Congratulations to Shaul Goldstein, the new chairman of the Nature Reserves and Gardens Authority. As someone who holds the issue close to his heart, I have some questions
Congratulations to the new chairman of the Nature Reserves and Gardens Authority. As someone who holds the issue close to his heart, and since I do not know Shaul Goldstein, I looked for details and came across an interview with him that was published in the newspaper.the land".
From the interview, from his answers to questions and his independent statements - it was possible to understand that he is the right man to head one of the authorities that I think is one of the most important. As the interview shows, his reference to the authority's role, the need to supervise and preserve the natural and heritage sites, and the cooperation with green (voluntary) bodies - encourages and raises hope for the improvement of the RTG's functioning.
The image that is painted from the interview in "Haaretz" is definitely positive and one gets the impression that the man is suitable for the job, until I reached the last paragraphs of the interview. The second paragraph that made me doubt Shaul's suitability for the position was "Near my house in Gush Etzion there used to be deer and today there are none" one can only hope that this was a mistake by the interviewee since in the last hundreds of years there were no deer in Gush Etzion, perhaps the reference is to deer? But again, it could be an innocent mistake.
The first paragraph that caused me to doubt its appropriateness, or rather convinced me of its inappropriateness, was: "Man is the crown of creation, nature should not be conquered by him but he should be used by him, he should serve man but he should remain nature, man should use nature in its proper way , without distorting it."
Mr. new chairman, whoever considers himself the "treasure of creation" is not fit to protect nature. For your information, man is part of nature and the environment and has evolved as one of thousands of other species. By virtue of your new role, you are obligated (by law) to protect the species, the environment and nature from the "crown of creation". Those who think that nature is meant to be used cannot preserve it, even if they think that the use "should be in the right way".
Those who think that the purpose of nature is to "serve man" do not understand the concept of nature conservation since, Mr. Chairman, your role (by law) is to preserve nature, not to check how nature can serve you. But more than that, whoever mentions the preservation of nature, nature and the concept of creation in the same sentence probably does not understand the concept of nature, since "creation" is a substitute concept for "intelligent planning" and both are based on nonsense. And those who believe in nonsense will not be able to fulfill the role of the guardian of nature.
Our "close friend" (the USA) is proposing laws that would prevent evolution studies (and science in general). We don't need this, since anyway a significant percentage of the students in our schools are engaged in "ignorant" studies. We have long had a "Chief Scientist" who opposed the mention of evolution in classrooms, now we will also have a "Chief Conservationist" who believes in the absurdities of "Creation" and the "Nazar of Creation", Hallelujah!
Since, as I wrote, a positive picture emerges from the entire interview, one can only hope that the mentioned paragraphs were said only to please the community from which the new chairman came, because if the words were said out of "faith" woe to us and woe to our environment.
14 תגובות
The law of nature against the yoke of creation
who will win?
Dear readers and commenters,
As written in the entire article the general impression is positive and as written in the last paragraph
It is to be hoped that the expressions are only for the needs of a certain audience as I also season my words with expressions
Like "Hallelujah", "Inshala" and the like, but when I do it it's clear to everyone
Because these are just "empty" expressions, when there is faith behind the expressions.... there is a problem,
Because again, everyone should know - the authority's role according to law is to protect nature,
The law was enacted and implemented for one and only purpose - to preserve nature, not to use it!
The authority's role is to protect nature also from anyone who wants to "use it"!
The need for the law, the need to preserve nature, stems (solely) from the activity of the "Town of Creation",
Without the negative activity of the "treasure of creation" there would be no need for either law or permission!
I hoped and am still waiting for a response from the new CEO's office....
As I wrote above, for the time being... Yuck!
I'm afraid that the writer searched very hard to find fault with the CEO's words, and when you search, you find and take care of trivial matters:
1. In the matter of the "turban of creation" - Rabak, this is a phrase! And besides, a person who believes in God can't be a conservationist? Have we gone off the rails? I know more than enough religious evolution and ecology researchers who live with themselves great and do great science that helps preserve nature.
2. Regarding the use of nature - humanity cannot exist without using nature! point. Yes, nature should serve us. Both the lions and the flies think so. But what - you also need to know how to protect it. Preservation alongside use. This is the only way. And that's exactly what the CEO says.
Good luck to the new CEO and good luck to Assef in finding better material for articles. There are enough of those in ecology.
As long as you keep writing the same nonsense, I will repeat the same things over and over again.
What do the little ones say? " You started!".
As long as you keep talking nonsense, I will repeat the same things over and over again.
How do you say simply? " You started!".
Grace.
You are going back to grinding a topic that I don't want to grind again, I said it clearly.
A skeptic wrote:
"Another opinion" is opposed to evolution (the other opinion is "there is not enough evidence for evolution").
Now do you have to start lying in class???
I'm in favor of learning other opinions (theory in my language, why can anyone express any opinion), it's just a shame that there isn't one.
Unless you want to add the Greek gods, the Buddha, and any other religious creation story that doesn't have a shred of what you call "evidence"?.
How many people can be blind?
tsodek legamre, kvar amon zman nivharim anashim le tafkidim she ein laem shum yeda o bihlal raston laasot ta avoda, mibhinatam zehu rak job
Lasaf Rosenthal.
I expect you to say accurate things, not twist things (accidentally or on purpose) just to promote your agenda. My words are directed at what you said about Gavi Avital.
Gabi Avital (former Ministry of Education scientist) did not *forbid* the mention of evolution in school classes (as you claim). Gabi Avital wanted students learning about evolution to hear *in addition* to studying evolution "another opinion" contrary to evolution (the other opinion is "there is not enough evidence for evolution"). A scientist like you is expected not to twist things.
I don't want to enter into a debate on the question of whether Avital's will was proper or not, this issue has been discussed thoroughly and is not related to the current article.
Asaf Rosenthal
I don't think that calling creation nonsense is a smart move for an article of this type, I believe that with these statements you alienated some of the people who read the article, and they must have been very upset and completely ignored what was said.
I mean more people who do not have an opinion on the subject, and are not religious, but still believe. You made another division, in my opinion, unnecessarily.
Although maybe those who believe anyway won't understand what is wanted from them, and this will lead to a wrong conclusion like the "Meow of creation" concluded..
Meow the creation
What is the connection?
What an ironic and delusional world we live in, the chairman of the nature reserve does not understand what nature is at all.
And then they complain about the younger generation, who are they supposed to learn from exactly?
By the way, in my eyes, an eagle is the tiara of creation, have you seen? He can fly!!
Assaf Rosenthal must be raising his children to believe that they and his cat are equally important to him.
The thought police.
What a foolish thought it is to try to impose one's beliefs on another, just because of the arrogant thought that the other's beliefs are nonsense.
"Those who believe in nonsense will not be able to fulfill the role of the guardian of nature."
Very funny, take two people, you will always find that at least some of the other's beliefs are nonsense.
Those who believe in and are committed to the preservation of nature, this should not interfere with anyone's beliefs in matters that do not concern the matter.
There may be people who believe that nature came to serve man and therefore deserves to be destroyed. so what. This does not disqualify those who believe that nature came to serve man, and that therefore he is obliged to preserve it!
You need a little intelligence - to fully understand the train of thought of the other person. And not to generalize and believe that everything that does not fit my beliefs, already belongs to some delusional and extreme sector that I have already condemned all its people.
This haughty incitement has already come out of the nose.
It is possible that he simply lost his mind, and did not understand all the meanings of his words...