The start of a new year gives all of us a renewed opportunity to consider how things might be instead of how they are at present.

Nature is in deep trouble. My last blog asked that the great religions of the world would consider setting aside one day in the year to be a special day for ‘conservation’. On such a day the various church leaders in their mosques and synagogs and temples and churches would talk to their millions of followers on why and how we might better protect the wonderful other species that share this planet with us. I received many favourable responses to that idea so it might be useful to take the idea further.

World religions are not comfortable with each other. This is largely due to past circumstances and past history. And in part it is due to the certainty that each is the true way towards the Supreme Being and of the need to harvest souls into the respective boats. But are religions forever to remain at a distance one from another? Are not all following the true way but doing so along different paths?

If strangeness between religions is to be eliminated it must start with clerics meeting together in relaxed and non-confrontational circumstances. And where better than in a place of striking natural beauty that is a manifestation of the hand of God?

It would be a wonderful thing to do if the great religions of the world were to agree to create between them a wilderness reserve to be owned and managed by the major religions on the planet. It would be a place where such spiritual people could visit and draw inspiration from what they would find there. And in such a place, on meeting others of different beliefs, discover that they are not strangers but are all simple human creatures trying to find closer contact with the God of All. No beliefs would be compromised. Substantial benefits to the greater world from the increased harmony among religions would result. And clearly there would be advantage too to the wildlife that would live undisturbed in such a protected wildlife area.

Those among us who are religious people might wish to think about this. If religious people were to discuss what is proposed here and agree to come together to create sich a wilderness reserve what a wonderfil thing that would be for wildlife – and for religion too. A little more on this can be found in Planet Dancing. Come on – please think about this – then come together – and go for it.

Patrick

If nature is an expression of the work of a Supreme Being it is a puzzling fact that world religions are largely silent on conservation matters.

This is made more so when we realize that the great religious leaders found it necessary to go into wilderness areas to draw closer to their God. Mohammed left his home in Mecca to go to a mountain cave to meditate. The Buddha went into solitude and sitting beneath that famous tree received the illumination he was seeking. Jesus, Son of God of the Christian Faith, retired to the desert that he too might meditate.

There appears to be a quality of wilderness that allows great spiritual minds to discover what they seek. In such places they find deep concentration possible and discover their God in the quietness of the song of sand or in the fingering of wind among leaves.

If wild places do have such qualities then religious leaders should be anxious that there will always be such places. Surely the quality of these wilderness areas are worth preserving? If so what might the leaders of the great religions do to instill in their congregations a commitment to protect Nature in all its unknowable mystery?

Nature is now in deep trouble and needs the help of world religious leaders.

Such leaders could play a tremendous part in conservation. Hundreds of millions of their followers would listen to what they have to say. Why not on one day of each year religious leaders would speak in their temples or mosques or churches on how each member of the congregation could help in the protection of species and habitats?

One day a year!

A letter of instruction from each of the world religious leaders is all it would take. In this way religions could be enormously influential in instilling an awareness in their people to be part in the protection of nature.

Conservation needs your help. Please seriously consider this proposition. Those who are members of the varied great religions and who read this I would ask you to please reflect on what is stated here and bring this idea to those of influence within your respective churches.

Details on how this idea could be developed further is to be found in Planet Dancing. Don’t just read this and then let it go. Conservation of species and the habitats on which species depends could do with your help in bringing this idea to the leaders of your great religion. If we, together, succeed in this we will have done something of great benefit to nature. And years later you can say ‘I was part of that’.

In conclusion – a Christmas greetings to all of you who, at this time of year, carry the faith of Christianity.

Patrick

Pots and pans – or something in between?

Things sometimes come into the head and stay there refusing to go away. A question has stayed with me for several weeks and now needs to be put to rest – one way or the other.

Anthropologists struggle to put sense on what or who we really are. The more recent inquiries raise the possibility that we are more broad church than we  might once have thought we were.

As part of this scientific inquiry John Hawks, an anthropologist, holds the view that modern humans, Denisovans and Neandertals might be collectively embraced within the definition of same species. Our genomes show traces of both Neandertals and Denisovans in their make up.

So the question that has held my attention these past few weeks is – if it can definitively be concluded that we three are indeed the same species – does that mean that both Neandertals and Denisovans had souls? And if so might we hope to meet them in the afterlife?

Theologians out there I need your help to put my mind at rest.

For most of us, attempting to comprehend global conservation problems is too confusing and leaves us in a state of unease at our inability to do anything that would be useful.

We read that cod and salmon stocks are a tenth what they were 50 years ago. At $73,000 paid at auction for a 200 kilo tuna we are told that tuna are too valuable to live. Whether it is the problem of excessive burning of fossil fuels or the destruction of rain forests or the slippage of giant ice sheets into the sea we are left floundering helplessly that anything we, as individuals, may attempt to do will in the end be of no consequence.

But perhaps there is another way. No one person can hope to influence corporate businesses that damage the environment. But what if each individual dedicated his or her life to the protection of just one plant or animal or insect?

Some might choose an otter or a badger or a curlew or a particular butterfly. If they were to lay to one side their attempts to understand the complexity of any particular habitat and focus only on their chosen species – what benefit might that bring?

Suppose in the UK or Ireland many people took to this idea and decided, for example, to take the curlew to their hearts and to do what they can to protect this particular bird – what benefit would flow from such commitments?

Confining their focus in this manner to this one species would be more beneficial than a scatter-gun approach of attempting to concern oneself with a multiplicity of conservation problems. Those committing themselves to the protection of curlews would quickly come to realize what is needed if these birds are to continue to be with us.  It would be a small step then for the ‘curlew people’ in any particular country to band together into an association that would speak with one voice for curlews wherever their marsh habitats were threatened. Frog People and Heron People and Otter People, through their respective associations, could also add their voices to that of the Curlew People in protecting the same piece of wet land. That way, collectively, they would form a powerful political force in the defense of any particular piece of marshland. Each person would only be voicing his or her concern for the habitat of their chosen species but when these concerns are brought together like this the result would be a powerful voice  that would carry considerable authority. This idea is discussed in more detail in Planet Dancing.

I believe that this simple idea, if adopted by the many people who are looking for a way to do something practical for conservation, would find this to be a powerful means of participating in habitat protection. That way lies people conservation.

Patrick