Rethinking Enviornmentalism

It's been a while here at the JP Survey. Moving does that to you. So I (Ashley) have decided to write a few guest posts to get dicussions flowing again. Jonathan and I both enjoy reading about issues, playfully arguing - I mean, dicussing - issues, and writing about them, so please join us!

Now that we're back from jolly old England, re-adjusting to American culture has left us walking less, surrounded by much newer things, and sadly, drinking a little less English Breakfast. On the bright side, though, we now have a working faucet in the bathroom, 70 degree weather in February, and Chick-fil-A. So we're good.

On a more serious note, there is one distinction in particular between Americans and Brits - generally speaking - that we'd like to share today: views on the enviornment.

This is a somewhat hot-button topic in American politics. If you haven't followed this debate in recent years (due to being in Timbuktu or Siberia, of course), the broad break-down in opinion follows:

LIBERALS: Followers of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. We've destroyed our environment, if we don't act now the earth will be inhabitable within 24 hours, yada yada.

CONSERVATIVES: Inherently dislike Al Gore and therefore reject anything he publishes. The economy is more important than the environment, there is no proof of harm anyway, blah blah.

Enlgand, however, is over this debate. They've, ahem, sided with liberals here. Now before all you conservative readers stop reading, let's rethink this whole issue for just a minute, as my husband and I did while living in Oxford. We confess to having not carefully considered the issue before; but once we did, the results were interesting:

For Christians, why did this turn into a political debate in the first place? And how in the world did most Christians (the so-called "right-wing evangelicals" and such) end up on the "we don't really care about the enviornment" side? Seriously. Let's go back to the basics.

"God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good....God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good." (Genesis Chapter 1)

Notice the pattern? God creates. It's good. God creates. It's good.

Then what does he do when humans enter the picture? He gives us the entire earth. To subdue it, to care for it, to tend it. In a way, we (mankind) are the governors of the world. We are not the ultimate ruler, but we definitely have some authority, at least for now. The question is, how do we use that authority?

Somehow, I'm fairly certain the answer should NOT be to trash the earth without regard to its future. No, we are called - yes CALLED - to care for the earth. So whether or not Al Gore is "making up" enviornmental drama is not the point. It doesn't matter if the Earth will self-destruct in 1 year or 1,000,000,000,000 years. We have responsibilities to do the best job we can as 'governors' of the world today.

The environmental debate is still important scientifically, of course. (And may I encourage you to read the scientists themselves on this issue, not news columnists or politicians who can filter the data one way or the other?) But again, the truth or falsity of An Inconvenient Truth should not be our basis for how we view environmentalism. Look to higher standards of Truth.

Practically, what does this look like? Well, we're still working on that part. But little things do add up, so why don't we all start by trying to waste less? Let's reuse and recycle, as Captain Planet always encouraged us as children. (And let's "take pollution down to zero" while we're at it! Just kidding.)

Food for thought....

And Jonathan wanted to include a note:
Save the polar bears.

6 comments:

Dad W said...

See my comments in my Daniel Boone blog. To me the issue is balance and both the environmentalists and the extreme right wingers have gone to an extreme. The resources of nature are there as a gift from God both for our use and our care. The environmentalists err to the side of caring for those resources (to the point of revering nature or worshipping it) without a plan for balanced use; the right wingers want to use (or over-use and abuse) the resources with insufficient care. Both extremes are out of whack.

Dad W said...

Another problem with the environmentalist viewpoint that is not discussed often enough is its underlying philosophy. Much of the environmentalist lack of balance is a direct result of their belief in materialism, that the natural world is all that exists. Their zealousness for the environment reminds me of the 'peace movement' of the 60's in which anything and everything was worth sacrificing at the altar of peace. As C.S. Lewis pointed out years before, 'civilization will never be safe until we care for something else more than we care for it'...' A foreign policy dominated by the desire for peace is one of many roads that lead to war' since it leads to capitulation to all manner of evil. This is also largely driven by belief that this life and this world is all there is.

The environmentalists are quite willing to abort babies, condemn much of the world to poverty and disease, and reduce food supplies in the name of the environment. They also have a long history of crying 'wolf' (as in the book 'Silent Spring' 40 years ago) for all the disasters they are now forecasting again. Only then it was global cooling. Until they prove that they love something else more than the environment (namely, mankind) the backlash will continue.

pedauque said...

Ashley--Have you ever heard of John Stuart Mill? He was a British political philosopher. He's famous for coining the nickname "Stupid Party" for the British conservative party of his day--his reason not being that all conservatives are stupid, but that most stupid people are conservatives. Having defined stupid people as people who have not actually put deep thought into the issues, but just followed the crowd. These days, that would work for most Americans, whether conservative or liberal. A perfect example would be Al Gore's position as a symbol of global warming--he is either loved or hated and that defines an individual's position on environmentalism--a very dumb reason for a person's opinion. I think the USA's greatest problem with the issue of environment (and pretty much every other issue) is a serious lack of thought. People just seem to decide to align themselves with one political side and argue until they are blue in the face because it feels good to be "right" and "justified" and it is uncomfortable to question one's own ideologies. Any political pundit on television is a perfect example--they're just out for drama and attention.

Dad W--I think it's somewhat unfair to equate all environmentalists with pro-choice people. They are two separate issues, granted that they often fall side by side. I'm also confused by how environmentalists "condemn much of the world to poverty and disease." Seems to me, that's exactly what environmentalists are trying to prevent--the idea being "take care of the earth, and the earth will take care of you." However, I'm pretty much as liberal as they come and therefore biased, but I would not say that my environmentalist stance comes from a 'materialist' viewpoint. I would claim that it came more from a realization of the arbitrariness of human "civilization/society" and a hope for simpler, more straightforward rules of, and reasons for, existence.

Dad W said...

By 'environmentalists' I am generally referring to positions taken by groups like Green Peace and the Sierra Club. When I say that they are perfectly willing to consign the world to poverty and disease I am referring to their unwillingness to consider and balance the impact of their proposals with what it will do to economic activity and the spread of disease. For instance, by trying to eliminate many pesticides, they raise the incidence of diseases like malaria; by premoting drastic, immediate reductions in carbon emissions they limit the economic activity that creates jobs for the developing world as well as the developed world and it has been a global economy that has raised more people from poverty in the past couple of decades than all the aid programs in history.

pedauque said...

Ah, that makes a lot more sense then--thank you for the clarification. I also think that we (i.e. all humanity) need to stop and think about the consequences of all of our actions and start developing a balance. The fight shouldn't be between the environment and civilization, in my opinion, but more about the furtherance of all creation since humans are fundamentally a part of creation.

APW said...

Dad W & Suzannah,
thanks for your comments. (And to my dad, too, though his comments were in email form rather than here!) All were very interesting and thought-provoking.

Agreed with each of you on the need for balance. Extremes in form are rarely good.

Suz - definitely agreed with you about far too many Americans not giving proper thought to issues. That is the impetus on several posts here, just to consider some things! (and yes, heard of John Stuart Mill, though I hadn't heard the party nickname before!)

Using resources is not bad; yet the complete disregard for our surroundings exhibited by so many of our compatriots (and I'm speaking to myself here as well) is foolish. We certainly should not make an idol of nature like the Transcendentalists, but rather, treat it like other resources we're given. Just as we are stewards of our monetary resources, so we are stewards of our world resources.

Two centuries ago this was not an issue. But then the industrial revolution happened, followed by a population boom unprecedented in history (6.7 billion and growing). We must face this issue, not ignore it. And I hope we face it with compassion for all of God's creation - mankind and the natural world.