England's future monarch blames Galileo for global warming, ruin of the earth

[BurtWorm]

Interesting reading of history, there, Charlie.

:wtf:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7147056.ece




The Prince of Wales has blamed a lack of belief in the soul for the world's environmental problems, and said that the planet cannot sustain a population expected to reach 9 billion in 40 years.

He said he found it "baffling" that so many scientists professed a faith in God yet this had little bearing on the "damaging" way science was used to exploit the natural world.

The Prince pinned part of the blame on Galileo. Criticising the profit imperative behind much scientific research, he said: "This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in nature but quantity and motion.

"This is the view that continues to frame the general perception of the way the world works, and how we fit within the scheme of things.

"As a result, Nature has been completely objectified — 'She' has become an 'it' — and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo's scheme." The Prince said that he believed "green technology" alone could not resolve the world's environmental problems. Instead, the West must do something about its "deep, inner crisis of the soul".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Yep, Charles is a woo woo.

[ladjf]

2. He is even dumber than I had previous thought. nt

[geardaddy]

3. That's what happens when you inbreed. n/t

[depakid]

62. Did you bother to read the article and consider the philosophical points?

or did you just jump on the ridicule bandwagon?

[Bert]

64. Did a quick scan

Yeah, I am all on that ridicule bandwagon, especially when someone who is appointed as king by virtue of birth has the temerity to quetion Galileo and all of science not to mention waving the tired old flag of religion.

[ladjf]

71. Thanks Bert. I couldn't have said it as well. nt

[Angry Dragon]

4. Then we might as well go all the way back and blame God

You know if he never would have had that Tree of Knowledge there never would have been an apple.

Without God making that mistake we could have been running around in Utopia naked and not even cared.

[FLAprogressive]

5. remember, this is a guy that believes in homeopathy

[villager]

6. actually, a critique of the objectifying of nature is a good thing; turning the world...

...into "merchandise," has, in the end, not only profited us little, but may cost us the biosphere, and our small moment in the evolutionary scheme of things...

[MilesColtrane]

38. Sure, but blaming that objectification on Science is ridiculous.

Human nature was greedy and rapacious long before the scientific revolution occurred.

And, animism and religion happily existed along side that most heinous objectification of nature - slavery - for thousands of years before the discovery of the scientific method.

[villager]

44. It's just that science can also be used to ruling elites to provide policy justification

...as it was with "scientific" rationales for slavery.

And while exploitation of the Earth didn't begin with the advent of science (Descartes may have more to do with the objectifying language we've internalized, than Galileo did), science was often (mis?)used to provide the new "rationale" for the continually ratcheted-up destruction....

But whatever the rationale -- whether couched in religious, scientific, or nationalistic terms -- it's time to quite thinking of nature as "over there" and us as separate from it.

Which actually science -- now -- can be a big help in doing...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. It wasn't science that gave ruling elites like Charles their power.

[villager]

88. Uh... okay. Anything else beside the point, you'd care to add?

One has, after all, given up on the idea you'd actually enter a bona fide discussion on this board, or "respond" -- in the commonly-held sense of the word -- to the post you're actually responding to...

P.S. It wasn't a deep abiding respect for nature that gave ruling elites their power, either.

[waiting]

112. Well said

I agree

[LeftishBrit]

103. That is true, but the problem is not science, but greed and short-term-ism and overconsumption

Which are not caused by lack of belief in 'the soul'. I don't think Charles is going to reduce his own and family's very conspicuous overconsumption of resources any time soon. (Neither, to be fair, are most of us with any choice at all - but the Royals hardly set an example!!!)

Perhaps I am biased to interpret Charles' remarks as part of an anti-science mindset, because he has already exhibited such a mindset in his promotion of homeopathy. But it is still very odd that he should mention Galileo in this connection. Galileo had nothing to do with the destruction or greedy exploitation of natural resources. Charles' imperialist ancestors, however, did - and he doesn't mention that.

[waiting]

113. And it seems that your point is equally valid.

It would seem that we should require that all fields be ethical and achieve a happy medium.

[bikebloke]

7. And Galileo's Fickle Fingers of Fate are on display.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10281535.stm

[mr blur]

8. >>>>

[demtenjeep]

28. we know he is ignorant. He chose that dog camilla over Di

that should explain his intelligence

[Confusious]

32. Ouch! nt

[nickinSTL]

54. I disagree with him on this

but that's an unfair statement (and not an uncommon one).

It's pretty short-sighted and shallow to think that the only attraction a woman could have is whether she is "pretty enough".

Diana might have been more physically attractive by most people's standards, but that doesn't mean she and Charles were a good match. In contrast, Camilla seems to be an excellent match for him.

