The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased 0.01-2% in 100 years. The hysterical claims of the green lobby are unable to mobilise physical science to use this fact to explain the Global warming that exists. — charleton

Been working on a logical argument, but it may be too convoluted to be taken seriously:

P1: Greenhouse gases keep sunlight-produced warmth from dissipating into outer space. (T/F)
P2: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (T/F)
P3: Humans require fire in order to comfortably live (such as in the cooking of meat). (T/F)
P4: Fire releases CO2 into the atmosphere. (T/F)
P5: Human populace has grown almost exponentially in the last few hundred years. (T/F)
C: (all other things such as forest depletion and fossil fuel issues aside (these ought not be addressed for the make fat cats rich)) Therefore, humans have contributed to there being more greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, aka to global warming. (T/F)

I take all these to be true. But if I’m missing something here, what would that be?

Oh, science is never about absolute proof, most of all because it’s empirical and thereby inescapably inductive. Therefore, in order not to doubt human caused global warming when those with great monetary influence tell us to, what is missing is a demonstrated infallible certainty that all these premises are so. Back to the drawing board of philosophical enquiry as regards infallibity [… unless people don’t need extensive evidencing for that which is obvious: our planet is in big trouble as far as life goes, as in the mass global extinction we’re right now living through].

Ok, I’m all sarcasmed out for the day :meh:

... may anyone feel free to strengthen this argument if you think it might in any way help



thanks. When it comes to taking care of people's basic needs before expecting most to care about other things, I again concur.

This fact is all you need to know about Global Warming.
Facts 5: Loss of forests contributes between 12 percent and 17 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. (World Resources Institute)
if we could preserves what we have, and recover what we have lost, there is no amount of CO2 we could throw into the atmosphere that trees could not rebalance.

Sadly the same web page that gave you that fact fails to see the moronic irony of their last fact.

Fact 51: Seek knowledge on deforestation and how can you prevent it from happening by reading newspapers, magazines, internet, TV shows. Spread the word and make it go viral.

How about STOP buying newspapers and magazines?

I take all these to be true. But if I’m missing something here, what would that be? — javra

A sense of proportion!!
Co2 has proportionately been 100s times higher in prehistoric times.
These days there is only a trace amount of Co2, and the carrying capacity of 0.041% is not significantly greater than 0.035% as it was 100 years ago.
However. Plants have the ability to respond to higher concentrations of Co2 up to a full 1% by taken in the carbon and making cellulose and lignin. Hence my comment about TREES.

A sense of proportion!! — charleton

This comes with things such as 6.5 of the global GDP being spent on subsidizing fossil fuels. ... and the rather fight-on-your-own attitude toward renewable energies, in terms of both implementation and research (e.g., turns out Tesla isn't going to make a renewable energy grid in Puerto Rico after all, thought hey offered)

But by all means, I'm all for re-foresting the planet.

Certainly one of the tasks [of somebody -- philosophers, ecologists, science fiction truth tellers...) is to show us fish that we are swimming in water - only in our case, not water but an ecology which is tough and durable but not indestructible.

It isn't just city dwellers whose senses are tuned to the built environment; a lot of rural agriculturists don't see their land, plant crops, and animals as part of an ecology either. They see it as a means to the end of making a living, or if they are corporate farmers, to making a good deal more money than a mere living.

That the ugly slop in the gutter IS IN the ecology we live in, as is the can of 2,4,D, Roundup, DDT, Diazinon, and old motor oil sinking into the ground where somebody dumped it (certainly not us; it must have been the neighbors) or the plastic bags drifting down the street--all that IS NOT OUTSIDE of ecology is an inconvenient truth.

It's not our business to resolve such conflicts at all, if we even need to conceive it as a conflict. Insects have a right to live, (but not in my hair) and bats also have a right to live, and bats eat insects, so they both need insects to thrive. — unenlightened

This is missing the point, I'm not suggesting that it is our business to resolve such conflicts, I'm suggesting that is a logical conclusion that follows from a sense that nature/animals, have rights and that we should speak for them in some sort of negotiation. We cannot consider nature or animals to have rights in the same way humans do because species kill each other for food/territory. If an animal has a categorical right not to be killed by us just for food/territory, then how does it not have a right not to be killed by it's natural predator/competitor for food/territory?

