[LMB] OT: Stewardship, one Christian perspective

Paula Lieberman paal at gis.net
Tue Sep 13 16:24:34 BST 2011


I care if the relationship causes it to go OUTSIDE the bedroom into becoming 
a public nuisance or source of destruction causing expense and inconvenience 
to other people, source of spreading environmental pollution, disease 
vector, etc.  If the people engage in sexual practices which land them in 
hospitals and raise other people's healthcare premiums and/or taxes which 
contribute funds to hospitals for "the high risk pool" I object.

If it's a situation of say, "same gender marriage, I'm not noticing ANYTHING 
macroscopically different about my life as regards taxes, delivery of 
services, there are no upward changes in taxes of fees caused by this," then 
FINE.   If there are people engaged in consentual battering one another and 
it's not causing productivity drops, other people paying more for medical 
care and access and having longer waits for emergency care, etc., FINE.   A 
is a Whip Top and B is the submissive, and they're happy with it and the 
rest of the world isn't noticing, FINE!   C, D, and E belong to the Church 
of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, wear collanders on their heads, go off into 
town forests carefully not stepping on anything growing and pray to His 
Noodliness while doing headstands, FINE.

I don't regard Monsanto's actions a borderline screw-up, I regard Monsanto's 
actions as aggressively obnoxious and arrogant and disaccommodating and 
encroaching etc. -- and Round-Up resistance or even immunity, is spreading 
very quickly....  I also regard the practice of dosing animals with 
antibiotics without them being ill, as abominable....

True "conservators" try for minimizing change and deleterious effects. 
Conservation indicates trying to avoid losing things  which are worthwhile 
(it's not "keep a steady state.  Something infested with parasites, the 
conservator is not generally going to try to save the parasites... though 
there may be good reasons for not extirpating the parasites, and there may 
be other conservationists or other people who are deliberately raising the 
parasites, in controlled conditions, and preventing them from going 
extinct...  a lot of things -depend- on the situation and the intentions. 
The same plants and animals are desirable species, or noxious pests, 
depending on place and circumstances--kudzu is a valuable source of calories 
and such in Japan, in the southeastern USA it's an out of control noxious 
invasive pest plant.   Rabbits have long been a food source in the northern 
hemisphere, though also an agricultural pest.  In Australia, they;re 
notorious ravaging pests.)

Conservation also involves management and stewardship of resources, to 
ensure that the resources remain available and that there is a -balance-. 
The problems with mining and and exploitation of resources and such, is that 
they are generally -destructive- activities. And particularly, mining where 
the mining leaves behinds toxic waste of piles of mining tailings, lagoons 
of toxic liquids from processing ore with water and chemicals including 
liquid ones (mercury for extracting gold from ore is one particularly 
noxious example), open, bare pits and bare poison ground emptiness where 
once there were vegetation-covered hills and mountaintops and lush plant and 
animal life, is destructive and literally sickening to anything and anybody 
downstream and/or dependent on surface and/or aquifer water polluted by the 
mining results...

-----Original Message----- 
From: mtraber251
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:25 AM
To: Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold.
Subject: Re: [LMB] OT: Stewardship, one Christian perspective

On 9/12/2011 2:41 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> While that is true - our stewardship should be for current and future 
> generations.
> --
I would like to point out that it is difficult to be a steward for
*past* generations, however that seems to be what many people seem to be
trying to do. [But we *always* did it *this* way] and when people try to
make a change for the positive, they run into past stewardism. I can not
find a delicate way to put it that people won't be insulted with, but it
seems to be the religious that are past stewards not present and future
stewards. Even something as simple as relationship formation becomes a
field of combat. And I will point out that this is worldwide, not just
USA centric. The only thing about a persons sexuality is whether or not
*I* am bedding them, otherwise I really do not care who they bed as long
as the bedee is of sound mind and legal age. The same goes for
husbanding the Earth. I want clean air, pure water, and a fecund ground.
I have a vested interest in my neighbor not dumping pollutants into the
air, water and land. If they want to tweak the genetics of plants or
animals, then I want to make sure that in the tweaking they are not
tweaking in such a manner that it affects the plants and animals
[insects are included as animals] that are not being tweaked in a
detrimental fashion. [I consider Monsanto as borderline screwing up. I
do wish they had a bit more oversight on them.]





More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list