Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

Science’s relationship to the environment and Religion’s relationship to the environment seem to be quite opposite of each other and more complex than the readings seemed to emphasize in my opinion. White seemed to think technology is to blame for the disintegration of man from the environment. To some degree I think this is true. For example, the automobile allowed humans to attain “supreme mobility” at the cost of environmental homeostasis. Much of the technology of today seems to serve a hedonistic purpose, where as technology in earlier societies was strictly for survival (i.e. the plow). I think our understanding of science and the “equation of life” has only fuelled this movement. White states, “Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process.” First, this presents a notion of a definite line as to what is and what is not natural. Second, I think this is a sweeping generalization to which I must say speak for yourself. Regardless whether it is manifested in our hearts or our minds, we are the natural process, in a different form, and of a different iteration. I think science reminds us we are natural and of nature where as the religious scope seems to try detach the human from the environment.

I thought Barbour presented an interesting example of God and Nature in stewardship and celebration. He provides an example in many rural communities where a “land stewardship” Sunday is celebrated in June to encourage the conservation of the soil and other natural resources. In a religious sense, I would think this is regarded as a “good”, and “godly” thing to do. However, rural communities generally rely on the land for financial stability and survival. In this context, I would say “we do good for whatever does good things for us”–sort of a spin on the “golden rule.”

On this topic of the relationship of humans to the environment, there is a very new subject (in textbook form) called Eco-psychology. In general, ecopsycology seeks to find answers to questions like “why does someone buy a prius over a hummer?” I think this is an interesting way to try to uncover the human-environment relationship with science. I think each and every human has a visceral connection to our congenital roots.

I had never before considered religion as the “bad guy” in environmental issues, but these readings raised some valid points. Prior to this, I had thought that Christianity makes the human race appear to be the rulers and it gives humans the perception that other species are only here to serve us. It is a natural step to go from this perception to one where humans take advantage of the earth, and all that is in it, since Christianity has made us believe that everything is here for us.
On the other hand, I thought Barbour’s article was interesting because he suggested that we combat this belief through the use of religion. He argued that religious groups have enormous potential to influence environmental policy because they are more willing to focus on long-term issues than the short-term problems that politicians target. I thought Barbour’s use of biblical passages was a good idea because they can be used to persuade Christians to respect the earth and refute the beliefs that Christians currently hold.

I had never heard of the idea that early Christianity had influenced some of the destruction to the Earth until I read our passages and chapters for this week. After thinking about it, I realized this makes sense. Scientific and technological advancement began further back and more widespread that what is commonly thought. Because of this, it follows that its effects have a longer and deeper history than we usually think of. The authors make a good point that Christianity endorses an anthropocentric way of thinking. Initially, we believed we were the center of the universe, and that everything in the universe was created for humanity. However, we have to remember that humans were created on the sixth day of creation. If beliefs are based off of the creation story, we were not the first to be thought of, and the first to be created. We are meant to be in harmony with nature.

This brings me to the idea that nature is a political economy with budgets. I found this interesting because although there is no actual “money” involved, this idea that everything has a limit and requiring balance is accurate. Perhaps if we could show this to people who underestimate the effects of climate change, things might actually get done. Nature requires balance and at the moment it doesn't seem like we're working hard enough to achieve this balance of maintaining our resources. Going along with the analogy, money in an economy doesn't come from thin air. We budget and maintain it, just like we should our natural resources.

It seems to be that people will often look for any explanation and anyone to blame when there is a large problem that not just any one group is responsible for. It may be true that pagans held more of a value in the environment because of their religious beliefs, however that doesnt mean that Christians are altogether disrespectful of the world around us. If you are truly following the way that Jesus would want us to live, which is like him, we would not hurt the environment. Also there are not stories in the bible, and its really unlikely that he went around destroying nature. Just because you believe that the world is here to serve what is best for you, that doesnt mean that you can destroy it. Also doesnt it stand to reason that taking care of the environment is what is best for us? I would say that it is more of our human nature that has led us to hurt the environment out of greed, which is a sin in Christianity and many other religions.

