The death of bees puts the world in danger

[Christophe]

Not serious!
Mainly in the OT it is well specified that God made man in his image

So God is a big egocentric consumerist hungry for power *!?!?!? Or is it just that the divine plan has messed up ?? Gee ... I hesitate ...

Oops ... sorry janic ...

* in all its forms...

[Ahmed]

From an ethnological point of view, societies project outside of themselves a fetish which represents their cosmological conception. The advantage of this exteriorization process is that it produces social norms; many of these norms prevent acts that endanger the group, effectively, since they require little or no interaction between group members (this avoids internal conflicts). The concern for respecting natural resources and non-humans depends on the content of this cosmological conception. René Girard said, with regard to Christianity, that it was the religion of the exit from religions ... Anyway, the license granted by this religion constituted an open door to extractivism and its normative content aimed only at relations intraspecific. Now replaced by science that pretends not to notice the effects of its power ...

[Janic]

Good as usual there will be work!
Ahmed wrote:

Not serious!
Mainly in the OT it is clearly specified that God made man in his image and that, roughly, he put the rest of the creation at his disposal: it is even an interesting offer and that is cut on measured!

Basically the fair is what makes the difference.
To use my usual mechanical analogies: basically, the automobile is available to humans, left like that without establishing rules for driving, use and maintenance? And so by supposing an apparition ex nihilo of these devices and, always supposing, that, by the operation of the holy spirit, these humans had the gift of knowing how to drive, everyone can imagine the bazaar that this would have engendered, without rules. Now have the idea that this " in his image, in his resemblance »Could be, as for a physical form often represented in anthropomorphic iconographies, it is ridiculous and absurd, one cannot represent the impregnable by principle. So the resemblance is to look elsewhere. All this has already been seen.
So tailor-made is indeed an attractive offer, but in what way and to what extent?

Some theologians, if I remember correctly, evoke a more subtle interpretation, considering that creation is unfinished and that its continuation would be entrusted to man,

This is the typical imagination linked to human nature which seeks to justify itself in its choices and behaviors: we are made in the image of god, therefore of the gods too, and we have everything that surrounds us, oil wells, nuclear power stations, chemistry, etc ... which will allow us to put a final touch to the poor job of the creator »Vanity! Human pride and therefore catastrophe on the horizon.

which resolves by passing some problems at the level of freedom versus determinism; it's a very interesting version, but guess which one prevailed?

It is not freedom per se, but pretension to a freedom which would abundantly transgress the rules which govern creation. For those who know a little, a little bit, the text, it is recommended to humans to have a very specific food, but with a prohibition, because any "freedom" to its limits not to be exceeded without risk

In the NT, Jesus does not make much of animals

If you have your children who do stupid things like touching the fire, trying to drink bleach left at hand (according to our cultural appreciation of these) do you worry about whether he has well eating a carambar without meals? when there is a fire, we don't worry about protecting grandmother's secretary!

and the only major Christian figure to worry about it is St Francis of Assisi

There is already a contradiction in the formula: if Jesus was not concerned with animals and he is in fact the founder of this new sect (according to the words of Paul) there would be a contradiction in form and content.
Or else Francis of Assisi (who is only holy by decision of a dominant church) was aware of the work, (wrongly called NT, by pagan Christianity), therefore of the genesis which defines food human that excludes animal food for humans (back to basics). Or he is inspired by this spirit called saint (he really!) Which makes people aware of good and evil!

Of course, the consequences are indirect, but they are there. Dissipating a maximum of energy over as wide a territory as possible can only work to the detriment of other living organisms. The best proof of this is the current result, where there is incredible violence against the living.

This violence is inherent in the living environment where to survive each living being does it to the detriment of other living beings, humans have invented nothing. But when the balance is upset (overpopulation compared to another) it is the catastrophe announced.

In addition, it should be noted that many companies have not complied with this rule, but being non-destructive, they have gone unnoticed ...

Indeed, we pay more attention to what is going to harm us, or is already harming us (ecology) than to what is going well.

Sen no sen wrote:

Obviously! However, religions should not be incriminated.
There are two ways of looking at it: either those are the humans who make history via their "free will" ... or it is the determinisms and the processes which make the humans and ... the history by extension .
I obviously favor the second point of view.
Consequently, we can consider religions as the consequence of a "physico-sociological" process and absolutely not as resulting from the "fault" of humans.

The two merge! without free choice, there are no consequences, but being in the image of god implies being able to choose, this is not a dilemma, because the term choose is ill-suited, we must rather speak membership. Always by analogy: do babies have the choice to take the breast or bottle, to eat and then drink what they want, later to drive on the highway in reverse with 3 g of alcohol in the blood. According to their parenting model, their choice is rather an adhesion by recognition that it is the best for them or else to reject it if they have not adhered to this model.

It is obvious that religions have only brought an envelope to these determinisms, just as science then does in a new form, even better suited to the unleashing of destructive forces.

It's exactly that ! Religions are containers, not contents. But any container cannot contain any content, hence the different cultural religions. In our regions it is monotheisms, called biblical, which dominate with a rise of Buddhism which has a different eye on the subject and of course atheism which wants to make its place there too.

christophe wrote:

So God is a big egocentric consumerist hungry for power *!?!?!? Or is it just that the divine plan has messed up ?? Gee ... I hesitate ...
Oops ... sorry janic ...