If I were some sort of celebrity, I'm sure that if I dated some 19 year old supermodel and then "settled" for the woman who is the love of my life, I'd be hammered in the media for it because the love of my life, while I think she's beautiful, is in her mid/late 30s and overweight. However, she'd be a much better match for me than any 19 year old supermodel, regardless of how people view their physical attractiveness.

Sorry for the rant, but I find this kind of shallow statement about "celebrity" relationships pretty offensive.

[demtenjeep]

61. In all the research I have done on the royal family

that horrid woman is ugly inside and out


My statement still stands

[GoneOffShore]

78. And if Diana hadn't come a cropper in Paris she'd be featured on Gawker...

She was as ditzy as they come.

[demtenjeep]

119. that may be, but He married her and professed to love her for life

The fact that he got in touch with Camilla on Di's honeymoon showed he could have cared less for her. She was just the Virgin sacrifice

[Confusious]

33. Where can I get those cards!!!!!

I have searched, pleeeeeaassssee tell me!!!

[Boudica the Lyoness]

9. Thought it was about Prince William at first

But then I saw it was just Charlie Boy.

[denverbill]

10. What is the point of England having a Royal Family again?

That picture is hilarious.

[jcboon]

11. I kinda agree with him

Not sure I'd put all the blame on Galileo though.The Enlightenment thinkers bear a lot of the responsibility for modern science. Science puts humans at the center of the universe. Without the idea of God or any moral authority bigger than humans, conquering nature makes sense. Science without a moral authority turns us into utilitarians.
Charles' view is philosophically very sophisticated.
Hume said that science requires belief in cause and effect and since cause and effect cannot be proven scientifically it is no closer to the truth than belief in God.

[crikkett]

13. I thought it was christianity that put humans at the center of the universe

with the doctine that animals don't have souls and it's okay for man to domineer the planet.

[bigmonkey]

15. Is it different if only humans have the scientific method

and so it's ok for man to domineer the planet?

[Cleobulus]

26. Using the scientific method, human may have viewed themselves as PART of nature...

rather than above it, and the masters of it, early on. This could have lead to earlier respect for the cause and affect of outright mindless resource exploitation.

[bigmonkey]

45. It could have had that result.

But, clearly, it hasn't.

[Cleobulus]

91. Clearly it came to late to influence the decision, instead the Book of Genesis became the...

justification for our use of nature.

[bigmonkey]

128. Would you contend that Libertarians are all, or mostly, fundamentalist Christians?

It seems to me that there's a strong strain of "take whatever you can" among those folks. I'm not trying to excuse the dominionist folks, but they're not the only ones to blame.

The OP was about Prince Chuck's attempt to suggest a different metaphor for human action on the planet. I thought the criticism of Chuckie put the blame a little reflexively on religiously-influenced thinking when arrogance and greed leading to societal/environmental ills clearly (at least to me) are not restricted to that perspective. Humans use metaphors to organize thinking. Suggesting the benefits of a different metaphor should be the beginning of a constructive conversation, not the occasion for tired carping, since the issue couldn't be more critical.

[crikkett]

110. I think that's what ancient China did. n/t

[Confusious]

22. Science never said WE were the center of the universe

Science dispelled the myth that the earth was the center of the solar system.
( Why was Galileo put under house arrest? Because he said the sun was the center of the solar system. The "church" didn't like that )

Science dispelled the myth that we were the center of the galaxy.

Science dispelled the myth that we were at the center of the universe.

Science dispelled the myth that we were created special.

That was all religion.

Without the idea of God or any moral authority bigger than humans, conquering nature makes sense.

Religion

Science without a moral authority turns us into utilitarians

Which "religion" has moral authority right now? The child molester religion? Or the "blow yourself up" religion? The "I am not gay, except when I'm doing the guy from 'rent-a-dude'" religion?

Nice try at rewriting history.

[Bill McBlueState]

25. excellent

Which "religion" has moral authority right now? The child molester religion? Or the "blow yourself up" religion? The "I am not gay, except when I'm doing the guy from 'rent-a-dude'" religion?

I've never heard this argument expressed so... poetically.

:thumbsup:

[Confusious]

31. Actually the last line should have been

The "I am not gay, and the guy from 'rent-a-dude' doesn't count" religion?

[CTyankee]

46. William Blake, an English Romantic, said "Without man, nature is barren."

The poetry of the 20th century American poet Wallace Stevens echoes this point. I believe the Romantics had a point. Which was, not that human beings had a right to rape nature, but that humans could interpret nature in art. The human being is, of course, part of nature...what else would we be? But we have the ability, unlike other life forms on earth, to interpret nature into the canvas, the photograph, the poem and the narrative. So if anything, humans must SAVE the natural world BECAUSE we are so part of it.