Insects cannot have a right to live (or at least not one that is acknowledged species-wide, otherwise bats would not be allowed to kill them for food. That's what I meant by the analogy of gutting a rabbit which is not met by your reference to mangoes. Nature is not about rights, it's a competition for resources. There are two main paths to survive the competition, be strongest or co-operate. The problems we face in terms of environmental degradation are entirely the result of us presuming there is only the former, in order to undo the damage we must develop the latter. What I find unpleasant about the deep ecology movement is it focusses only on the former. It implies we've won the competition, we've beaten nature and now we have to teach people to love it so that they look after it in a condescending paternal way. But we cannot win this battle we've set ourselves up for, we must either learn to co-operate or die, it doesn't matter if everyone on earth does so through gritted teeth hating every minute of it, it is simply a necessity of the natural world.

These days there is only a trace amount of Co2, and the carrying capacity of 0.041% is not significantly greater than 0.035% as it was 100 years ago. — charleton

Your numbers are off. When the Keeling Curve begins, in 1957, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 315ppm and now it is 410ppm. That's a 30% increase in just 61 years. It's likely larger now than it has been over the last several million years, and it's still rising about 1% more every two years.

Here's an interesting graph that shows how the Earth's temperature has changed over time.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased 0.01-2% in 100 years. — charleton

These days there is only a trace amount of Co2, and the carrying capacity of 0.041% is not significantly greater than 0.035% as it was 100 years ago. — charleton

That's an increase of 17.14%.

I'm no statistician, but I'm pretty sure describing the % change in terms of the absolute difference between two figures is misleading.

For example, if 10% of people voted last year and 20% of people voted this year, that's described as an increase of 100%, not 10%.

Insects cannot have a right to live (or at least not one that is acknowledged species-wide, otherwise bats would not be allowed to kill them for food. That's what I meant by the analogy of gutting a rabbit which is not met by your reference to mangoes. Nature is not about rights, it's a competition for resources. There are two main paths to survive the competition, be strongest or co-operate. The problems we face in terms of environmental degradation are entirely the result of us presuming there is only the former, in order to undo the damage we must develop the latter. What I find unpleasant about the deep ecology movement is it focusses only on the former. It implies we've won the competition, we've beaten nature and now we have to teach people to love it so that they look after it in a condescending paternal way. But we cannot win this battle we've set ourselves up for, we must either learn to co-operate or die, it doesn't matter if everyone on earth does so through gritted teeth hating every minute of it, it is simply a necessity of the natural world. — Pseudonym

Humans don't have a right to live. They all die. I think you are strawmannirg Deep Ecology, and perhaps uncharitably reading my own loose comments. where in the principles of Deep Ecology do you find the unpleasant focus you complain of?

The Platform Principles of the Deep Ecology Movement

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realizations of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation to directly or indirectly try to implement the necessary changes.

Your numbers are off. When the Keeling Curve begins, in 1957, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 315ppm and now it is 410ppm. That's a 30% increase in just 61 years. It's likely larger now than it has been over the last several million years, and it's still rising about 1% more every two years. — Pierre-Normand

Modern measurements whilst they represent modern concentrations are not directly comparable with historical data. comparing your number my figures are accurate.
25-30% increase of nothing is next to nothing.
Since Co2 only accounts for a tiny bit of global temperature in the first place why quibble over this since we our atmosphere did not boil away into space when it was a Jurassic 10,000ppm. GW needs something more sophisticated than Co2 to account for any rises.

Co2 is a political tool. The real issues are extinction, drop in species diversity, deforestation, the pollution of the oceans and lack of conservation of natural environments.

For example, if 10% of people voted last year and 20% of people voted this year, that's described as an increase of 100%, not 10%. — Michael

If 10 people had voted for Trump in the year before the election, and only 100 in the election year, Trump would not be President, despite getting an increase of 1000%.

The reason the absolute numbers are important is that we do not know what role a trace chemical can play in the temperature.

Can you all please go and discuss global warming somewhere else. My topic is Ecophilosophy, and you are getting in the way.

where in the principles of Deep Ecology do you find the unpleasant focus you complain of? — unenlightened

It's this bit

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

That there is a 'value' to non-human life beyond its utility to us I find deeply problematic.

1. It is an assertion that itself goes against the very nature it is attempting to protect which I find uncomfortably anthropocentric. Utility is at the heart of all natural ecosystems, it is how they evolved and the reason for their existence, it is not something to be given second place to some esoteric, deeply human cultural attitude.

