My the barbarians are out in force today - first Matt Ridley now this one.

Western "civilization" in 3 stark image

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel17.html

Each of these images is featured in The Pentagon of Power: The Myth of the Machine by Lewis Mumford.

Which to my mind is still one of the very best explanations as to what Western "civilization" is really about - namely the drive to gain power and control over every one and every thing.

My understanding of the CODEX is that it is an initiative sponsored and promoted by big PHARMA to severely limit or even ban altogether the use of relatively "natural" herbal remedies, vitamins and minerals, Chinese and Ayurvedic herbal remedies, and homeopathic pills too, etc etc.

As such this initiative is very anti-Gaia and an extension of the reductionist world-view as depicted in image number 17 in my first response.

It could even be said that it is related to laws that now exist or are about to be introduced in some States in the USA which will make it a CRIMINAL offense to criticize or try to curtail the activities of big-time Agri-business.

Words fail me. And that doesn't happen often.

"In 2009, at its Eighth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues requested special rapporteurs to prepare a Study on the need to recognise and respect the rights of Mother Earth. At its Ninth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will discuss the findings of the study, as well as works toward establishing a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth."

This is so pathetic, it wouldn't even work as satire.

But so long as there are committees with agendas and people drawing massive salaries to write this stuff, we'll be in danger of someone actually taking it seriously.

'...the rights of Mother Earth.'

Hmmmm... I can't quite believe that someone in the United Nations thought this up and put it out as a serious statement!

This Mother Earth concept was used in the caveman days wasn't it?

I would suggest that although I like the idea of a female all powerful deity, it is not wise to add yet another 'God' to our already ridiculously long list of religions.

Can't we look after the Earth without calling her our 'Mother'?

The United Nations is a talk-fest contradicted by the reality of human impacts that proceed apace despite the talk. Talk can do nothing stop it, no more than it can stop a boulder running down hill.
Contra the author's feeble assertion that "we are making changes, slowly and surely", the reality is that we only talk about it.
I don't see what's so objectionable, however, to the metaphoric language used in the resolution, and I see no indication of religious thinking despite the author's assertions. It's perfectly true that there is a "symbiotic connection between human beings and nature" that, if appreciated (and acted on), might foster "a mutually beneficial relationship" or symbiosis between us and the planet. We did in fact "evolve" here; nature developed us, just like the plants and the fishes. It is part of the hubris of rationalism to imagine that our intellects somehow transcend this (what if our reasoning was complete nonsense with no coherence outside our language games? Some philosophers think just that), or that our technologies transcend our biology. I don't believe they ever will, but in any case we're going to need a healthy planet to make the attempt.
Let's not forget too that the resolution is a distillation of very few words taken from extensive discussions. I think we all here know, or should know, the dangers inherent in concision. I don't think we should be too critical until we've read all the considerations.
I would accuse the author of inciting his own religion of arrogant rationalism.

THE "GREENING" OF "GOD"

Thanks Collin

"What every free-thinking individual and follower of any faith-based religion should object to is the real risk of ancient nature worship to become the new law of the land."

Hence the recent "greening" of God and traditional religion. In the competitive world of spirituality, Christian communities have been forced to embrace eco-theology to maintain their market share.

One consequence is that environmental activist and faith-based agendas have become almost indistinguishable. They both emphasise not only repentance and social justice, but also sustainability and greater “reconciliation” with Nature.

Log on to the Catholic Climate Covenant and you can take the St Francis Pledge to care for Creation and the poor online.

At the Anglican Church’s 13th Lambeth Conference in 1998, the Church declared the environment was the “key moral and religious issue of our time.” A national campaign, Sharing God’s Planet, was launched, together with an internal initiative to reduce energy usage, Shrinking the Footprint. By 2005 it had become a de facto environmental movement.

The faithful, however, have been warned not become too green. They must have a “correct understanding” of the right relationship between humankind and the environment. Eco-centrism and bio-centrism were unacceptable. The Church had “grave misgivings” about such notions, warned Pope Benedict XVI in his World Day of Peace message in January 2010.

“In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the “dignity” of all living creatures,” he said, they “end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in Nature alone, and understood in purely naturalistic terms.”

How, one wonders, did the citizens of Roman Catholic Bolivia (et al) reconcile the Pope's perspective with the new mantras to Mother Earth?

Alice (in Gaialand)