Here is the quintessential Wallace Stevens poem:

The Idea of Order at Key West
Wallace Stevens

She sang beyond the genius of the sea.
The water never formed to mind or voice,
Like a body wholly body, fluttering
Its empty sleeves; and yet its mimic motion
Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry,
That was not ours although we understood,
Inhuman, of the veritable ocean.
The sea was not a mask. No more was she.
The song and water were not medleyed sound
Even if what she sang was what she heard,
Since what she sang was uttered word by word.
It may be that in all her phrases stirred
The grinding water and the gasping wind;
But it was she and not the sea we heard.

For she was the maker of the song she sang.
The ever-hooded, tragic-gestured sea
Was merely a place by which she walked to sing.
Whose spirit is this? we said, because we knew
It was the spirit that we sought and knew
That we should ask this often as she sang.
If it was only the dark voice of the sea
That rose, or even colored by many waves;
If it was only the outer voice of sky
And cloud, of the sunken coral water-walled,
However clear, it would have been deep air,
The heaving speech of air, a summer sound
Repeated in a summer without end
And sound alone. But it was more than that,
More even than her voice, and ours, among
The meaningless plungings of water and the wind,
Theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped
On high horizons, mountainous atmospheres
Of sky and sea.

It was her voice that made
The sky acutest at its vanishing.
She measured to the hour its solitude.
She was the single artificer of the world
In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea,
Whatever self it had, became the self
That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we,
As we beheld her striding there alone,
Knew that there never was a world for her
Except the one she sang and, singing, made.

Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know,
Why, when the singing ended and we turned
Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights,
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,
As the night descended, tilting in the air,
Mastered the night and portioned out the sea,
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles,
Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.

Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon,
The maker's rage to order words of the sea,
Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and of our origins,
In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.

[Bert]

67. Dont take this the wrong way

but are you nuts? God is what gives us moral authority? Science puts us as descendants of animals, not some mythical being who is put here to exploit nature. The enlightenment bears no responsibility for people running rampant on the earth, and religion bears a big responsibility for trying to outbreed other religions, turning down birth control and being generally ignorant. Also, you seem like a religious nut to me, saying that scientific tenents cannot be proven any more than some wishful thinking in a deity.

[BurtWorm]

118. Nonsense all around.

The Bible claims God gave "man" dominion over the earth and all the animals upon it. Dominion is not a bland, neutral word (and I doubt the original Hebrew word was any more implicitly egalitarian and humble). Science removed the blinders from our eyes that put us at the center of the universe.

You want to blame the Enlightenment thinkers then cite one of the leading ones to support your claim that science is no less a faith than standard religions? Huh-uh. It doesn't work that way.

[Kind of Blue]

12. Charles' makes a good point.

Perhaps if we thought of our world as alive and sacred, and therefore deserves respect and treatment as a living thing. His use of the word soul is purely semantic to me but his overall point is well made.

[Flying Dream Blues]

14. I think he makes a great point. Whether you believe in a soul

or not, certainly we can agree that treating nature as an infinite garbage can/strip mine has got to come to an end. We have to consider nature, or our total ecology, a stakeholder in how we do things going forward. Maybe some of you making fun of "woo-woo" have a surprise or two in store, who knows?
:hi:

[Festivito]

108. I think you're the first person to say something intelligent back to the OP.

The rest above took the title at face value. One, agreed WITH GREED. I'll discount that one.

It's getting weird again at DU.

[Fumesucker]

16. In America at least there are *plenty* of people who believe in the soul..

Who have no problem raping the environment for the slightest personal gain, or hell, just because they can..

Show me an atheist Freeper, they are as rare as pogo sticks made for snakes.

[Hekate]

17. Spot on, Chaz. The Galileo comment is debatable, but he is quite right about the rest.

Objectifying the natural world has led to the rape of our Mother Earth, and from there in a crooked line to the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

If humans are the only beings with "souls," why bother with the fate of animals and plants, mountains and streams? Why care about the ocean, the womb of all life on this planet?

If you are not religious, you can call it a failure of imagination and empathy, and a surrender to greed and short-term self interest -- it comes to the same thing.

Blessed Be, Prince Charles.

Hekate

[KonaKane]

18. I don't see where he was that wrong.

Think about it. The objectification of nature has created the planet that you see unfolding before you, namely in the Gulf. Nothing but material (resources) and ambition (fueling the use and exploitation of it) without regard to the deeper elements of humanity and the natural world is a formula for disaster.

I think the bit about Galileo was over the top, but when you consider the gist of what big ears was saying, how wrong was he, really? I never thought the Enlightenment meant taking the soul out of everything for the pursuit of technology - did you?

[Confusious]

29. It never meant that

Science has nothing to say about that.