2. It is technically impossible for two competing life forms to both 'flourish'. Natural selection ensures that varieties which do not flourish of their own accord die out. If the well-being and flourishing of all life forms has an intrinsic value then nature does not respect that value. Again humans are set up as being somehow above nature in that we can care for it in a way that it does not for itself.

3. It is an appeal to emotion which is unlikely to work. Where action is needed right now, we cannot afford to persue such routes. The natural environment is worth trillions if properly costed, without its proper functioning we will be wiped out as a species. These are languages which the current social zeitgeist already understands, by talk of human superiority undermines the message.

Basically, utility is not a bad thing, it's what nature is built on, it's the reason why ecosystems are so beautifully efficient, it should be celebrated and taught. Deep ecology seems to want to do the opposite.

That there is a 'value' to non-human life beyond its utility to us I find deeply problematic. — Pseudonym

Good. I think Deep Ecology is deeply problematic for the current world view, as I indicated in the op. So we are in the right snake pit at last.

Utility is at the heart of all natural ecosystems, it is how they evolved and the reason for their existence, it is not something to be given second place to some esoteric, deeply human cultural attitude. — Pseudonym

I don't think I have to disagree much with this. Wheat has utilitarian value for humans, and insects for bats. But to have utility is already to have second place to the purpose for which they are used, which you would probably call survival. And wheat and insects have their own needs for their own survival too. So to say that bats need insects, and their survival (can I use flourishing?) is dependent on the survival of insects, and therefore is endangered by the excessive use of insecticides is not to indulge in anthropocentric, esoteric human cultural attitudes. It is the way it is.

It is technically impossible for two competing life forms to both 'flourish'. Natural selection ensures that varieties which do not flourish of their own accord die out. — Pseudonym

Well if this is true, then bats are not competing with insects, and in general, predators are not competing with prey. It sets a very tight limit on competition and directs evolution towards specialisation that avoids competition. It suggests that for humans to set themselves up as in competition with nature is a very dangerous thing to do for our own survival. If Dutch Elm disease, in utilising Elms destroys them, it cannot itself survive.

It is an appeal to emotion which is unlikely to work. Where action is needed right now, we cannot afford to persue such routes. The natural environment is worth trillions if properly costed, without its proper functioning we will be wiped out as a species. These are languages which the current social zeitgeist already understands, by talk of human superiority undermines the message. — Pseudonym

Well this is anthropocentric to an extreme. "Trillions of insects?", asks the bat. If the zeitgeist understands and 'properly costs' the environment, then how is it that insect populations are in steep decline, bird populations are in steep decline, the oceans are full of plastic, fish stocks are in steep decline, and so on and on and on.

So to say that bats need insects, and their survival (can I use flourishing?) is dependent on the survival of insects, and therefore is endangered by the excessive use of insecticides is not to indulge in anthropocentric, esoteric human cultural attitudes. It is the way it is. — unenlightened

Yes, but what of the insects? Do they need bats? Maybe you could argue that they need bats to control their numbers so that they don't succumb to disease, but then do the diseases need bats? Either the insects or the diseases are going to be better off (flourish) without the bats. Nature abhors a vacuum. What about the bacteria currently evolving to live off our pollutants, do they not deserve to flourish?

Well if this is true, then bats are not competing with insects, and in general, predators are not competing with prey. — unenlightened

I'm referring here to the constant process of extinction by which natural selection acts, not the predator prey relationship. Predators and prey do not actually compete with one another in an ecological sense. Two identical predators hunting the same prey compete. One slight variation in one organism and one of them must either find a new niche or die out.

If the zeitgeist understands and 'properly costs' the environment, then how is it that insect populations are in steep decline, bird populations are in steep decline, the oceans are full of plastic, fish stocks are in steep decline, and so on and on and on. — unenlightened

The problem is the zeitgeist does not understand the value of the ecosystem it's in. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's not that we treat nature as 'just' what is useful to us, it's that we don't treat it enough that way. We falsely presume nature's utility is as an inexhaustible supply of raw materials and forget that it is neither inexhaustible nor limited to supplying us with raw materials.

