Tom Hayden, who is some guy from some state in some country, writes a rather courageous thing, addressed to Christian clergy. Read on for the money quote:
When I chaired the Natural Resources Committee in the California senate, I noticed that the clergy never testified against the destruction of species, forests, clean air and water, the wellsprings of life itself. Even today, the California Fish and Game Code refers to fish and wildlife as "the property of the people" and says they provide a contribution to the state economy. The forest practices law mandates "maximum sustained production of high quality timber products" while limiting any other values to only being "considered".The environment thus is valued as a utilitarian resource, a giant storehouse of raw materials for the use of humankind. Right-wing Christians like Reagan's former interior secretary James Watt have argued against preservation of the environment in light of the Second Coming. Liberals have argued for environmental stewardship, often citing the "dominion" reference in Genesis as justification.
Well certainly stewardship is to be preferred to pillage. But I want to challenge the stewardship notion that we were placed here, at some distant time in the past, to suddenly become stewards of nature, as if nature was doing badly on its own. The stewardship concept extracts us from, and places us above, the realm of nature. The scriptures place us in this role to underscore our special, sacred status above the lesser world of living things and ecosystems. As stewards, we become the plant managers for the absentee owner. If this preposterous idea was true, we would have been overthrown or fired from our administrative roles for malfeasance and neglect long ago.
I agree. It is time to stop placing humans "above and beyond" nature, and to see ourselves not only as part of it, but our cities and farms as ecological systems themselves. We need our ecological contexts just to be human. Destroying them, or treating them as mere resource shelves in some cosmic supermarket, is a bad thing, and we had better lose the Christian attitude fast, whether we are Christians or not.
Stumble It!
Comments
Exactly, we are just another animal that is part of a vast and complex ecosystem on which we depend for our survival, for the moment at least.
(Once we've transformed ourselves into Borg, of course, we can head off into space in hive-ships and be truly independent)
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | February 21, 2007 12:29 AM
Yup, I remember James Watts' "Rape the land for Jesus" stance. What arrogance!
Posted by: MrEphemeris | February 21, 2007 6:18 AM
It's funny how the people who believe the world was made just for man abuse it like they've got someplace else to go. I attempted to start an environmental group at my church, but the interest just wasn't there (denying global climate change was a more popular position, it seems)
I also started reading "Our Ecological Footprint" by Wackernagel and Rees the other day and the post reminded moe of one important distinctions they made. One of the most difficult concepts is sustainability, the authors writing on p33
"...some of the confusion around 'sustainable development' is rooted in general failure to distinguish between true development and mere growth. Economist Herman Daly clarifies the difference by defining 'growth' as an increase in size through material accretion while referring to 'development' as the realization of fuller and greater potential. In short, growth means getting bigger while development means getting better. For Daly, the 'sustainable development' is progressive social betterment without going beyond ecological carrying capacity. Indeed, he regards 'sustainable growth' as a nonsensical self-contradiction. Developing sustainability may actually require a reduction in aggregate economic throughput, while enabling the poor to consume more.
There are certain ambiguities hidden in 'sustainabile development.' It could refer to a) the necessary conditions to live sustainable (a goal or state of being); b) the sociopolitical means of acheiving the goal (a planning process); or, c) particular strategies to solve present problems (piecemeal solutions). Failure to clarify how the term is being used in a specific context can lead to fruitless misunderstanding. To some ears, the term 'developing sustainability' is less ambiguous and preferred over 'sustainable development.'"
Posted by: Brian | February 21, 2007 10:44 AM
You've got your work cut out for you if you want to convince people that they are merely a part of nature (as if that were so bad!)--that's the very core of the problem. Man was created in God's image, God thinks man is special, and, unlike the soulless beasts, a man will not really die but live forever. To suggest that man is just another animal is to suggest that a man will not live forever, and that is a thought that fills one with dread. And besides, exploiting nature allows a man to profit, and God loves those who profit.
Posted by: mark | February 21, 2007 9:10 PM
Re Tom Hayden
For the information of Mr. Wilkins, Tom Hayden is a former Vietnam war protester who at one time was married to actress Jane Fonda and was a California State Senator.
Posted by: SLC | February 22, 2007 3:15 PM
Even here is the antipodes, we have heard of Tom Hayden...
Posted by: John Wilkins | February 22, 2007 4:51 PM