Science simply states " There is a physical explanation for everything "

Do you blame the hammer when you hit your finger? Science is a tool to allow us to live better lives.

You want blame? Blame the business schools who teach this shit. My friend took an economics class, and they taught you how to fuck everyone over. He had a hard time with it, getting a C.

[KonaKane]

56. Science isnt the culprit. Science without "soul" IS.

Go read Charlie's comments again. Sorry, but they are not that far out. I'm a fan of science, but not a science that takes the human condition and the greater human mysteries out of the equation.

[Confusious]

58. Science is a tool. It doesn't have a "soul."

Science simply says "There is a physical explanation for everything." Any woo beyond that, it's up to you.

If there is any "crisis" and part of the blame, it's in religion. Aren't they suppose to be the "moral" part of the equation? Isn't that a line in bible: " I give this world to you, the creatures, large and small, to do with what you will?" Isn't there a church that keeps raging against birth control? One C something, the other P something?

And another in academia. Business schools teach, as a matter of course, how to fuck everyone.

As for the scientists, most are humbled and amazed by nature, and have more respect then "religious" people or "bissness" people. But society gives them no power.

I'm a fan of science, but not a science that takes the human condition and the greater human mysteries out of the equation.

Does a hammer have something to say about "the human condition" and "the greater human mysteries?"

That's for the woo boys and girls. That's not science.

[KonaKane]

80. It certainly does. It's called humanity.

And what the hell is "woo"?

[Confusious]

83. Humanity isn't science, nor is science humanity

Science can't say anything about the "human condition." Only humans can do that.

Science came up with birth control, and a way to limit population growth. It's not science saying we shouldn't use it. Science came up with genetic manipulation, but it's not science saying we should.

If there's a lack of "soul," it's humanities lack. Not science.

As for woo:

woo-woo

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

Here's a dictionary definition of woo-woo:

adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.

When used by skeptics, woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds such beliefs.

Sometimes woo-woo is used by skeptics as a synonym for pseudoscience, true-believer, or quackery. But mostly the term is used for its emotive content and is an emotive synonym for such terms as nonsense, irrational, nutter, nut, or crazy.

For example:

1.

"But the woo-woo faction has adopted the word "organic" to apply only to a plant grown without the use of anything but water and faith."*
2.

I think love is the one thing that should remain firmly in the realm of the woo-woo.*
3.

The National Institutes of Health offered a course in feng shui, which prompted James Randi to write of woo-woo at the NIH.
4.

...the woo-woos ... are more comfortable being ignorant of reality.*

The Skeptic's Dictionary has several hundred examples of mystical, spiritual, irrational, pseudoscientific, or anti-scientific New Age beliefs that many skeptics consider to be woo-woo.

http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html

[KonaKane]

85. What is science without humanity?

I'll tell you what it is....a bunch of empty labs, coats and workstations.

And "woo woo" sounds like baby talk. I would have hoped people who uphold research and intelligence would have come up with a better, more mature term.

[Confusious]

89. reply

What is science without humanity?

I'll tell you what it is....a bunch of empty labs, coats and workstations.

Not even close to my point. My point is, blaming science is placing blame in the wrong place. lets blame the tool because we don't want to blame religion, don't want to blame parents, don't want to blame schools, and don't want to blame society, don't want to blame yourself for creating an atmosphere devoid of ethics.

Nothing will get fixed.

And calling it woo rises to the level of the belief. Why grace it with a better term when it doesn't deserve it?

[KonaKane]

123. He's not blaming science. He is blaming the lack of humanity

in the pursuit of science and using that science to the detriment of the world around us.

I don't see what is so hard to get about that obvious point.

[Confusious]

126. He's blaming science

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8529480&mesg_id=8531850

He's attributing a worldview to science that should be laid at the feet of religion.

Considering your sig, I don't think you'll agree or see it.

[GoneOffShore]

82. What "greater human mysteries"? There's the natural world - full stop.

Anything else is just fairy tales.

And BTW Confusions - I'm on your side, but as the post I'm referring to doesn't appear on my thread, I'm having to respond here.

[Codeine]

96. "Greater human mysteries"

The only mystery is why people cling so tenaciously to Bronze-age mythologies, gauzy metaphysical ramblings, primitive nature worship, and blind superstition in this modern age.

[Cleobulus]

94. Very wrong, because it was the Bible that objectified the world...

not Science.

[Bert]

98. Give me what your smoking

Does religion give you a fucking woody? Religion is responsible for nothing but evil. Religion wants nothing but what is good for it and that includes helping out the ravaging of the earth(plenty of examples I dont have the time to illustrate for you), the plundering of nations(this should be obvious), all done in the name of religion. The only thing I can thik of that is almost as bad as unthinking religious junkies are monarchists. So Charles gets a twofer. If he also starts espousing fascism then he would get a hat trick.