Yes, but what of the insects? Do they need bats? Maybe you could argue that they need bats to control their numbers so that they don't succumb to disease, but then do the diseases need bats? Either the insects or the diseases are going to be better off (flourish) without the bats. Nature abhors a vacuum. What about the bacteria currently evolving to live off our pollutants, do they not deserve to flourish? — Pseudonym

I'm not sure what your point is. There is a hierarchy of dependency such that the top predators are the most dependent. On the other hand, I compete directly with the slugs for my lettuces. Diseases are dependent on their host, predators on their prey, plants on soil and sunlight and rainfall. Dependency is opposed to competition, and everything has dependency. An ecosystem consisting of bacteria and pollutants is an impoverished ecosystem; a flourishing ecosystem is complex, diverse, resilient adaptable. You seem to be arguing that everything is natural by definition and therefore anything is of equal value?

We falsely presume nature's utility is as an inexhaustible supply of raw materials and forget that it is neither inexhaustible nor limited to supplying us with raw materials. — Pseudonym

Again, I find little to dis agree with, except that "...nor limited to supplying us with raw materials." seems to contradict "It's not that we treat nature as 'just' what is useful to us, it's that we don't treat it enough that way." The former seems to imply that much of what nature is doing is sustaining itself as a complex system and that if those needs, which are not apparently our needs are not fulfilled then it will become apparent that they were after all indirectly our needs. Rather as leopards are not much concerned about grass, but depend on gazelles that depend on grass. It is fortunate for leopards that they do not have access to herbicides, and unfortunate for humans that they do not understand their own dependencies.

I'm not sure what your point is. — unenlightened

The point is not everything can flourish. Potential new species are evolving all the time and if cannot find a niche to exploit (or outcompete a species already there) then they will die out. Expressing our relationship with nature as a duty towards the flourishing of all species we would become obliged to stop evolution by natural selection. Your still only looking at ecosystems as static things and they're not, components naturally come and go in response to environmental changes, we can't become obliged to step in and prevent this.

An ecosystem consisting of bacteria and pollutants is an impoverished ecosystem — unenlightened

Desert ecosystems are impoverished compared to tropical rainforest, native woodland is impoverished compared to meadows; are we obliged then to turn one into the other?

a flourishing ecosystem is complex, diverse, resilient adaptable. — unenlightened

An ecosystem is resilient and adaptable mainly by natural selection killing off those components which no longer suit the new conditions, this is a process directly opposed to the 'flourishing' of individual species.

Again, I find little to dis agree with, except that "...nor limited to supplying us with raw materials." seems to contradict "It's not that we treat nature as 'just' what is useful to us, it's that we don't treat it enough that way." — unenlightened

I simply mean that raw materials are not the only assets nature can supply us. There's tranquility, beauty, a sense of place, the satisfaction of million year old instinct. But it must be as we expect it to be to supply these things. A polluted lake full of oil-consuming bacteria won't do the job, no matter how much the bacteria are 'flourishing'.

Can you all please go and discuss global warming somewhere else. My topic is Ecophilosophy, and you are getting in the way. — unenlightened

Obviously they are completely unconnected.

The point is not everything can flourish. — Pseudonym

Ok.

Your still only looking at ecosystems as static things and they're not, components naturally come and go in response to environmental changes, we can't become obliged to step in and prevent this. — Pseudonym

Ok.

Desert ecosystems are impoverished compared to tropical rainforest, native woodland is impoverished compared to meadows; are we obliged then to turn one into the other? — Pseudonym

I don't think we are obliged, but a bit of desert irrigation and amelioration of desertification might be a reasonable policy in some places, and not in others.

I simply mean that raw materials are not the only assets nature can supply us. There's tranquility, beauty, a sense of place, the satisfaction of million year old instinct. But it must be as we expect it to be to supply these things. A polluted lake full of oil-consuming bacteria won't do the job, no matter how much the bacteria are 'flourishing'. — Pseudonym

Right, I misunderstood, and this is the dispute we have; that you take man as the 'measure of all things' (at least all things ethical and aesthetic). I'm not sure if this is the place to go further on this; we seem to have traced the difficulty back to level 1 in Naess's scheme. Perhaps we should pause for breath at least, before I try and convert you to a 'more religious' view.

Modern measurements whilst they represent modern concentrations are not directly comparable with historical data. — charleton

They are accurate enough. I am going to abide by @unenlightened's request, though. So, if you want to know why CO2 is important, you can post this again in this thread. I'll then reply over-there.

