This is my land! (not)

[coberst]

This is my land! (not)

Stewardship-- the conducting, supervising, or managing of something... the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care...

Stewardship is a word used often in the Bible and was at one time used often in England. It was used in England because the youth of the landed aristocracy was taught that they were responsible for the care of the family properties in such a way that they passed on to the next generation an inheritance equal to, but more appropriately larger than, that received. Each generation was not the owner but was the steward for the family estates. Any individual who squandered the inheritance was a traitor to the family.

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the evolved nature of greed and selfishness? I cannot imagine any rational motivation of sufficient strength to divert the natural instincts of a whole people for an extended time. Therefore, the motivation force must be emotionally based.

A compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality is insufficient to creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.

If religion were capable of creating this sense of stewardship the next problem would be how to create a credit/debit technique which would allow a nation to develop a balance between what is subtracted from the legacy to that which is added to the legacy; how to place a value upon the creation of additional highways which might balance the effect of destroying so many acres of a forest; how to value the development of a new vaccine and how to value the increase in atmospheric CO2. The people must have an easily understood valuation scheme so that they could make the necessary judgments to maintain the balance sheet.

Is it possible to create in people a true sense of stewardship?

I think it is but only through a religious means. Do you think reason could be a means for instilling a true sense of stewardship?

 

[Mephisto]

I think it is possible to maintain a stewardship of the land without a religious context. The Native Americans and the Japanese both were excellent stewards of the land, and maybe it was because of their religious beliefs that nature was all important, but I'm almost positive that their philosophies were just as important.

 

[Ladewig]

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

Why do you suspect that concern for a generation five-times removed is necessary? In the example you gave (English landed gentry) concern for the subsequent generation was enough.

As for making the world a better place for future generations, the greatest single action one can take to improve the world's environment is not having kids. I'm already doing that (although for different reasons), so I don't think a little air conditioning on a 100-degree day is out of line for me.

 

[WildCat]

Prince Charles? Is that you?

 

[WildCat]

I think it is possible to maintain a stewardship of the land without a religious context. The Native Americans and the Japanese both were excellent stewards of the land, and maybe it was because of their religious beliefs that nature was all important, but I'm almost positive that their philosophies were just as important.

I don't know about the Japanese, but Native Americans made some major ecological blunders, especially in central America. Overpopulation which led to stripping hillsides for agriculture which led to topsoil washing away which led to warfare and famine... hardly good stewardship.

 

[coberst]

I think it is possible to maintain a stewardship of the land without a religious context. The Native Americans and the Japanese both were excellent stewards of the land, and maybe it was because of their religious beliefs that nature was all important, but I'm almost positive that their philosophies were just as important.

That is an encouraging bit of news. Do you know how I might learn more about this fact?

 

[Mephisto]

I don't know about the Japanese, but Native Americans made some major ecological blunders, especially in central America. Overpopulation which led to stripping hillsides for agriculture which led to topsoil washing away which led to warfare and famine... hardly good stewardship.

Good info, but I was particulary thinking of N. American native Americans who, I'm sure, also had their problems, but they didn't include acres and acres of asphalt parking lots, pornographic peep shows and global warming.

It doesn't really matter though, the "Indians" were nearly killed off because they didn't know the value of a good chunk of land.

 

[Beerina]

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

What if the best thing for the next generation is to use up resources, thus highly advancing technology, leaving the next generation with more advanced technology that makes their lives even better? The entire history of western development has been a slap in the face to the "sustainability" concept -- we are, in fact, way way ahead of the curve, with options giving us resources in greater amounts year after year.

 

[WildCat]

Good info, but I was particulary thinking of N. American native Americans who, I'm sure, also had their problems, but they didn't include acres and acres of asphalt parking lots, pornographic peep shows and global warming.

It doesn't really matter though, the "Indians" were nearly killed off because they didn't know the value of a good chunk of land.

Well that wasn't their fault. The thing in N. America was the lack of temperate crops available and sufficiently arable land (especially in western N. A.). Had they had the option of a purely agricultural economy instead of hunter-gatherers they would have seen the population growth and all the problems that come w/ it. The east coast probably would have gone that way given another 500 years or so.

In short, when you're restricted to a small population due to hunter-gatherer lifestyles it's easy to be a good steward of the land, because it takes a large population to really screw things up.

 

[Cylinder]

How 'bout a Ponzi scheme where, in turn for blasting whatever crud one wishes into the atmosphere, you can send money to some poor sap in Russia or India?

Oh, wait...

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Good info, but I was particulary thinking of N. American native Americans who, I'm sure, also had their problems, but they didn't include acres and acres of asphalt parking lots, pornographic peep shows and global warming.

It doesn't really matter though, the "Indians" were nearly killed off because they didn't know the value of a good chunk of land.

Look how generous we (European encroachers) were to the native Indians. Gave them blankets, booze, and reservations. Now the evil "injuns" have slapped up casinos and are sucking money back by the barrel loads. What's an Abramoff to do?

Charlie (500 nations) Monoxide

 

[coberst]

What if the best thing for the next generation is to use up resources, thus highly advancing technology, leaving the next generation with more advanced technology that makes their lives even better? The entire history of western development has been a slap in the face to the "sustainability" concept -- we are, in fact, way way ahead of the curve, with options giving us resources in greater amounts year after year.