What agenda does science have you nutbag? Tell you what, we'll divide the planet in half between those who believe in science and those who believe in voodoo. Also, stop using scientific instruments if you dont like science. And stop blaming science for republican and religious philosophies that damage this planet. And any good that has been done by people who are religious could just as easily been done without religion. Enjoy the products of science while you suck at the teat of your religion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. The royal family is a genetic cautionary tale. n/t

[KittyWampus]

20. He does NOT BLAME GALILEO. He is critiquing the mindset. Can DU'ers really be this stupid?

Apparently.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. It's not that DUers are stupid, it's that Prince Charles is stupid.

We get what Charles is saying, he's just wrong and stupid.

[maxsolomon]

23. please refute his critique of Utilitarianism, then

i may wish that he hadn't used the word 'soul', but the evidence of his opinion is floating in the Gulf of Mexico. what Capital has done with the tools the Enlightenment gave us is a heedless rush to drain the planet's resources for personal gain.

if he's wrong about something, it's that the carrying capacity of this planet is far less than 9 billion selfish, short-sighted, bipedal hairless apes.

[Fumesucker]

27. You have evidence that the CEO of BP does not believe in the "soul"?

Atheists are pretty damn rare in America and many of us have learned to keep our heads down because in many places it can be hazardous to your employment and property to admit you do not believe in God.

[JackRiddler]

74. Actually, if you read what he says, he points out the contradiction of religious technocrats...

who profess such a belief, and yet act fully contrary to it.

He used a trigger word for many people who profess skepticism at everything except the dominant paradigm, which they don't even see. He should have never said "science" but called it more accurately as "technocracy."

I don't believe in a "soul" separate from material, and yet I see his point, and can shear it of his historical simplifications:

If you treat everything and everyone like dead merchandise for profit only, big holes spewing death into the biosphere become inevitable.

Again, I can wish he had put it more intelligently, I can make fun of him and complain about the stupidity of royalty, and yet I can also still be generous in reading what really is his underlying point (and not just something I'm imputing), which I agree with and which, in fact, is very basic and obvious wisdom.

[Fumesucker]

77. Someone from the UK should know better...

Open atheism is far more common in the UK than the USA, Charles should have known that the way his statement was worded would push a lot of the wrong buttons in some people.

[JackRiddler]

84. True enough!

He can be a silly self-important blowhard pushing all the wrong buttons, and yet still at the same time speak essential truths. (Hm, rereading that sentence reminds me of a certain Richard Dawkins.) It's important to be able to separate the two - for us as much as for him.

[Confusious]

30. So you blame the tool, and not the person who misuses it?

[maxsolomon]

34. read what he said again

"part"
"profit motive"
"mindset"

he's not exactly blaming Gallileo. he's speaking in his roundabout British royal manner.

[Confusious]

37. Uh, no

He said he found it "baffling" that so many scientists professed a faith in God yet this had little bearing on the "damaging" way science was used to exploit the natural world.

The Prince pinned part of the blame on Galileo. Criticizing the profit imperative behind much scientific research, he said: "This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in nature but quantity and motion.

"This is the view that continues to frame the general perception of the way the world works, and how we fit within the scheme of things.

"As a result, Nature has been completely objectified — 'She' has become an 'it' — and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo's scheme." The Prince said that he believed "green technology" alone could not resolve the world's environmental problems. Instead, the West must do something about its "deep, inner crisis of the soul".

He's blaming the tool.

There is also a lot of science that has no profit motive. The math that allows flash memory was worked out in the 1920's.

The theory of relativity has no special profit behind it. The large hadron collider has no profit motive. The ITER has no profit motive.

[maxsolomon]

41. um, yes

"...the "damaging" way science was used to exploit the natural world."

science = the tool

who USES science?

"the profit imperative".

he's critiquing Capital. god damn Marxist aristocrat. ;)

[Confusious]

43. Maybe he's blaming capital, but he's also blaming science.

The Prince pinned part of the blame on Galileo. Criticizing the profit imperative behind much scientific research, he said: "This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in nature but quantity and motion.

"This is the view that continues to frame the general perception of the way the world works, and how we fit within the scheme of things.

"As a result, Nature has been completely objectified — 'She' has become an 'it' — and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo's scheme." The Prince said that he believed "green technology" alone could not resolve the world's environmental problems. Instead, the West must do something about its "deep, inner crisis of the soul".

Science simply says "There is a physical explanation for everything." Any woo beyond that, it's up to you.

If there is any "crisis" and part of the blame, it's in religion. Aren't they suppose to be the "moral" part of the equation? Isn't that a line in bible: " I give this world to you, the creatures, large and small, to do with what you will?" Isn't there a church that keeps raging against birth control? One C something, the other P something?

