We are the first generation to see our planet from space--to see so clearly its beauty, limits and fragility. Modern communication technology helps us to see more clearly than ever the impact of carelessness, ignorance, greed, neglect, and war on the earth. (U.S. Bishops, 500)"We project onto others what we fear within ourselves" (Kaufman, 422). It's true that we can see the impact of our actions upon the environment more clearly today than ever before but that doesn't mean that keeping nature in focus supports a "fallacious idea" (Carson, 479). Samuelson puts it best when he writes:
Whoever coined the phrase "save the planet" is a public-relations genius. It conveys the sense of impending catastrophe and high purpose that has wrapped environmentalism in an aura of moral urgency. It also typifies environmental's rhetorical excess, which, in any other context, would be seen as wild exaggeration or simple dishonesty. (462)I still view it as wild exaggeration and dishonesty: "environmentalism increasingly resembles a holy crusade addicted to hype and ignorant of history. Every environmental ill is depicted as an onrushing calamity that-–if not stopped–-will end life as we know it" (462). Modern society and the trend of current scientific opinion are obsessed with protecting an “endangered” environment; historians and philosophers assume that no one has cared for the status or our natural home in the few millenia we have lived on this planet (though they, of course, would probably claim the “few billions of years” the Earth has existed and the “few million” mankind has lived). All the experts act as if an environmental apocalypse has come: "we were going to perish of all this, if not now, then soon, if not soon, then someday" (Williams, 452).
I simply do not concur with this irrational fear. "This is not to say that what we call wilderness today does not need careful safeguarding" (Owens, 449), but we must keep it in perspective. I have yet to read a single scientific finding that proves that the world is coming to an end because of what man has done to nature nor when it will happen. God’s creation is just too vast and inexplicable to accurately predict such an event’s occurrence. I believe as Limbaugh does that "the earth is a remarkable creation and is capable of great rejuvenation. We can't destroy it. It can fix itself" (442). But even scientists can’t agree on this subject: from the point of view of many earth scientists man is merely a speck in the flow of time, insignificant in the "millions and millions of years" that earth has been. They say that no matter what we do to the planet, life will go on. Though I don't agree that Earth is as old as they claim I do believe that men of an industrial society are not the first to care for the planet or to harm it. It is true that we forgot this responsibility just as surely as men have puposefully forgotten to worship God. Carson argues:
In the western world our thinking has for many centuries been dominated by the Jewish-Christian concept of man's relation to nature, in which man is regarded as the master of all the earth's inhabitants. Out of this there easily grew the thought that everything on earth--animate or inanimate, animal, vegetable, or mineral--and indeed the earth itself--had been created expressly for man. (479)I disagree with Carson's assessment that such a philosophy is wrong. God created the world for man and charged him with caring for it. This factual arrangement is not changed by her looking down upon it. Adam was the first environmentalist, farmer, and man to use nature, to work it, to protect it. This is a God-given right and duty whether men over the next few millenia understood it or not.
Carson claims that we were once "primitive men" that "lurked in caves" and assigns paralyzing fear to these assumed forefathers (478). But she cannot know what life was like in this fictional beginning: she was not there, she did not interview these supposed cave men. Carson instead rejects the historical document that we do possess that accurately tells us what life was like in the beginning and preaches against a supposed "naive view" where: "A numerous class of men are painfully astonished whenever they find anything, living or dead, in all God's universe, which they cannot eat or render in some way what they call useful to themselves" (Muir, 479) and once again assigns fictional and incredibly absurd villainous ideals upon men.
Over the past weeks I have become increasingly irritated and bored by the content of what I was forced to read for this class. I was asked to form an analytical opinion while keeping faith out of it, but I know that one cannot state a belief or conviction without faith and reason. As the U.S. Bishops point out, "Faith is not a substitute for facts; the more we know about the problems we face, the better we can respond" (501). All that I know and believe and write flows from God; He is the One who shapes my perception of the world and gives my thoughts voice. This is not wrong, this is not an excuse, this is how it is meant to be. I am nothing without Him.