There is no argument that Humans have indeed impacted our natural world greatly, but there is much debate over whether the effect is favorable or destructive. Initially we have let our technology advance quickly as possible without wondering how/if it would change the ecological world around us. Recently we have been getting better at being more conscious of the natural world and trying to lessen “carbon footprints” so to speak.

While human activities is harmful, I do not agree with White’s article when he wrote (even though the statement was meant to argue for the opposition.) “We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim….” Humans alone, without our technology for defense are not superior to nature regardless of what is written in the Bible with God giving Adam domain over animals. I never understood the concept of human animal being better than animals. We can see with our eyes how inadequate we are compared to resilient animals. I agree with White that the world would be better off if people put more effort into “communing” with nature.

I prefer the imagery of God being a conservationist and Humanity being caretakers of His Creation rather than rulers of the world. Although I share in the opinion of Keith Thomas that religion does not play a strong part in the natural world anymore. People are just greedy and it is not about Humans having dominance because of the Old Testament.

While monotheism may not be the direct cause of a lacking environmental ethic, it has undoubtedly been a strong influence in many of society’s choices and actions regarding the environment. Throughout history, monotheistic religions (e.g. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) have undeniably been controlling over lesser cultures or people (e.g. women, Native Americans, and blacks). This same mindset of superiority can be extended to a monotheist’s viewpoint of land and environment.

Lewis Moncrief identifies the ‘new frontier’ as an origin of environmental issues. However, one has to take into consideration WHY the colonists acted as they did towards Native Americans and land; they were immigrants from a utilitarian Christian society that believed God made man to rule over the Earth.

One may argue that monotheists are not any more environmentally unsound than anyone else. This may be true today, but that is because the great majority of us are descendants of Christian immigrants and were raised with these values embedded in our society. Our descendants were all of one belief; that God created man in his image and put us on Earth for a reason. Throughout the years, different sects have been created due to varying interpretations, but the same core values still permeate into today’s society and will continue to do so for years to come.

After reading the articles, I have come to one conclusion: humans are the most irresponsible animals to inhabit the earth. From a religious standpoint, we were put in charge of all the other animals on the earth and we have done a poor job at taking care of them. From a scientific standpoint, as the most intelligent creatures on the planet, we fail at taking other creatures’ well being into consideration when we want start a new enterprise. Basically every bad thing that has happened to the world since humans came about has been our fault.

Although, I guess it is hard to label all of these outcomes as ‘bad’ because we will never know what would have happened to the world if it humans had never come into being. And we do live a much more sophisticated life because of our actions. But it brings me back to a question I posed a few weeks ago: are all these life-prolonging actions worth it when it prevents us from going to Heaven sooner? If the climate changed and humans couldn’t adapt, would that mean the Apocalypse would finally take place and we would all be relieved from the suffering we undergo on Earth? With that kind of thinking, we should all just pollute away.

Before reading the chapter in “Science and Religion” or Lynn White’s article, I had never heard the theory that Christianity was responsible for the environmental disaster that we are facing today. White said that it was when Christianity prevailed over Paganism that the environment became doomed. I don’t believe that if Paganism prevailed over Christianity that it would be any different. I think the main problem was that the human race developed and began using science to its benefit. The text said that, “Instead of humanity’s beings thought of as part of nature, the human race was seen as having dominion over nature and, thus, as licensed to violate the physical environment.” I think that is an interesting argument to make, and I admit that the human race is at fault, but to blame the belief in Christianity I find a little extreme; I am probably more in line with Keith Thomas’ view. I will agree that there was a sentiment of “We can do no wrong,” for such a long time, but I don’t believe that came directly from Christianity. The chapter also said, “For Christianity, he insisted, held that nature existed for the benefit of man, who was made in the image of God.” I think that is accurate, but the Earth would have been exploited either way.