And another in academia. Business schools teach, as a matter of course, how to fuck everyone.

As for the scientists, most are humbled and amazed by nature, and have more respect then "religious" people or "bissness" people. But society gives them no power.

[Bert]

73. Go pray to god to connect to the internet

Science could care less about the profit motive. Without science we would still be sitting around in caves beating everyone else with clubs, and apparently believing in gods. Most scientists who profess to believe in god also do so out of expediency. Ask any scientist if they believe in miracles and you may get a different answer. It is those who exploit scientists creations who may destroy the earth. If you dont like this then you should encourage people to think rationally, this is antithesis to science. Go live in a freaking cave if you dont like science, but dont use any scientific instruments, like fire, any kind of tools, or even reasoning. But go ahead and pray to some freaking deity. Also if you dont like science you better stop using the internet. Maybe you can pray to god to invent miraculously connect you to the internet. Capitalism by the way is not science.

[maxsolomon]

117. seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

i said: SCIENCE is a TOOL that is USED by CAPITAL to maximize PROFIT. this is a simple assertion. it's not hard to understand, but you've managed to attack me as an anti-internet luddite for this position?

Charles is bemoaning the absence of other considerations in the economic decisions that our societies make. he's on our side, but this thread just wants to point and laugh and willfully misunderstand him because he's funny looking.

[KonaKane]

122. No, they want to point and laugh because he alluded to something outside of pure science

that is worthy of admiration and support. I learned long ago that that's a "blasphemy" of its own around these parts.

[Zix]

36. He must be! He's royal and has sticky out ears!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. And he's a woo woo.

[depakid]

68. A supposed woo woo who's behing the largest effort to date to make rainforests worth more

alive than dead:

http://www.rainforestsos.org/

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

116. Sure, when he's not defrauding people with woo woo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/30/prince-wales-health-charity-fraud

[Zix]

105. A royal woo woo with sticky out ears!

Wooooo!

I've been following your posts. Tell me something. Do you have any opinions on anything?

[Zix]

35. Very much looks like it.

[depakid]

63. You know the answer to that already

[demtenjeep]

24. I predict he will never be king

Instead it will be William

[nickinSTL]

55. unless his mother outlives him, he will be king

the only thing that could prevent it would be an act of Parliament, and that's not going to happen because he says stupid stuff. Unless he commits some horrible crime, Parliament won't do anything.

William will probably become king in his 50s or 60s, after his father.

Assuming the monarchy survives that long.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Really? I blame pasty, inbred, aristocratic goobers.

D'oh!

[htuttle]

42. Fucking magnets, how do they work?

[Odin2005]

47. LOL! So many anti-science buzzwords in one article!

:rofl:

[Taverner]

48. Chuck is against the Magna Carta for Fuck's Sake

So this wouldn't surprise me

[LanternWaste]

49. self delte

Nahh.... better not. A lot of people don't have a sense of humor when it comes to science and/or religion...

[TheBigotBasher]

50. A few things.

He is Britain's future Monarch, not just the English monarch.

He may not even get there. The male side of the family does not have a historical longevity in life. The female side (including his mother) has a great history of longevity (eg the Queen Mother).

It is not science per-se he is blaming, it is science driven purely by profit which causes great harm.

[AngryAmish]

53. Please recall this guy thinks God wants him to rule an empire

Really. Plus he wants to run a religion someday.

A person that beleives in rationality would be leading a different life. And they would stop being a parasite.

[nickinSTL]

57. uh. he really doesn't exactly want to run a religion, as I understand

his views.

He has said that he believes that the British monarch should be the "Defender of Faith" rather than the "Defender of THE Faith" - which, assuming he's actually thought that through (which I have no proof that he has), would mean that the British monarch would no longer be the head of the Church of England.

I also don't know that I've ever read that he believes in the divine right of kings (ie., that he was chosen by God to rule) - he has no doubt inherited/learned his mother's sense of duty - the feeling that he was born into this role and that as a result it is his duty to become king. Don't know that that's the same thing.

It's also rather unfair, IMO, to call the royal family a parasite. I know it's a common American view, but I personally like the idea of a Head of State that can represent the people without politics being involved. Not to mention giving the Head of Government the ability to focus on running the government rather than doing a lot of appearances at remembrance ceremonies, ribbon-cutting ceremonies and the like. It's possible to do split those roles in a republic, as Germany does with the Chancellor (Head of Government) and the President (Head of State), but I don't much care for the conflating of the two roles in one person - as here in the US.

