« Why can't we unstir our coffee? | Main | Religion and Science were seen as allies not too long ago »

November 06, 2009

Comments

I know, we could create a new schism based on willingness to bless or not bless papaya trees!

In a program I recently saw on PBS called "The Botany of Desire based on the book by Michael Pollan they discuss the way plants have used a strategy of adapting traits that humans desire to survive. It looks at how plants have used the human desire for sweet taste, beauty, chemical highs and others to entice humans into helping them thrive and to be propagted to new areas. It compares human activity to a bee that thinks it is getting the best of a relationship from a flower when it gets the nectar. In reality the flower produces the nectar to allow for the plant to pollinate and survive. The papaya story is another example that demonstrates how humans are just one more factor in evolution and not outside of it.

Thinking of myself as participant in evolution and not an outside uninvolved observer certainly makes me wonder about the world we are helping to create for God. We are not just occasionally stepping in to pass some law to influence the survival of a species but making choices from the food we select at the grocery, the flowers we put in our yards and the way we chose to celebrate that will determine what the plant and animal world our children inherit will look like.

There's actually a huge agricultural research program on sheep for analogous reasons. Seems that a substantial fraction of rams (upwards of 8%) are homosexual, and a similar fraction are asexual. Quite a cost for sheep farmers who tend to have one ram for a flock of ewes.

Following up on Robert's point... I once heard Rush Limbaugh absolve human beings of any complicity for anthropogenic global warming because, as he pointed out, all global warming must be of natural causes. Because human beings are part of nature.

So I'm wondering if those who make the argument that the world needs to be clearly divided into either/or categories because that is what is natural (as the Roman Catholic Church seems to be formally arguing these days) might be challenged by the "natural" selection which is leading to larger numbers of third or intersexed genders in nature. (In addition the the sheep that IT mentions, there is the question of the date palm as well according to a commentator over on the facebook version of this post, and I'm sure there are more.)

I've been concerned that we tend to do ethics by relying to heavily on binary thinking. Maybe we're seeing a definitive counter-example?

Given the array of sexual differentiation (and not) possibilities in nature, I still remain astounded that we act stunned that human beings might also be more complex than simplistic binaries of the romanticized sort that is floating around in Christian circles. What is even more astounding are assertions of complementarity that posit romanticized difference when Gen. 2 says just the opposite. Male and female are not opposites that complement one another, but similars that supplement one another. And any observer of real persons knows that the qualities we associate with the "pure type" of each are on a multivalent scale.

Irrespective of the diversity among human beings in this regard, we are of one flesh, and that requires thinking that ethics apply with equity across the board. As it is, we apply double-standards of ethics depending on the composition of pairs among humans. We cannot locate ethics in the composition, but in the virtues we desire to see born out irrespective of that pair composition. Otherwise, we end up with idols.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    FYI