The myriad of essays I have read blatantly declared their opinions on faith and the world, from Thoreau all the way through the U.S. Bishops: I cannot read their words without being offended and appalled or inspired to extrapolate upon theories which are only partially complete. As Awiatka wrote of women:
Nuclear energy is the nurturing energy of the universe. Except for the stellar explosions, this energy works not by fission (splitting) but by fusion–attraction and melding. With the relational process, the atom creates and transforms life. Women are part of this life force. One of our natural and chosen purposes is to create and sustain life–biological, mental, and spiritual. (485)I cannot write a response to these essays without being free to exercise the same rights they did: the freedoms of speech and religion. But to respond to each belief and concept their works contain would take me all eternity. I have been thus been overwhelmed and had to pick my battles. Still, some might find it surprising that my beliefs have scarcely changed at all despite all that I’ve read.
The federal government should not enact environmental legislation. As much as we all want clean air and water this is a waste of their resources and an abuse of power: if such regulations are passed it should be at the state level. The current level of mindless fear that is prevalent is unfortunate and a waste of time: we must educate and enable the citizens of the world to protect the environment rather than force them to follow certain rules. America is built on freedom: the government's job is not to tell us not to hurt ourselves but to punish those who hurt others.
I am not worried about the world being permanently destroyed. As men cut down trees they also plant more in their place. The world can and may survive for hundreds of years to come, if not millenia. As Limbaugh writes: "We shouldn't go out of our way to do damage, but neither should we buy into the hysteria and monomania which preaches, in essence, that we don't belong here. We have a right to use the earth and make our lives better" (442). We will continue to better our lives as well as the lives of others who are not as blessed as us. Still, this issue is bigger than just nature itself:
As individuals, as institutions, as a people we need a change of heart to save the planet for our children and generations yet unborn . . . nothing but a wholehearted and ever more profound turning to God the maker of heaven and earth will allow us to carry out our responsibilities as faithful stewards of God's creation. (502)
I agree with the bishops, but still argue apocalyptic fear based on the state of the environment is misplaced. There is one thing that is blatantly clear to me as I have read these essays and that is that many of these writers have replaced God with Nature. Their fear of sinful and fallible man is, of course, understandable, but all men are so cursed. Being paralyzed with fear of these facts is pointless: one cannot lock themselves in a bomb shelter and avoid living because of a little healthy fear and one cannot stop the future from coming. There will continue to be wars, famines, and natural disasters until the end of time.
It is a waste of time and resources to try to change the minds of the instigators of these events: their hearts must be changed and only God can do this. Instead of dwelling on the fear it would be better for each of us to turn to God, for He is the only one who provides a way of escape. Long after this world is gone we will still exist somewhere: the question is, in which place? Will one accept the free gift that Jesus gave or will one reject God’s love and listen to the wisdom of the world and the desires or their corrupted heart instead? Each man and woman must choose for themselves and continue to search for truth and knowledge. Only when we turn to God can nature truly be saved.
Anderson, Lorraine, Scott Slovic, and John P. O'Grady, eds. Literature and the Environment: a Reader on Nature and Culture. New York: Longman, 1999.
Awiakta, Marilou. “Baring the Atom’s Mother Heart.” Anderson, Slovic, and O’Grady, 482-486.
Carson, Rachel. "Of Man and the Stream of Time." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 478-481.
Kaufman, Wallace. "Confessions of a Developer." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 414-422.
Limbaugh III, Rush. "The Environmental Mindset." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 440-442.
Owens, Louis. "The American Indian Wilderness." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 448-449.
Samuelson, Robert J. "The End is Not at Hand." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 462-464.
U.S. Bishops. "Renewing the Earth.” Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 499-503.
Williams, C. K. "Tar." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 451-452.
No comments:
Post a Comment