Additionally, while you may not think much of the work that the royal family in Britain does, they work hard at what they do. The Queen still has a very full calendar in her 80s, and the other senior royals (the Queens children minus Edward) all have hundreds of events they attend each year. You may not value what they do, but they take it seriously and work hard at it. I think they deserve better than the epithet of parasite.

[AngryAmish]

60. Royalty are beneath scum

Parasites, the lot of them. Why do you worship them so? Do you prefer to acknowledge your betters?

[Codeine]

69. There are some DUers with a real hard-on for the royals.

I got dogpiled the other day for slagging the queen off in a vulgar fashion. Idiots. The very concept of royalty is unspeakably filthy on the face of it.

[nickinSTL]

87. and some DUers have a real hard-on for hating people...

the fact that you hate the concept of an institution where someone gains through birth rather than merit - which I sympathize with - in no way justifies a personal attack on the individuals born into that institution.

Expecting the royal family to all suddenly abandon what they've been taught all their lives is their duty is unrealistic.

[Codeine]

95. I do not hate them.

I simply consider them parasites, not worth the air they breath. When they spout silly, destructive, superstitious, animistic bullshit - like Chuckles the Human Tampon is wont to do - I am further reminded that they should be reduced to grinding poverty and backbreaking labor posthaste.

[tritsofme]

125. The Crown is profitable to the British taxpayer.

To the tune of £150 million a year.

What type of parasite is that?

[nickinSTL]

86. Where exactly do you get the idea I "worship" royalty?

I just happened to have studied the British monarchy in some depth, and while I understand the antipathy towards an institution based on birth rather than accomplishment, I don't feel the need to blindly hate people who have been born and raised in that institution.

[AngryAmish]

107. I get the idea that you worship royalty from your words

You act as though they have some legitimate purpose. They do not. Never. Anywhere.

[LeftishBrit]

104. You make many good points

The one good thing about the modern Monarchy is that it does provide a ceremonial Head of State separate from the top politician in power. Though a ceremonial President could do the same, and cost less to the taxpayers. As far as I'm concerned, the real question there is whether the cost of the Monarchy is or isn't outweighed by the amount of income they bring in from tourism - and it's hard to get a definitive answer to that.

However, being a hereditary figurehead president cum tourist magnet does not make you a Great Thinker, and Charles should not be acting as though it does.

[BurtWorm]

111. How much of a nation's treasury should go to maintaining such a figurehead and her family?

Are you ok with keeping this expensive role of figurehead in one family? This is a good thing?

[LeftishBrit]

115. I am against the monarchy on principle...

but if it turns out that the money it brings in is more than the money it wastes, that could be an argument for retaining it. I really don't know how much they bring in through tourism, or whether we'd get the same amount if we abolished the monarchy but kept the palaces for their historical interest and for the tourists.

In any case, with everyone else being invited to 'tighten their belts', so should they. Other currently-existing Europaean monarchies seem to be cheaper to run. There seems little reason for paying civil list to all sorts of hangers-on and cousins of the royals.

[mnhtnbb]

51. Actually Galileo got himself into deep trouble, during The Inquisition

with the Catholic Church for his theories based upon observations of the real world.

Really, Charles, didn't your ancestor have a little trouble with the Catholic Church, too?

You'd think Charlie would get it.

http://www.mcm.edu/academic/galileo/ars/arshtml/galileo3.html

We happened to be in Florence a year ago (Galileo's home) and were able to see a marvelous
exhibit about Galileo--Images of the Universe from Antiquity to the Telescope--at the Palazzo Strozzi.

PS, Charlie, in case you didn't get it: The Catholic Church and its insistence upon endless
reproduction is more to blame for global warming than Galileo. But then, any guy who wants nothing more than to be a tampon inside Camilla is a little bit daft and not likely to be taken seriously.

[fishwax]

59. He's been bashing science for years

Here's an article about his 2000 Reith lecture, in which he made similar charges against science (and advocated traditional religion): http://www.sirc.org/articles/madness_of_prince_charles.html

[proteus_lives]

65. I doubt he'll be king.

I see QEII outliving him and passing the crown to William.

[theophilus]

66. IMO, about half of the replies on this thread were made by dangerous

people. Either evil or stupid. You'll have to decide which is which. lol. Twits. lol.

[Bert]

75. Thank you

Could not have said it better myself. Dangerous religious fanatics are the biggest danger to this planet right now.

[malletgirl02]

130. I agree

Also if prince Charles can blame Galileo for global warming we can also blame the Catholic church during the Inquisition with all those supposed heretics that were burnt. It makes just as much sense as blaming Galileo.

[Matariki]

70. I agree with much of this. We *do* have an 'inner crisis of the soul'

that has *a lot* to do with materialism.

[KonaKane]

81. Exactly.

It's a real riot to watch the denial in some, about the perils of raw materialism.