They are accurate enough. I am going to abide by unenlightened's request, though. So, if you want to know why CO2 is important, you can post this again in this thread. I'll then reply over-there. — Pierre-Normand

Historical data is gathered by completely different means.
The scandal of the hockey stick was due to this problem. Estimated as the probably Co2 concentrations of ancient atmospheres were gleaned through ice-core analysis, and put on the same graph as direct measurements with modern equipment of actual atmospheric air.
Date gained 150 years ago used completely different methods of estimation. Since Co2 fluctuates wildly depending on where on the earth you gather it, the tiny differnce you picked me up on it absurdly insignificant.

So, if you want to know why CO2 is important — Pierre-Normand

Being patronising will not help your (ahem!) "argument" I knew Co2 was a greenhouse gas when you were in your nappies.

This is the topic of one of the books I have not written.

But at least I have the sketch of the book ready. I've written it many years ago. It goes like this, from memory:

1. Natural resources (bear with me for a while here, this sketch is quite old, and it takes for granted some terminology that fell out of favor since) are very often mismanaged.
2. Their mismanagement has terrible consequences (both short run and long run).
3. The consequences can be fairly understood as the "externalization of costs and benefits". (Insert longish explanation here if this is not clear -- it is an economics concept).
3.1. (As regards the OP): the externalization is usually conceived as pertaining to human subjects, but there is no intrinsic obstacle to extending the notion to non-human subjects.
4. The general framework that fosters these externalizations is the "Tragedy of the Commons" (Hardin, 1968; google it if you haven't heard about it).

So far this has all been more descriptive than prescriptive. But the prescription starts here:

5. We have, now (this was in 1998, more or less -- of course the situation is much improved since then), the technical means to enable valuation and to produce accurate estimates of the externalized costs and benefits in many commonplace situations. My example back then (in tune with my career specialization) was water use issues. It is child's play (theoretically) to estimate the cost of (a) cleaning up a polluted water body on an on-going basis and (b) prevention of pollution in the first place (e.g., by sewage treatment facilities). It is then easy to compare the two costs; and if reality is following the more expensive cost, it is, obviously, because some parties, without a say in the decision-making process, are bearing the brunt of these costs.

5.1. The situation is not so easy in other contexts. How much is a species of insect worth? What kind of ecosystem services is it involved with, and what is the value derived from them? Etc. (Note that here I was skipping the ethical problem of "who are we to put a price tag on another species", but this can be dealt with separately).

6. So, the strategy for better dealings with the environment becomes clear:

a. Reduce, as much as possible, externalizations. In other words, people who are responsible for X must pay the costs for X; people who benefit from X must be responsible for X.
b. When externalisation is (still) inevitable due to technical shortcomings of our engineering and scientific practices, act as if it could be reduced by the individual. This is an ethical imperative. People must increase their awareness of costs and benefits derived from their surroundings. Costs and benefits are not solely (or even mostly) economical in nature; the pleasure from a waterfall, the feeling of wellbeing from a well-preserved urban forest, etc. If you are aware of some benefit accruing to you, take responsibility for it. If you are aware of some cost imposed by your activities, try to pay for it. Summing up, if you are an agent (negative or positive) of externalization, be aware of it, and adjust your behavior so as to minimize externalization.

6b may sound utopic, but I don't think it is (and I strive to practice it in my own life). It is more a matter of awareness than of calculus or anything more utilitarian in nature.

1. Natural resources (bear with me for a while here, this sketch is quite old, and it takes for granted some terminology that fell out of favor since) are very often mismanaged. — Mariner

Nice to have you aboard. Allow me to jump down your throat from the get go. Is there inevitably a potential management that is not mis-management? Or is it possible that there are places and resources that we should leave alone - that do not belong to us in the first place? Places that belong to the wild.

It turns out that there is nowhere on the planet that does not suffer from the externalised costs of our mismanagement, to use your language; nowhere that is not already polluted with our waste. And there is nowhere where we do not claim the right to roam, and the right to manage and mis-manage.

Nowhere, including ourselves. We cannot manage ourselves, though we are the first and most accessible natural resource. But we quite rightly do not wish to consider ourselves in that frame at all, though some of us are willing to treat others as resources. It's not that I disagree with your diagnosis and remedy, so much as I think it is - that word again - symptom management, rather than a cure.

We have externalised ourselves from the nature we manage and mis-manage, and our management of nature is then always in relation to our (unnatural) selves. To relate it to the conversation above, if man is the measure of all things, there can be no ethics, because ethics is the measure of man. One is left with a pragmatic, managerial, prudential ethic of convenience. And that is how we arrived at this point in the first place.

