of Bushes and Clintons dominating our politics, the last thing we need is another 90s re-tread. Shouldn’t Newt be hosting something on VH1 at this point?

Unresolved questions

A couple of questions that I continue to turn over and which I’m not at all clear on the answers to:

Is it necessary to seriously restrain economic growth for the sake of the environment (and ultimately ourselves) or can growth continue pretty much at present rates but in “sustainable” ways (with the help of technological breakthroughs, e.g.)?

If present rates of growth do need to be curtailed, can this be done in a way that doesn’t drastically and disproportionately impact the very poorest people in the world, whose well-being would appear to be most directly tied to continued economic growth?

If it’s necessary to do so, is it possible to transition to a more sustainable model of development without dramatic net increases in state power and intrusiveness?

I think the semi-official answer to these questions would be that we must continue to grow economically and to expand trade globally, and that any environmental consequences will have to be dealt with by means of regulation, conservation and new technologies.

The dissenting view (or cluster of views) would be that industrial capitalism has to be re-thought at a fairly fundamental level, and that we should re-tool the economy primarily for local production and consumption (with protectionist measures if necessary). This would include poor people in the Third World who should be producing for local markets rather than commodity export.

These aren’t the only two possible views, but the first seems to represent, more or less, the elite consensus, while the second is more in line with the thinking of the anti-globalization movement. They also cut across the left/right division in that you have people on the “right” and “left” wings of both camps. There are liberal globalists and conservative anti-globalists, and vice versa.

Like I said, I don’t have firm answers on any of this stuff. For one thing, I don’t really feel well-informed enough to have an solid view. And, of course, the environmental dimension insn’t the only significant one. But it does seem to be particularly pressing in that everything else depends on the continued health and wholeness of the biosphere.

A little bit country, a little bit rock ‘n’ roll

You can listen to the new Robert Plant/Alison Krauss album here (click “Listen to album” on the top left). Good stuff. (via)

Rudy’s brain?

I’m not wild about anybody currently running for president next year, but I’ve been convinced for a while now that Rudy Giuliani is objectively the worst candidate of either party in the 2008 race. He appears to display all the authoritarianism and militarism of the GOP circa 2007 without any shred of pro-life restraint or traditional conservative prudence. Adding fuel to the crazy fire, I see that Rudy has enlisted “Stormin’” Norman “World War IV” Podhoretz as one of his foreign policy gurus. Now that’s scary.

As far as I’m concerned, organized conservatism has already sold its soul in tolerating the unitary executive, preventive war and the torture state. But if conservatives rally behind Giuliani, they’ll effectively have shown that a civilizational war against the Islamic world trumps every other possible conservative principle. Fortunately, a Giuliani candidacy also seems to stand the greatest chance of driving principled evangelicals and other conservatives to a third-party or even to the Dems, thus significantly reducing his chances of winning.

October reading notes

A smattering of theology, philosophy, and even some fiction this month:

The Environment and Christian Ethics by Michael Northcott. This is part of Cambridge University Press’s “New Studies in Christian Ethics” series. Northcott is (at least at the time of this book’s publication) a lecturer in theology at the University of Edinburgh. This text is a nice overview of environmental problems, a survey of the common philosophical and theological approaches to environmental ethics, and a defense of the notion that a traditional Christian outlook can ground concern for, and fairly radical positions on, the environment (as opposed to approaches of a lot of eco-theology which are fairly revisionist). Northcott also argues that social justice for human beings is not in opposition to care for the earth, but an essential component of it.

Small Is Still Beautiful, Joseph Pearce. Reviewed here.

Animals and Their Moral Standing, Stephen R. L. Clark. A collection of papers dealing with various aspects of the moral problems associated with non-human animals. Hits most of the uniquely Clarkean themes: a traditionalist philosophical and theological orientation combined with radicial views on animal welfare. (A nice companion to Northcott’s book come to think of it.)

A Case of Conscience by James Blish. I mentioned this book here. I’ve also just started The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell, who seems, to say the least, to have borrowed some ideas from Blish as both books revolve around Jesuit priests who have disastrous encounters with alien civilizations. Russell’s book is contemporary, while Blish wrote his in the 50s. It’ll be interesting to compare the two.

Early this mont the Templeton Foundation Press reissued Keith Ward’s Divine Action, which had been out of print virtually from the time of its original publication due to a publishing acquisition. This is his account of how modern science and philosophy allow us to give a coherent account of how God can act in the world. While taking some ideas from process thought, Ward goes beyond the view of many process theologians that God acts sheerly “persuasively” on the world. Ward argues that modern physics has given us a picture of the physical world that is much “looser” than that of classical Newtonian physics, and that, in principle, God can act in the world in ways that would make a real difference, but be undetectable by the methods of science. He also offers persuasive and insightful accounts of miracles, the Incarnation, and the relation of Christianity to other religions under the rubric of ways that God acts in the world.