Although Americans are propagating the "Go Green" trend, more needs to be done to separate the idea that we were designed to dominate nature from the idea that we can destroy it. The readings this week discussed the origins of the idea that man has a right to his destructive tendencies because of biblical claims and Christianity's "triumph over paganism." In it's pursuit for technological advancements mankind has severely disregarded the vitality of Mother Nature, and for that we're paying the price. Our climate is changing, our air is polluted, and in many places the water is unhealthy to consume. If the global system is the "largest living organism" as proposed by the Gaia hypothesis, maybe natural disasters, and the generation of epidemics are the ways for Gaia to combat our destructive habits.
At the same time however, how much of nature should mankind really be responsible for conserving? I'd like to think extinctions of a species affects us all, but the fact that Tigers and Pandas are endangered really doesn't seem that important as I go about my daily activities. This is the trouble I had when the reading discussed the concept of "deep ecology" and the idea that all forms of life have a right to live. Even if we believe on some level that all life has a right to live, we still can't practice that belief to the full extent of its meaning for reasons that we must sacrifice some life to support our own, and advance our species.

One quote from these readings struck me as particularly interesting but also disturbing at the same time. Lynn White states that, “Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process. We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim.” I tend to agree with White’s statements that man considers himself to be above nature given our catastrophic effects upon the globe and I find it disturbing that we can possibly find ourselves to be in God’s image. While I was reading the article, I continuously found myself asking the question why God would mirror himself in something that destroys everything else he created. Although we are in God’s image, God also theoretically created all the birds and animals we have now hunted to extinction. It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that God created the rest of the earth to serve man. Over several centuries, religion has lost its connection with the rest of the world, rather than seeing ourselves as beings who God speaks to through nature, we no longer feel that God communicates with us in such a way because he have suddenly become too good for nature. Also ironic is how appreciation of nature and awe of its beauty is not enough to curb our negative and disrespectful actions towards it.

Many people have what seems to me to be a very backwards way of seeing our Earth and how we should relate to it. Barbour’s essay mentioned the way that the Bible says we should treat it, and I have always disagreed with this view. There are many people who see our Earth as something over which we have dominion and can mistreat if needed. Barbour mentioned that “Nature was desacralized, and God’s transcendence was emphasized more than immanence”. To me, this seems very backwards. I find that I often feel the most connected to some higher being when I am in nature. It has the power to bring about feelings unparalleled, even in a religious setting. So, if there is a god, why would he make nature such a spiritual experience when he, and we as humans, is/are supposed to be superior to it? It does not make sense for a god who has created the Earth to create an aspect so amazing and awe-inspiring with the knowledge that it will get mistreated. I think that if God created the Earth, he wanted us to treat it will. It is our home.

I think this argument of whether we have a dominion over earth or not can be summarized by quoting the alien in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" - "If earth dies, you die. If you die, earth survives." We can pretend that we have dominion or control over the earth and fantasize about how God's terrain was given to us as an invaluable treasure. But those perceptions are completely illusional. We have tried to control and manipulate the earth to our benefit and have faced the consequences of having done so, but instead of blaming our misconceived notion that we have any actual power on this earth, we blame faulty construction, poor attention, inefficient preparation, or even the wrath of god.

I can however imagine what it was like several hundred or thousand years ago when people did not have the knowledge of the laws of nature as we do, so I can understand why they would believe that the land was there to serve us and bad things only happened when God was angry. But with the knowledge and information we have now, it is ludicrous for anyone to actually believe that we have any dominion over the land. If a good majority of people actually believed that, I'd guess that there would be much heavier opposition to the debate regarding global warming.

It’s obvious that humans have had an impact on our environment to an extent that no other animal has ever had in the history of our planet. And we’ve done it in a fairly short time, too. Of course I wish that we weren’t hurting the earth as much as we are, and I do what I can to make sure my impact on the environment is as insignificant as possible. But part of me (arguably the most realistic part) accepts that this is the price we have to pay for our modern ways of life. In order to provide a better quality of life, we’ve manipulated our surroundings to better serve ourselves, but strictly in the short term. No, I don’t think this is acceptable, but it may be unavoidable. People won't change their everyday actions unless they can forsee a reason to do so, and this reason must be significant enough to warrant the change. It’s going to take time to educate the public about how bad it has really gotten, and I’m not sure if we have enough time left.
As far as the Livingstone essay, I liked the idea of the environment as an organism the best. With an economy or a machine, you don’t have to worry about the effect you personally are having on the object in question. But with an organism, as with our relationship with the planet, we need to be aware of how our actions physically affect our planet.