You do not have to apologize ! I am not religious and the notion of sacred in this way escapes me completely, that is why I write god with a d small caps.
For power-hungry self-centeredness, it's taking the problem upside down.
As a parent: are you hungry for power over your children because of your self-centeredness? (It happens sometimes a few times!) Or do you feel a responsibility towards "your creation" and therefore the power that you can exercise over them?
If then your power has been well exercised (in an ideal that we cannot achieve) with its many prohibitions, but that the influence of the external environment has been stronger than yours: has your education been screwed up. In appearance: yes!
Whether we realize it or not, there is a little inner voice that makes us distinguish between what is good and what is bad, if we want to hear it!

René Girard said, about Christianity, that it was the religion of the exit from religions ...

Be that as it may, the license granted by this religion constituted an open door to extractivism and its normative content only aimed at intraspecific relationships. Now replaced by science that pretends not to notice the effects of its power ... : roll:

or its reverse! She is too aware of her power, like her alter ego that are the dominant religions, which ends up turning against her aficionados.

NB: it is always a shame that there is not a dedicated subject which does not cause subjects to drift like on bees, although that is intimately linked to it.

[Ahmed]

It goes without saying that the expression "God made man in his image" is not to be taken in its literal sense, but figuratively, which excludes a physical resemblance ...
Presenting creation as unfinished does not mean imperfect, only that a place is made for human freedom to continue it according to the framework already in place ... or to spoil everything. We know what was the final choice ...

For the rest, sorry, I can not answer your arguments that I do not understand ...

[Janic]

It goes without saying that the expression "God made man in his image" is not to be taken in its literal sense, but figuratively, which excludes a physical resemblance ...
Presenting creation as unfinished does not mean imperfect, only that a place is made for human freedom to continue it according to the framework already in place ... or to spoil everything. We know what was the final choice ...

It is a purely cultural point of view which seeks to give a preponderant place to the human, it is he who becomes the center of all things (when it is only a minor, peripheral element). It is our ego that wants to persuade us that this is so.
but to link not imperfect and incomplete seems to me incompatible and contradictory.

For the rest, sorry, I can not answer your arguments that I do not understand ...

it's understandable! Our cultures dominate our thoughts as our actions and they are what condition us, even more in a world which is more and more atheized, by disappointment or opportunism.
the bible (since it is from it that some extracts are drawn), it is a whole and not scattered bits. Like any work you have to read it, first, to have an overview, then study it (by themes for example) and it takes years (not a few minutes here and there) and still cannot we understand that a few particular points (for the most gifted or diligent) Judaism has been fighting for centuries and has not exhausted the reflection that accompanies it. When we, myself included, do not understand much, it is obvious.

[sen-no-sen]

From an ethnological point of view, societies project outside of themselves a fetish which represents their cosmological conception.

It was true for millennia, but the advent of economism / technologism gradually replace the sacred with a spiritual emptiness *.
The phase we are going through which we could qualify as post monotheism, orstructural atheism is characterized by a level of abstraction never reached or it is the increase in the abstract value which acts as a divinity.

The disappearance of life forms is therefore perfectly logical with regard to this process, since it is now the Memes technologies that guarantee dominance in our industrial societies.
There is thus a "great replacement", the living being swallowed up by more and more invasive artefacts ...



* Spiritual, moral, social.

[izentrop]

It's confirmed

they observed a decrease of more than 50% in the abundance of wild bees within a radius of 900 meters around the apiaries compared to the densities measured beyond this distance. Second observation: the lowest amounts of nectar and pollen are found in foragers captured near the largest apiaries, a sign of a negative effect of the density of honeybees on the supply of these insects. http://www.inra.fr/Chercheurs-etudiants ... omestiques

[Janic]

It's confirmed
"
they observed a decrease of more than 50% in the abundance of wild bees within a radius of 900 meters around the apiaries compared to the densities measured beyond this distance. Second observation: the lowest amounts of nectar and pollen are found in foragers captured near the largest apiaries, a sign of a negative effect of the density of honeybees on the supply of these insects. http://www.inra.fr/Chercheurs-etudiants ... domestic

It is logical, all breeding is done to the detriment of wild fauna: where are these on the lands that we have appropriated?

[to be chafoin]

Absolutely, the introduction of a (new) species that we promote in an environment will necessarily disrupt the environment and the balances, animal and plant symbioses of the species that have settled there for some time. So there are disappearances and appearances of species. For example, cows or large cattle, by grazing in a field, move earthworms on the surface. This phenomenon can attract so-called "cattle keeper" herons which feed on these worms. Thus, in the fields around my home we see more and more horses ... and colonies of herons. And maybe less and less earthworms?

The problem, in my opinion, is a measurement problem. When we move to the industrial stage and there is a continuous increase to increase profits which is characteristic of our (agricultural) model, then there will almost inevitably be a risk of "rupture" or "violent" disruption of entire ecosystems at the scale of a territory. Thus the establishment of several colonies in the same area without control will not leave the possibility for wild pollinators to move from one place to another to find their food elsewhere and therefore will not be able to reproduce.

[izentrop]

You confirm that famine is the main cause of death and not "pesticides" as we are being led to believe at the moment.