Also currently working on Wandering Home by Bill McKibben, which narrates his hike from the Champlain river valley in Vermont into the Adiorondacks in New York. Along the way McKibben encounters various friends and acquaintances trying to find new ways of living sustainably, from localist vinters making wine for the region to an Earth First!-er living in an electricity- and plumbing-free shack in the woods. All of this provides much fodder for McKibben’s ruminations on possibilities of treading more lightly on the earth.

On deck is James Alison’s The Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin Through Easter Eyes. I blogged about Alison’s Raising Abel a bit here. Although impressed by the way Alison’s Girard-inspired exegesis sheds new light on the biblical texts, I expressed some skepticism about aspects of his project. But, inspired in part by this review of Alison’s work from Charles Hefling that Christopher tipped me off to, I decided it was worth delving in more deeply.

The old new atheism

Philosopher Antony Flew, a longtime atheist, made headlines a couple years ago when he admitted that he had become convinced of the existence of God. He’s now published a book setting out in detail his reasons for changing his mind in detail.

Flew hasn’t to my knowledge become a Christian or any other kind of confessional believer. Though apparently this book carries an appendix by N.T. Wright making a case for the resurrection of Jesus.

Flew is perhaps best known for his article “Theology and Falsification,” a widely reprinted piece which argued that theological language is meaningless because unfalsifiable (excerpt here)

A church wrestles with capital punishment

You might recall the recent case of the woman and her two daughters in Connecticut who were brutally murdered by intruders in their home this summer (the husband survived). This article in the NY Times looks at some of the tensions in the family’s United Methodist congregation, which has a history of outspoken opposition to the death penalty. The church’s response to the possibility of the first capital case in Connecticut in a long time, which would likely otherwise be strong and vocal opposition, has been muted largely out of respect for the husband who hasn’t made his views publicly known. It’s a sad story and an interesting look at how you deal with your convictions when the situation becomes personal.

(The story mentions that the father of the woman who was murdered was himself a Methodist pastor. As it happens, he pastored a UMC church in my hometown in Western Pennsylvania.)

Libertarians as social parasites?

George Monbiot writes a scathing column about a British scientist-turned-businessman who used biological research to argue for laissez-faire but then turned to the gummint for a bailout when his business failed.

The charge of hypocrisy seems accurate in this particular case, but applied to libertarians as a whole this column is a cheap shot, especially as Monbiot rather breezily skirts over the issue that motivates a lot of libertarian thinkng, viz. that if humans are essentially self-seeking (a point he concedes) then restraining the State becomes of paramount importance:

Wherever modern humans, living outside the narrow social mores of the clan, are allowed to pursue their genetic interests without constraint, they will hurt other people. They will grab other people’s resources, they will dump their waste in other people’s habitats, they will cheat, lie, steal and kill. And if they have power and weapons, no one will be able to stop them except those with more power and better weapons. Our genetic inheritance makes us smart enough to see that when the old society breaks down, we should appease those who are more powerful than ourselves, and exploit those who are less powerful. The survival strategies which once ensured cooperation among equals now ensure subservience to those who have broken the social contract.

The democratic challenge, which becomes ever more complex as the scale of human interactions increases, is to mimic the governance system of the small hominid troop. We need a state that rewards us for cooperating and punishes us for cheating and stealing. At the same time we must ensure that the state is also treated like a member of the hominid clan and punished when it acts against the common good. Human welfare, just as it was a million years ago, is guaranteed only by mutual scrutiny and regulation.

Now surely Monbiot realizes that “treat[ing] the state like a member of the hominid clan and punish[ing it] when it acts against the common good” is easier said than done! This is where Hobbes’ argument for an all-powerful Leviathan runs into trouble. Hobbes says that, in order to guarantee social cooperation and avoid the war of each against all we need Leviathan to keep things in check. But who will keep Leviathan in check? Especially if, per Hobbes’ scheme, it’s invested with nigh-absolute power.

Indeed, as some anarchists have argued, on those terms you’re better off staying in the state of nature since your chances of surviving the depredations of your fellow human beings seem better when vast power isn’t concentrated in a single entity. It’s this drastic imbalance of power that makes the subject’s position vis a vis the State so precarious.

I’m not disagreeing with the need for regulation of business; Monbiot makes a good point when he says that globalization makes it easier for businesses to skirt responsibility to the communities it does business in or with. But I’ve always thought that progressives tend to overestimate the ability of governments to wisely and disinterestedly regulate things. If humans are fundamentally self-interested, then that goes for lawmakers and bureaucrats too.

The trick, it seems to me, is to make both business and government accountable to the people whom their actions affect. I’ve become convinced that small-d democracy needs to extend to the economic sphere as well as the political sphere. But I wonder if there’s a way of doing that without concentrating more power in the national state (or, worse, a kind of global superstate). The libertarian critique of state power can’t be so easily dismissed.