There is a great movement going on in human thinking towards green living. This is a groundbreaking idea. For the majority of the last few hundred years pollution was common place. Plagues raged through Europe due to ill hygene. Now we have wind power generators and organic food sold at sam's club. So with that in mind we have to think about the kunumdrum that a company that produces huge amount of waste can show this great public face that they care about the environment they exploit. In addition to Sam's clubs's exploiting of the green movement are numerous other companies that buy green energy credits. Basically you pay someone to off set your carbon food print. But at the same time many of these companies are still killing the environment with production and shipping that has already produced global climate change. If these people truly cared they would stop their non-environment friendly actions not just pay others to do that. I think more needs to be done. The green movement needs to expand. Hemp is the most natural environmentally safe production material out there. We can produce food, fuel, and medicine in small local communities all throughout the world. This would produce huge amount of oxygen, replenish the soil, and prevent mudslides. The real issue here is that people see the green movement as the color of money and that the obligation to honor our great planet.

I have always felt that western religion has played a part in the destruction of the environment. Not many people have heard of the Fertile Crescent as it is hard to believe that there could have been so much life in an area that is now mostly desert. The Fertile Crescent was found between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, because of the close proximity to these rivers and the flooding that happened yearly kept the soil healthy and made growing crops very easy. This does not exist any more and it is just desert with some rivers running through it. The reason for this was poor farming techniques that ravaged the soil, and all the of the fertile top soil was lost over the hundreds of years of unsustainable farming. These techniques were then passed on throughout the years and brought into religion as that too spread across this landscape, and as people moved so did the religions and these bad farming tips. The main concern with this farming was to produce as much as possible during the growing season, then plow everything under which depleted the top soil, there was also no crop rotation that also hurt the soil. These techniques because they were brought into the religious culture, were passed along and they can be blamed for the growing of the Sahara desert and the Dust Bowl in America during the depression.

“A profound dislocation in the understanding of “man and nature” had taken place. Instead of humanity’s being thought of as part of nature, the human race was seen as having dominion over nature and, thus, as licensed to violate the physical environment. This attitudinal shift when conjoined to new technology, wreaked ecological havoc.” –David N. Livingstone’s summary of the position held by Lynn White Jr.

I know a Native American whose family only a few generations ago was living in complete balance with nature; today he drives around a Hummer with Lamborghini doors on 26inch rims (among many other cars). I don’t judge him for this, I have ridden in his truck and it’s a lot fun. For me it’s just the starkest illustration of how easily and quickly humans can be disconnected from nature. I personally am very concerned about the environment, but struggle between to very different types of concern ideologically.

Part of me views my self and the rest of humanity as part of the environment and as not more or less important than any other component. These thoughts often have a spiritual aspect. This part of me is very confused about how I live my life on a daily basis… This is also the part of me that walks to class looking at the sky in amazement on a nice day!

The other part of me is concerned about the environment, but only to the end that it affects human health and quality of life. For example, caring about the biodiversity of plants in the rainforest not for any intrinsic value, instead because of possible medical applications that could be lost due to extinction. This is the part of me orders Panda Express at Coffman “to go” because then I get a little more food, even though the “to go” container is unrecyclable Styrofoam and the “dine in” plate is recyclable cardboard.

I observe many people claiming to only view the world the way the first part of me does even though at the same time their actions appear much more in line with the way the second part of me thinks.

I believe one of the greatest atrocities right now is some of the public's disbelief regarding the destruction of the environment. Sadly many politicians have claimed that the greenhouse effect is a hoax and really isn't as bad as it is portrayed by scientists. How long will it take before we start realizing that we cannot continue using what nature gives us as though it's fruits are endless. Barbour makes a profound point that, "as a nation we are dedicated to a high consumption lifestyle, and we assume that new technologies or technical fixes will overcome any problems created by industrial growth." We cannot assume technology will come in to save us. As the ozone layer continues to deplete, what technology will step forward to reverse this detrimental process? Perhaps the Christian church can have a larger part in helping the environment than we want to admit. Barbour also makes the point that it had a profound effect in the "abolition of slaver, in women's suffrage, the civil rights movement..." Considering the destruction the environment is susceptible to everyday by every person, it certainly seems worth while to have organized religion play its part.

