Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Global Warming Kills Your God

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–54 of 54 posts

Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God

#51

Post by crusso »

ewzimm wrote: post #49
crusso wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing There isn't a homosapien alive whose ancestors' people weren't subjected to some sort of brutality. Either the rules should apply to everyone or they should apply to no one. Carving up perpetual special classes in any society will always serve to divide that society and promote dysfunction.

This is not about ancestors or special classes. A lot of people seem to be missing the fact that most indigenous tribes are sovereign nations with their own laws and government which have existed since long before the U.S.A. This is why we have casinos on tribal lands while they are banned elsewhere. The laws are different. Treaties with these people are the only reason the U.S.A. even exists, although they are regul…

I was responding to my parent poster's argument, not yours.

If this particular case is about national sovereignty of indigenous tribes, why is the ACLU mounting a first amendment religious protection defense?

Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God

#52

Post by locopati »

maaku wrote: post #41
dreamweapon wrote: post #31

I was hoping the title would refer to, you know, our tacit "God": our unrelenting faith in gratification through material consumption; essentially unbounded and ever-accelerating growth; and the idea that we can safely ignore any non-human impact this pursuit of "happiness" may have (or for that matter, to future human generations).

What does consumerism have to do with religion and spirituality? Seriously, what's the non-hyperbolic connection?

What is religion if not one means to address the suffering we encounter in life? (finding meaning and purpose, existing in a community of shared beliefs and goals, encountering illness and death, etc.)

What is consumerism if not another means to the same thing? (if I obtain these material things - a house, a car, a family - I will be happy, I will not suffer)

Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God

#53

Post by lutusp »

maaku wrote: post #41
dreamweapon wrote: post #31

I was hoping the title would refer to, you know, our tacit "God": our unrelenting faith in gratification through material consumption; essentially unbounded and ever-accelerating growth; and the idea that we can safely ignore any non-human impact this pursuit of "happiness" may have (or for that matter, to future human generations).

What does consumerism have to do with religion and spirituality? Seriously, what's the non-hyperbolic connection?

Both provide faux meanings, pretend structures, to people with empty lives. Speaking non-hyperbolically, of course.

If you're a believer, you're a better person than a nonbeliever. If you're a consumer, you're supporting economic growth and the American Way, even if you live in Burkina Faso.

Re: When Global Warming Kills Your God

#54

Post by ggchappell »

fineIllregister wrote: post #33
ggchappell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a couple of problems with this kind of argument. First, do we really want to have different laws for different races? (Aside from the moral issue, that's explicitly unconstitutional in Alaska.) Note that I'm talking about the fishing limits here. You mentioned forced settlement, which is, of course, a reprehensible thing. It is also a case of enforcing the law differently for different ethnic groups. Second…

>First, do we really want to have different laws for different races? It's not about having different laws for different races. This is about different nations having different laws. The political relationship between the United States and the indigenous peoples of the Americas is much different than the relationship between the US and its citizens. It's more akin to asking if we want different laws for people in Can…

Ah, I see where you're coming from.

I think there is some merit to that point of view. However, from a strictly legal standpoint, it seems to be a bit outdated. Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship in 1924 by the Indian Citizenship Act.[1]

Also, since we're dealing with Alaska here: Alaska Natives are dealt with under a different legal framework than that used with natives in the continental U.S. Because of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act[2], I believe that Alaska Natives are not considered citizens of tribal nations, but rather shareholders in territory-based corporations.

TL;DR: It's complicated. :-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlemen...

Post reply on HN