Management is, by design, an instrument of domination. Is that what you are driving at?

If it is, I agree, but with a shrug. It is inevitable that we should manage stuff (including ourselves). Given that, we must pick among methods of management (noting, all the time, that we are automatically dominating the objects of our management efforts); and the choice is neither trivial nor disconnected from the consequences of our acts.

(By the way, leaving places and resources alone is still management -- at least, and this is quite difficult, management of the human beings who disagree with this goal).

...the externalised costs of our mismanagement... — unenlightened

Note also that while the imagination immediately runs to costs in this discussion, externalization of benefits is also very harmful. Free riders (people who benefit from X without feeling responsible for it) are probably the main obstacle in the way of environmental awareness.

I refuse to shrug.

(By the way, leaving places and resources alone is still management -- at least, and this is quite difficult, management of the human beings who disagree with this goal). — Mariner

Management of management, all is management! Or should that be vanity?

By acknowledging that we are a part of something so much vaster and more inscrutable than ourselves – by affirming that our own life is entirely continuous with the life of the rivers and the forests, that our intelligence is entangled with the wild intelligence of wolves and of wetlands, that our breathing bodies are simply our part of the exuberant flesh of the Earth — deep ecology, or rather, Depth Ecology opens a new (and perhaps also very old) sense of the sacred. It brings the sacred down to Earth, exposing the clearcuts and the dams and the spreading extinctions as a horrific sacrilege, making us pause in the face of biotechnology and other intensely manipulative initiatives that stem from a flat view of the world. Depth Ecology opens a profoundly immanent experience of the Holy precisely as the many-voiced land that carnally enfolds us – a mystery at once palpable, sensuous, and greatly in need of our attentive participation.

David Abram
103
The Trumpeter
ISSN: 0832-6193 Volume 30, Number 2 (2014)

Perhaps pagan Nature worship is not to your taste, yet there must be some connection surely or some reflection at least, between God and His creation? I'm surprised your approach is so resolutely mundane.

I refuse to shrug. — unenlightened

I shrug at the realization that management assumes a dominating position; not at the task of management itself.

As for the religious aspect, note that management can be replaced with "stewardship", an old Christian notion, with no loss. (That non-written book precedes my conversion ;)).

To use a concrete, relatable example: your excerpt mentions dams. Dams can be big or small. They can be much more eco-friendly than a farm, and also incredibly destructive. No one can be "for dams", but it is also silly to be "against dams". The analysis must consider the costs and benefits of dams and their alternatives.

It is not so sublime to see people dying of easily preventable diseases because they don't have access to clean (or, cleaner) energies; or to see that they lack good quality drinking water at critical periods of the year, for themselves, their livestock, and their farms. Yet these would be predictable results of any absolute "ban on dams".

As for the religious aspect, note that management can be replaced with "stewardship", an old Christian notion, with no loss. — Mariner

I wonder about that. I see the connection, for sure, and it is certainly claimed that the idea of stewardship can lead one to the principles of deep ecology. And I can see in the monastic tradition - the little I know of it - that at it's best it is a model of good stewardship and living in harmony with the natural world.

But I see also the rather less edifying connection to my own experience of management that has reverence only for the bottom line. This is perhaps what happens to the steward sometimes when the proprietor is absent for a long time; he comes to think he is the proprietor. There seems to be a vast difference between a steward on behalf of God of His whole creation, and a steward on behalf of the Shareholder (a being quite as dubious of existence), who seems to have little concern for the welfare of his property, but much, curiously, for His stewards.

And this is where I want to take a stand, for human stewardship and against human proprietorship. It's not an argument against management as such, but against management become ownership.

It is not so sublime to see people dying of easily preventable diseases because they don't have access to clean (or, cleaner) energies; or to see that they lack good quality drinking water at critical periods of the year, for themselves, their livestock, and their farms. Yet these would be predictable results of any absolute "ban on dams". — Mariner

Yes, such absolutes are ridiculous and offensive. I think one can have a principled preference for small interventions over large, but even there, economies of scale may dictate otherwise. There is a proposal locally for a huge tidal lagoon that would provide flooding defence and power generation; a twenty mile dam in the sea. A huge intervention in the environment that wants careful thinking and management on behalf of the marine, coastal, and human environments. Are we doing cost benefit analyses on behalf of the whole, or just on behalf of ourselves? That is the question that sorts the stewards from the mere managers.