PLEASE THOROUGHLY EXPLAIN ALL ENTRIES AND IDEAS.
I will be the first, then, to suggest that this is our only planet. We simply cannot sustain life elsewhere. Since it's only been around for 6,000 years, I believe we cannot state for certain the extent of life on other planets, but that it is extremely unlikely. God chose us for this planet and created the environment to sustain life. It is our duty, therefore, to respect His wishes and maintain it as best we can, even if that means cutting back on our own consumption and becoming conscious of the effects of this consumption. ColinS 22:50, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
- Your point is well taken, and you're welcome to it. But do you think in environmentalism there is an implicit message that there will be a long future to Earth? Much debate occurs about how old Earth is, but there is also an implicit theme to environmentalism that God cannot end things soon.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
The benefits of energy production and consumption exceed the costs. There is a close correlation between average lifespan and energy use, for example. Are the extra years in life worth the cost? Yes.--Andy Schlafly 15:25, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
Could you please further explain your stance on this issue?
- It's simple: the more energy a nation produces and consumes, the longer its average lifespan. Why? Because energy production creates wealth that can then improve health-related facilities like hospitals, and energy use provides comfort.--Andy Schlafly 15:39, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
Nations with such freedom have less poverty and starvation, so yes, it's certainly worth it. DMorris 16:21, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
- We can be good stewards of the Earth and consume whatever is necessary. Some will argue we are destroying the planet. I say America has spent more than all other nations combined on the environment. Some will argue that the planet will not sustain the increasing population. Yet God said be fruitful and multiply. God never said stop at 12 billion or the planet will be in peril. Can we effect the environment? sure. Is the Earth in dire straits? No.--Jpatt 23:37, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
Correlation does not imply causation. This is, however, a very interesting theory and has given me something to think about. Perhaps more evidence is required? Maybe countries in the Middle East could be closely compared, considering the overall similarities between those countries and the fact that some have oil, while others don't. JimFullerton 16:27, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
- Correlation does suggest possible causation, and where, as here, there are reasons to expect causation, then the close correlation is persuasive. The Luddites opposed to energy production and consumption are not building hospitals to extend lifespan. The short lifespan in energy-deficient nations in Africa could be alleviated quickly with more energy.--Andy Schlafly 16:55, 16 May 2010 (EDT)
Yet, how will they create an any energy if they have no money to start with? -MPC
- Oh, of course I agree that there is a possible correlation, I only meant we can't conclude causation from correlation alone. If I remember correctly from a history class, Iraq could be an excellent example of this. When Iraq nationalized the oil industry (previously owned by British companies) it was able to use that oil and extra revenue to modernize and provide social services to its citizens that raised the quality of life, infant mortality rates, calorie intake, etc. There's no doubt that the effect would have been far greater if they had chosen to privatize the industry instead, but that certainly indicates a causation. I might have to do some more research on this. JimFullerton 17:08, 16 May 2010 (EDT)