If religion were capable of creating this sense of stewardship the next problem would be how to create a credit/debit technique which would allow a nation to develop a balance between what is subtracted from the legacy to that which is added to the legacy; how to place a value upon the creation of additional highways which might balance the effect of destroying so many acres of a forest; how to value the development of a new vaccine and how to value the increase in atmospheric CO2. The people must have an easily understood valuation scheme so that they could make the necessary judgments to maintain the balance sheet.

 

[Bjorn]

This is my land! (not)

Stewardship-- the conducting, supervising, or managing of something... the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care...

Stewardship is a word used often in the Bible and was at one time used often in England. It was used in England because the youth of the landed aristocracy was taught that they were responsible for the care of the family properties in such a way that they passed on to the next generation an inheritance equal to, but more appropriately larger than, that received. Each generation was not the owner but was the steward for the family estates. Any individual who squandered the inheritance was a traitor to the family.

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the evolved nature of greed and selfishness? I cannot imagine any rational motivation of sufficient strength to divert the natural instincts of a whole people for an extended time. Therefore, the motivation force must be emotionally based.

A compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality is insufficient to creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.

If religion were capable of creating this sense of stewardship the next problem would be how to create a credit/debit technique which would allow a nation to develop a balance between what is subtracted from the legacy to that which is added to the legacy; how to place a value upon the creation of additional highways which might balance the effect of destroying so many acres of a forest; how to value the development of a new vaccine and how to value the increase in atmospheric CO2. The people must have an easily understood valuation scheme so that they could make the necessary judgments to maintain the balance sheet.

Is it possible to create in people a true sense of stewardship?

I think it is but only through a religious means. Do you think reason could be a means for instilling a true sense of stewardship?

As previously posted elsewhere (February 2006).

 

[Wheezebucket]

"Rationality is insufficient to creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends."

Says who? Seems to me that rationality is the only viable way, and a much better choice when compared to religion.

 

[Almo]

Good info, but I was particulary thinking of N. American native Americans who, I'm sure, also had their problems, but they didn't include acres and acres of asphalt parking lots, pornographic peep shows and global warming.

It doesn't really matter though, the "Indians" were nearly killed off because they didn't know the value of a good chunk of land.

Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. It seems poor stewardship of land is more common than you think.

 

[Rob Lister]

Reconsidered.

 

[Beerina]

If religion were capable of creating this sense of stewardship the next problem would be how to create a credit/debit technique which would allow a nation to develop a balance between what is subtracted from the legacy to that which is added to the legacy; how to place a value upon the creation of additional highways which might balance the effect of destroying so many acres of a forest; how to value the development of a new vaccine and how to value the increase in atmospheric CO2. The people must have an easily understood valuation scheme so that they could make the necessary judgments to maintain the balance sheet.

The valuation scheme is increased quality of life. This has, in fact, been so successful the only thing left for those who want massive command and control of the economy is to portray The End Is Coming, No Really, It Is.

In this, it differs not at all from many religions.

 

[Giz]

I think it is possible to maintain a stewardship of the land without a religious context. The Native Americans ... were excellent stewards of the land, and maybe it was because of their religious beliefs that nature was all important, but I'm almost positive that their philosophies were just as important.

As said by other posters, I think it's just that it's hard to do too much damage with a small pre-industrial population. No philosophy required.

 

[LW]

As said by other posters, I think it's just that it's hard to do too much damage with a small pre-industrial population. No philosophy required.

A good example is the buffalo hunt by the people living in the great plains before horses were reintroduced by Europeans.

Hunting buffaloes by foot when you don't have better weapons than self bows is not easy. It is actually very difficult. The solution was to stampede the herd over a high cliff. Each successfull buffalo hunt would result in several hundreds dead buffaloes. The hunters could use only a small fraction of the catch before the rest spoiled so bad that not even a stone-age hunter-gatherer could eat it.

Despite this wasteful hunting method (which, btw, has been indepently discovered by just about all preindustrial folks living near large herds of herbivores and tall cliffs), the buffalo population could sustain itself because the harsh living conditions and continuous tribal warfare kept the human population small.

And while we are speaking about buffalo hunts, it should be remembered that when the large-scale buffalo hunting begun in the 1840s, the vast majority of them were slaughtered by natives. For example, in 1847 110,000 buffalo hides were transported through St. Louis. Only 5000 of those were killed by white hunters, the rest came from natives (Source, Sajna M. Crazy Horse: The Life Behind the Legend).

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I'm sorry but rejecting the use of air conditioning is more of a death sentence than an inconvenience in parts of the US closer to the equator. The summer sees temps hovering around 100 degrees for months on end without rest, and there's a reason ice transportation was a booming business until air conditioning became economically feasible. There are already too many people who stay outdoors too long around here dying of heat stroke as it is (not many, but enough that it hits the news as a statistic rather than individually named people) without ditching air conditioning. How prevalant are air conditioners? Well, let's just say I was shocked to find out people further north didn't have air conditioning for the most part (though it makes sense considering the weather, those people don't know what hot is, though neither do I thanks to AIR CONDITIONING).