You bring up many issues. I will try to quickly go through them. But I would suggest reading part 1 and part 2 together, and more carefully. I did not say all pro-lifers are anti-ecology, nor that all are selfish. I said that those people who deal with single issue causes, however, tend to be (which is pro-life when it becomes political, for example). I know far too many pro-lifers who focus on abortion alone (not the whole of life) and ignore the consequence of their actions in other areas as it relates to life on earth (and even the impact on lives of pregnant women). Moreover, I also criticize the ecological movement when it does not go beyond ecology, and when it also appears to be an interest in changing things for others, but not for oneself. Activism, especially in politics, often is about the other, not the self, while my point is we should work on the self first. We look to symptoms of a problem and try to deal with them, not the root problem itself — and it is a cultural problem, why it is a “culture of death,” rooted in sins such as pride, greed, etc. The deadly sins are the ones we need to deal with, though our society especially I would say have pride (with egoism) and greed as two of the biggest temptations for us.

The reason why so many environmentalists see the need to preserve the earth, even if it means contra some human interests today, is not for the sake of the earth itself: but the greater good of humanity now and especially in the future. That is the thing. We need to look beyond our noses and our personal interests, and to the effects of our personal desires and their acquisition on the whole. The earth, when weathered and beaten, will in return cause human suffering in the future. And the same goes with the proper preservation of habitats without intruding with new, unnatural, elements (read what happens when various new species of animals are taken to new lands, and the havoc which happens, for example, snake-head fish in the US). Those, genetic manipulation might at first seem a good for the yield it produces, but that is the quick solution without long-term understanding of the implication of the action, and why ecologists are concerned (and rightfully so) that such manipulation will, in its unnatural action, create more problems in the future (and why pause, and study, an analysis, not speed is important). It’s also the same mentality which thinks any genetic manipulation is fine — would you oppose human gene manipulation, when we can “improve” the human via the same method? Why or why not.

Finally, I would encourage anyone to look to pre-Enlightenment views of Christians on the earth. They would be surprised, and many of the accusations of “earth worship” could easily be used on the scholastics and Fathers. Did you know, for example, part of the medieval act of penance in Russia was to apologize to the earth itself for your sin, because it was believed sin hurt the earth?

The problem I’ve always had with the issue of stewardship is the contrast between “stewardship” or “conservation” and “environmentalism.” Environmentalism, in the sense of what the Left preaches, really does appear to be earth-worship: the emphasis is on saving the earth, that the tantamount value is preservation of the Earth, which they see as more important than humanity. Hence, the “populatoin control” movement.

God told us to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” While we certainly should not “break God’s toys,” as I explain it to my kids, we are still free to use resources for our benefits.

But consider the following contrast in the “Green” Movement. A recent episode of _Monk_ featured a genetic engineer who was into the “Green” movement, and used his genetic engineering skills to try and design vegetables that would solve the world hunger problem. (This would be in keeping with the teaching of Bl. John XXIII in _Mater et Magistra_).

Yet the “Green” movement tends more to be associated with the inaccurately named “organic foods” movement, which opposes genetic modification of foods.

Similarly, pro-lifers point to ecological reasons as natural law evidence against contraception: estrogen pollution, for example. Many people who practice alternative health or “organic food” lifestyle turn to NFP as a more “ecological option” to artificial birth control methods. Yet again, the environmentalist movement is as politically bound to the population control movement as the political pro-life movement is bound to the GOP (which itself ultimately supports “population control” anyway).

i would agree to a certian extent with the author’s point, but I think he’s oversimpllifying both movements, and I don’t see what is particularly “selfish” about the pro-life cause (unless one considers it selfish that I don’t personally want to be euthanized or sterilized).

I know full well the effect that technology can have on us (I blog, among other things, after all). And while I would not go the way of no-tech, which I think would also be a radical solution which overthrows too much, I do think much of what we think of necessity are luxuries and really do become, as you say, addictions. I’ve never had a cell phone, so I never got addicted to it; but computers, and their use — I know where I am had.

One of the things I really like about the Catholic Church’s pro-life belief (vs. individual pro-lifer’s) is that it does reinforce the idea that all aspect of life must be addressed, and we must look at the situation holistically. Pope John Paul II I think expressed quite well what I mean here, from what he said in Brazil. And I do know many Catholics (and non-Catholics) who understand this, and I am thankful they are there; but on the other hand, so many people just think the elimination of abortion is all that one must work for, and in doing so, they really go at an effect of a problem, and not the problem itself. It’s sad that so many pro-lifers will not get that connection; I keep stressing it, and so do many others. The root problems are the issue, and until people understand what it is, abortion (and ecological crises, etc) will never be solved, but only treated haphazardly.

I’m really glad you (and I hope others) enjoyed this essay. I really hope people many people read it and get something from it.

BTW, if I ever wrote something on ipods, I know there is no scripture directly relating to them; but since I think many who use them end up being “to themselves” when walking, etc, I would rely upon Jesus’ words about how to be a good neighbor and question if one wearing an ipod can engage’s expectations properly.

Everything ( including ourselves and our neighbors) becomes mere stuff at our disposal, at best ready to be manipulated, whether in ways old or new.

Techno-logical(cratic) rationality by itself will only bring ultimate destruction (especially to the beings capable of such destroying).

my wife & i recently gave up text messaging. we were surprised (and a bit disgusted) that it only took a year or 2 before texting was something that we were addicted to–by addicted i mean that it took some amount of difficulty and techno-withdrawal for us to get rid of it. cellular phones are the next beast to fall, once i am credentialed and do not “need” it for substitute teaching calls.

that jacques ellul quote is so right on. we get such non-answers from business and government trying to appeal to as many people as possible. of course that is clear for the ecologist concerned with the waste of natural resources, but i have wondered if the pro-life radical will ever get that connection between abortion and the disentigration of local communities.