Christianity being the cause of the environment hitting the shit fan? Gimme a break. Modern civilization, engineering, and science drove pollution, deforestation, and expansion. Barbour's essay entails that the bible tells its followers to mistreat the environment... Now I do not know what the entire book details but I have a hard time believing that this notion is nothing more than "reading between the lines". If you are looking for a way to connect your idea to another, you will obviously search for any signs of symbionce.

Paganism or Christianity, either one wouldn't have had an impact on the environment (unless they owned and operated a deforstation company, or toxic waste plant). If we were still pagans, our advancement in the fields of science would have been the cause, not the religion itself.

The article about science, religion and the environment was very interesting to me because I had never really thought about nature and religion all at once. I do see some marks that science has made on nature and how they have advanced, some unnecessarily as time goes on. Some techonological advances have really improved and helped people and the economic situations at certain periods of time say from 700 years ago until now. The use of new technology and equipment although it may have disrupted the environment it did provide many people with more food (farming tools/equipment) or jobs to help gather these things. However, these advances do seem to have some negative effects on the environment especially some advancements that seem somewhat unnecessary and are truly just more of a luxury. I find technology and religion to be very different topics of discussion with being paired with the environment. I think religion is a way for people to appreciate and enjoy nature as it may give them a better understanding or a more positive view of a pristine and healthy environment. I think that sort of thing would at least give them the idea of how nice it could be to have a clean/almost perfect environment. However, I think that considering most religious beliefs are that the world has been created or given to us in a sense do what we want almost depreciates the value of the environment and what people take it over. If it were the opposite that we were given to the world and not the other way around I think things could be very different. I think together though religion and science have an effect on the ways that we view and treat the environment.

As I was reading the passages for Tuesday’s class I immediately thought of Native American culture. Most Native American cultures have religion that goes hand in hand with the earth. They call the land Mother Earth and almost worship her. They believe that if humans live harmoniously with the land and the animals the land and wild animals will thrive. If the land is thriving, that in turn helps the wild animal which in turn helps the humans who hunt the animals. The Ojibwe people believe everything has a spirit and in order to make everything on earth work together you have to pray to the spirit of the thing you in tend to take for yourself. If you are going to kill a deer to feed your family for the winter you have to pray to the Gods and approve it. This whole philosophy is considered religion among the Ojibwe people. I wonder what the earth would look like if more people practiced this way of thinking?

I agree with Lynn White that today’s ecological problems are due to our long history of anthropocentric attitudes and that those attitudes can be traced to Christianity. In the Book of Genesis, the Bible states: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” This passage could be interpreted a few different ways, but the simplest is that God intended man to exploit nature for whatever he needed. Unfortunately, this is what we have done. I agree with White that anthropocentric attitudes began with the advent of technology allowing farmers to produce more crops than they needed for themselves. That was the point at which humans stopped seeing nature as a partner in their survival and started seeing it as an opportunity for economic gain. Attitudes of entitlement, a form of anthropocentricism, exploded during the rule of western monarchies whose policies were to conquer all that they could. By contrast, most eastern religions place great emphasis on a oneness with nature. Another example is that Native Americans believe in taking from nature only what one needs and in using everything that has been taken. In the west, however, a long history of exploiting natural resources has turned into an unkickable habit of overconsumption. Technology has enabled us to this point; by definition, technology is human conquering nature. I agree with White when he says: “Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious...” The west is becoming more secular, and with that, we may eventually have our solution. I do not agree with White, however, that technology cannot play a part in solving our ecological problems. We must first change our attitudes and our culture, which White correctly indicates, originates from strongly anthropocentric religions. However, to complete the final step, we will need technology to harness renewable energies and to produce and consume sustainably.

Vj6Y1t