The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: How science shaped modern 'rejection of religion'
Replies: 1   Last Post: Apr 9, 2014 2:06 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
GS Chandy

Posts: 8,307
From: Hyderabad, Mumbai/Bangalore, India
Registered: 9/29/05
Re: How science shaped modern 'rejection of religion'
Posted: Apr 9, 2014 1:29 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

This seeks to comment on (and will not adequately respond to):

- -- Robert Hansen's (RH's) dt. Apr 9, 2014 9:17 PM,;

- -- Kirby Urner's (KU's) dt. Apr 9, 2014 8:02 PM,;

- -- Robert Hansen's dt. Apr 9, 2014 7:20 PM,;

- -- and it will also seek to expand on/ clarify points in mine dt. Apr 9, 2014 6:34 PM,;

using the prose mode of discourse that's available to us here:

Looking at all of the above, I find the task is clearly way beyond the limited skills I may (or may not) possess with language (English; any other).

Yes, to respond to a point raised by RH: I do indeed know that a fair bit of 'animal rennet' comes nowadays from 'artificial' (genetic) sources. (Though I am not sure that RH's figures of 80-90% are accurate).

It doesn't really matter. It's not the 'rennet' that's the problem.

As far as ceasing consumption of veal because it involves the slaughter of immature calves - it doesn't really matter either, except to provide some sense of 'moral gratification' to the person depriving himself of the delicious taste of veal and heroically doing without...

To my mind, none of this matters at all.

The issue is far, FAR beyond such superficial reasoning.

It also doesn't matter that "Kirby's fiction" (as RH terms it) is based on "methane, not on the humane treatment of animals".

None of this really matters either (IMHO).

Let me try and provide some thoughts on our (human) situation on earth. Which, by the way, I'm pretty sure won't convince anyone - not that this matters either.

Here are some facts that should frighten even those wearing the most rose-tinted of spectacles:

Just 65-odd years ago, when India won its independence, we had:

- -- a human population of some 300 million;
- -- about 50% of our land area under (thick) forest cover;
- -- more than 40,000 tigers in the wild.

Today, we have:

- -- a human population of 1.2 billion (and counting);
- -- less than 10% of our land area under (degraded) forest cover;
- -- fewer than 1500 tigers in the wild.

We (the human race) are in fact in far more dire straits than can be brought to light by figures such as those quoted above.

It's NOT the issue of eating cheese or slaugtering calves or cutting down the Amazon rain forest that is crucial to our survival any more.

The real problem is that we humans are something akin to a cancer on earth, laying waste to everything to feed our perceived 'needs' (which are real enough).

Can we change things around?


And if you retort that we Indians are to be blamed for what seems is about due to start happening, that we should have been more 'careful', then I'd suggest you have not got the point at all.

Each single US citizen (man, woman and child), some 350 million of you at last count I understand, consumes more than 26 Indians.

There ARE a few issues we need to start thinking about at least trying to tackle more effectively than we have done to date.

But no, we're ENTIRELY content to spout slogans, of which we have enough and more.

Are we even trying to think our way out of the 'box' in which we've trapped ourselves?

I don't believe so.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.