"Responsible" is an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, the knowledgeable from the ignorant. In practice it usually mean the credentialed from the unschooled, the working professional from the amateur dabbler.
It is not a precise term.
Young Einstein (before his Anno Mirabilus) criticized the work of Boltzmann and was even more harsh in his judgement of his professors. He was right....but that was Einstein.
I’m not surprised you avoid acknowledging your fundamental motives
My fundamental belief - not motive - is that our present systems - not system - are unsustainable. They depend on growth and development - of population and raw land - and that cannot continue endlessly in a finite world.
Your fundamental belief is that they can, and that your religious beliefs and imperatives can be sustained in the face of all contrary evidence.
I'll take mine anyday.
As for motives, mine are never entirely clear to me, nor are yours to you, are anyones for that matter. Your claim to be a mind-reader is ridiculous.
Further, when you present me as a doer of hidden evil (because I'm your political opponent) while presenting yourself as the flag-waving heroic defender of the true and the good, you reduce yourself to the utterly contemptible. Unworthy of reasoned discourse.
The problem with that belief is that it is not true, at least not in any reasonably human time frame. I am speaking of your belief that we live in a finite world.
It is a common belief, true, but that does not make it so. There are enormous resources available to us, that can sustain growth for many millennium, at the least. One need only look to the solar system for that, let alone the oceans and Antarctica.
I believe that we only need to sustain increasing productivity, not populations, and not raw land. In fact, less land is being cultivated with higher productivity in the United States, than was the case 50 years ago.
I suspect that the earth will eventually be made into a wilderness park that people have to wait in line to enjoy a few weeks at a time. But that is not likely for a couple of hundred years. We certainly are capable of limiting population sufficiently to achieve that level of growth.
“Unworthy of reasoned discourse.”
This line appears to be insurance against having to debate me further—a safe strategic move on your part in the interest of preserving your perception of your own intellectual integrity. Having debated many leftists, I am too familiar with the tactic of running away from debate while hiding behind the false slogan “I won’t honor it with a response.”
“and that your religious beliefs and imperatives can be sustained in the face of all contrary evidence.”
There is no evidence contrary to Christian doctrine.
I am happy to debate the topic with you, and I mean this sincerely: you will have the opportunity to emerge from the discussion wiser than when you started. I ask you to think very carefully about your statements—there are some sloppy arguments going around, advocated by atheists such as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. But please use such ideas if you would like an education regarding their errors.