I had someone throw the "earth is our God" idea my way the other day, admittedly they had been encouraged in this train of thought by the effects of inebriation...
This concept was one that I had encountered in my college days, and it reminded me of a paper I had written exploring the philosophical axioms required for one to take the stands that the “deep ecology” wing of the environmentalist camp posits.
In order for one to believe that we have a duty to earth itself to protect it and to value it, irrespective of our use for it* one has to assume a few basic axiomatic principles.
Those principles are:
A belief that there is a distinction between humanity and the rest of the universe
A belief in the inherent value of the non-human universe
Without these two truths, the belief in humanity’s responsibility to the rest of creation simply makes no sense. Admittedly, not all people who believe that we bear a duty to creation would cite these two claims as a basis for their belief, but they do so implicitly.
The interesting observations come when we begin to look at the cosmology of those who hold this position; a belief that the entire universe is a result of random processes, which demands that:
There is no distinction between humanity and the rest of the universe as both are results of evolutionary forces, and continue to act according to the pressures those forces apply.
There is no value, in anything!
When we look to the cosmology found in the Bible we find that the assertion that God created the universe without humankind and pronounced it “good,” and then we find that the Creator of this valuable universe then created mankind and mandated humanity to care for the earth and to be responsible for it. The Bible teaches that man was created from the earth, and yet filled with the breathe of God, a part of the created order, and yet a representative of God to that created order. (Check out the title link)
The unfortunate thing is that the non-Christian individual who is caring for the earth lacks the philosophical basis to do so, while the Christian individual who possesses this basis, often simply fails to care for the earth.
*The “wise use” camp, which is where most environmental sentiments come from, states that we have a duty to protect the environment for the sake of human enjoyment of it, and betterment by it.
4 comments:
I assume you knew this was coming, and I certainly cannot resist...
Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it is concerned with fundamental philosophical questions about the role of human life as one part of the ecosphere. The philosophy is marked by a new interpretation of "self" which de-emphasizes the rationalistic duality between the human organism and its environment, thus allowing emphasis to be placed on the intrinsic value of other species, systems and processes in nature. The central spiritual tenet of deep ecology is that the human species is a part of the Earth and not separate from it. A process of self-realisation or "re-earthing" is used for an individual to intuitively gain an ecocentric perspective. The notion is based on the idea that the more we expand the self to identify with "others" (people, animals, ecosystems), the more we realise ourselves.
Other traditions which have influenced deep ecology include Taoism and Zen Buddhism, primarily because they have a non-dualistic approach to subject and object. In relation to the Judeo-Christian tradition, Næss (Deep Ecology’s ‘creator) offers the following criticism: "The arrogance of stewardship [as found in the Bible] consists in the idea of superiority which underlies the thought that we exist to watch over nature like a highly respected middleman between the Creator and Creation."
The so-called "Wise Use" movement is an industry-front anti-environmentalist organization founded by Ron Arnold in the late 1980s, primarily dealing with timber and mining issues in the western US. They claim, loudly, that the well-documented hole in the ozone layer doesn't exist, that carcinogenic chemicals in the air and water don't harm anyone, and that trees won't grow properly unless forests are clear-cut, with government subsidies. Wise Use proponents were buffeted by Bush's defeat and by media exposure of the movement's founders' connections to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church network (tainted by charges of cultism and theocratic neo-fascism), but the movement has quickly rebounded. In every state of the US, relentless Wise Use disinformation campaigns about the purpose and meaning of environmental laws are building a grassroots constituency. To Wise Users, environmentalists are pagans, eco-nazis, and communists who must be fought with shouts and threats.
Daniel Botkin has compared deep ecology unfavourably with its antithesis, the ‘wise use’ movement, when he says that they both "misunderstand scientific information and then arrive at conclusions based on their misunderstanding, which are in turn used as justification for their ideologies. Both begin with an ideology and are political and social in focus." Elsewhere though, he asserts that deep ecology must be taken seriously in the debate about society and ecology as it challenges the fundamental assumptions of western philosophy.
I understand the claims of "deep ecology" to deny the "arrogance of superiority," however, by giving humanity the place of assigning value, and holding responsibility to the earth, they lose credibility in that denial...
...essentially, to deny the distinction between humanity and nature, is to deny humanity's place as caretaker. If we do not stand in a place to assign value to the environment, or to care for it; then we have no platform on which to stand to decide precisely which environment to maintain (pristine, agrarian, industrial, heck why not the jurassic!!!).
This reminds me of my theory classes back in grad school. I generally defaulted to the realization that I wear many hats throughout my day without holding any of them as my source of being. This would upset my professors. And I would suggest that it was better to be pragmatic (aka an optimal forager) in the building blocks of man. Then it would be suggested that I was not grounded to a belief, or I was simply lacking a spine, so that I might play both sides of the fence...A moving target is alway harder to hit and such. I would then counter that I did TRULY believe in the power of Valvoline, and you were better off if you used it too.
Jesus is my Valvoline now.
AND the 'wise-use'guys are silly. I'd simply rather see someone look beyond self(interest?) when planning for the state of our house here and now. But I certainly agree that all these ideas fall to bits when pushed to those extremes that may test them on so many different levels. A great topic that has my head churning...oh look yogurt.
...Zoe really likes yogurt...
Post a Comment