[Matariki]

92. What's a riot to watch is knee jerk reactions to particular words

without actually considering what is being said. but, oh well.

[KonaKane]

121. No doubt. The irony is.....

this knee jerk reaction is coming from the same people who continually laud the triumph of objective, reasoned and skeptical analysis.

Who knew.

[ZombieHorde]

109. G. W. Bush is a Christian.

The vast majority to all of the Teabaggers are Christian.

The problem is not with materialists.

[KonaKane]

124. And Stalin was a materialist. So what?

Ideas dont kill people. People kill people.

[ZombieHorde]

127. If you believe "Ideas dont kill people. People kill people,"

then why are you concerned about materialism?

[BurtWorm]

114. Materialism does not equal science.

He's singling out science (the quest for objective knowledge of the world) for blame. This is misguided and wrong-headed. Also very easy, simplistic and narrow-minded.

[Codeine]

72. He hit on all the woo high points, didn't he?

A veritable Greatest Hits for the blissfully ignorant.

[Stevenmarc]

76. Charles thanks for sharing but aren't you late for a ribbon cutting at Tesco's

[GoneOffShore]

79. He'd be homeopathetically cutting the ribbon anyway.

Which would be a shadow of its former self.

[and-justice-for-all]

90. Luckily his opinion does not mean jack shit...

never knew he was such a tool.

[JackRiddler]

93. Anyway, I predict he's not the future monarch.

His mother will outlive him by a year or two and Harry will succeed. Queen Mom made 105, remember?

[hyphenate]

97. I don't think I would have blamed it on Galileo

but I think he does have a point. Earth HAS become, to many, an object for awhile, as some people can't make the distinction between the science and the art of the world, and what lies beyond our world.

As a result, many people just don't have the objectivity to realize that, yeah, while our world is only one of many billions, none of that means anything if we destroy our planet, because we simply don't have the ability to reach another one of those worlds, probably not for many, many years.

Adlai Stevenson once wrote, “We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil, all committed, for our safety, to its security and peace. Preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work and the love we give our fragile craft.”

That pretty much sums up what we REALLY need to be doing, and which nobody can remember two minutes later. In that sense, Charles is right--people in this world would rather let our population grow to the point of unsustainability than to take the responsibility of our caretaking job seriously and to heart.

[Jamastiene]

99. I don't think he's bashing science, but rather the way science is often used.

At least, that is how I read it. :shrug:

[Toucano]

100. Lay off Galileo!

I think my bias is evident.

:)

[FedUpWithIt All]

101. One does not have to even believe in the "soul" to understand interconnectedness.

The concept of the soul can be seen as the spark of true life. The energy that runs through everything. The thing that connects us to all that is around us.

Viewing everything with the same patience, protection, compassion, love, hope, encouragement that you would a most precious loved one allows no room for behavior that devalues.

Individuals must decide that positive action is valuable even if the results cannot be seen or felt and regardless of the actions (positive or negative) of others. Actions have consequences. We would all benefit, even in countless inconceivable ways, from the "positive" momentum of increasing numbers of individuals.

Exploitation hurts us all. Those who do not see their connection to the things around them are the most likely to exploit.

[LeftishBrit]

102. Arrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhh!

Fortunately, nowadays the British monarch is just, as someone put it, an overpaid model for a postage stamp. Nonetheless, some people will listen to him; and his views do reflect those of a certain section of British opinion. We do have a sort of Religious Right, though it is much, much smaller than yours - but still too influential; and it tends to take the form, not of 'You Are All Going to Hell and We Will be Raptured', but 'Secularism and Modern Science and Medicine have a Dangerous Effect on Society.'

ETA: I do admire Charles' work on behalf of the rainforests. However, the older and nearer to the throne he gets, the more he finds it necessary to pronounce on the state of society. And, especially from a person who has never had to live in the 'real world', this can be quite exasperating.

[Ichingcarpenter]

106. I forget.... which Nazi lover is this son of Prince Charles?

The overt one or the covert one.

You do know that they are fascists and race mongers?

[tritsofme]

120. Someone has a little too much time on their hands. Pass that Chucky

it's some good shit.

[earth mom]

129. I agree with him. Science has paved the way for exploitation and destruction of OUR planet.

And we're at the breaking point.

The gusher in the Gulf is evidence that we have gone too far and are out of touch with our planet and ourselves.

You can see the evidence of how out of touch by several posts on this thread!

[BurtWorm]

131. On the contrary, scientists were warning the government and the corporation not to drill there

and the government (the Christian theocrats and demi-fascists of the Bush administration) and BP refused to listen. It is completely misguided (false, simplistic, unjust) to blame science for the fault of right-wing Christians and businessmen.