Evinonmentalism and neo-Paganism

[_Coggins7]

A thoughtful little essay from Acton:



Environmentalism: The Newest Paganism?

Jo Kwong

In June 1991, the Presbyterian Church approved a historic statement of faith that made environmental concerns part of the official canon of the church. The 80-line prayer enumerated pollution of the planet as a sin against God, saying people "exploit neighbor and nature, and threaten death to the planet entrusted to our care."

A month later, the Episcopal Church closed its 11-day governing session with a united call to promote ecology. Viewing pollution as a religious issue, it urged church leaders to "move forward at great speed to respond to the challenge."

Environmentalism, it seems, has truly become a religious movement. Religious undertones and rumblings have long hinted at a "new paganism," but now that paganism is coldly upon us. What is it about environmentalism that casts it as a religious issue? Just where is this new fervor likely to take us?

Everyday Environmentalists

Over the past decade, environmentalism has increasingly become an integral part of our everyday lives. Products, from juice box containers to disposable diapers to tuna fish, are touted as environmental "goods" or environmental "bads," with their uses being cast as morally right or wrong. The effect of such marketing is having an impact. In frank confessions, mothers admit quietly to using disposable diapers. They are quick to add, however, that they feel guilty about damage to the environment. Consumers toss so-called "recyclables" into their trash cans but not without looking over their shoulders to escape the watchful eye of school children who have been told that recycling is the only way.

Virtually every social, economic, and legal issue is now promoted as an environmental cause. Surprisingly, much of the fervor behind the religion of environmentalism stems from a deep-rooted attack on the Judeo-Christian heritage.

Environmental zealots argue that our world is lacking an environmental ethic -- that somehow the relationship between man and nature has gone seriously askew, creating an explosion of ecological and environmental problems. Rather than respecting and treasuring nature, man has "exploited" and abused it. In a 1967 Science article, Lynn White tipped off the ethics debate by writing:

Christianity, in absolute contrast to ancient paganism and Asia's religions, not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends...Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.

White's conclusion was that we are in great need of a new ethic in environmentalism. Rather than supporting man's limitless rule of creation in which nature has no reason for existence save to serve man, we need to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures.

White's ideas were further pondered by a variety of thinkers. In articles including "Should Trees Have Standing -- Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects?" and "Do Rocks have Rights?" writers raised legal questions about the rights of nature. Philosophers argued that the "shallow ecology" of mainstream conservation groups is too anthropocentric or homocentric, that is, centered on man, and is aimed only at improving the environment for the benefit of humans. "Deep ecology," on the other hand, leads to a view of "biospheric egalitarianism... the right [of all things] to live and blossom."

The 'rights of nature' proponents, then, contend that all things are created equal; they should be venerated as ends in themselves, as intrinsically valuable apart from man; and they have equal rights to their own kinds of "self realization," without human interference or exploitation. Failure to recognize such truths will lead to our downfall. Joel Schwartz, writing for The Public Interest, summarizes one such view:

Unless humans treat the environment more cautiously and less violently, the environment will take revenge on us, and bring about the unpleasantly premature death of the human species. Our demise may stem from the exhaustion of irreplaceable natural resources, or from the creation of a climate that cannot support human life -- but in any case, the argument goes, unless we are more ecologically responsible and less short-sighted, our lives will be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Human self interest requires that we cease to exploit nature so systematically.

Who Shall Speak For Nature?

An ethic based on the rights of nature approach, however, raises more questions than it answers. Writing for The Freeman, Robert James Bidinotto says "Any intelligible theory of rights must presuppose entities capable of defining and respecting moral boundary lines. But animals are by nature incapable of this. And since they are unable to know, respect, or exercise rights, the principle of rights simply can't be applied to, or by, animals. Rights are, by their nature, based on a homocentric view of the world."

In "Christian and Creation," P. J. Hill also argues that man must be the center of our considerations:

It may well be that trees have, in some ultimate moral sense, rights. However, if those rights are to be protected by human institutions it will be because humans are the repository of those rights. Individuals can include the welfare or preferences of trees within their own set of preferences and thus grant those rights to the trees. But those rights will only exist because the individuals have rights.

He cautions that giving rights to nature can end up as a camouflage for "differing views about the question of which person's view should win in the conflict over resources."

In The Public Interest, Schwartz further develops this idea by asking "What entitles anyone to act as nature's representative?" Several agencies and organizations have already been proposed to serve as spokesmen for nature: the Federal Department of Interior or other guardians to be appointed by the courts such as the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and other environmental groups. He envisions the rights-to-nature approach will ultimately expand "privileges to private environmental organizations."

In a country where political rights are very often cast to those most politically vocal, we are in danger of establishing a dangerous precedent by going down the rights-to-nature path. Such a course will surely lead to greater control and power by the organized environmental special interests. The fanaticism and fervor of the movement has already left us with some rather disturbing rules and regulations. Aside from the myriad of legislation that has excessively boosted the costs of conducting virtually every form of business, regulations are now invading the more personal aspects of our everyday lives. Just to mention a few examples:Vermont has banned air conditioners in cars, Maine has banned juice boxes, cities in Minnesota have banned polystyrene, and Los Angeles is in the process of outlawing the use of lighter fluid at backyard barbecues.

An Alternative Approach to Environmental Ethics

Rather than formulating an alternative religious and ethical view of man and nature, or proliferating a new environmental paganism, an alternative approach is to accept the human responsibility towards nature and find a way to guide us in exercising this dominion. An environmental ethic based on the idea of property rights provides both legal and ethical guidance in environmental stewardship, thereby helping to minimize confusion regarding the proper relationship between man and nature.

"Man's rule is that of a careful and wise shepherd, one who accepts responsibilities as well as privileges," says Hill. "God has given us the opportunity to have dominion over the birds of the air and the beasts of the field, but He also holds us accountable for our actions with regard to these creatures." Admittedly, we have not always exercised that dominion carefully and wisely, but there are remedies.

What theological and moral standards should guide us in this stewardship responsibility? Fortunately, there exists an environmental paradigm that rests squarely on the ideas of private property, liberty, and other critical biblical ethics.

Environmentalism, Property Rights, and Free Markets

In seeking an environmental ethic, the guiding concern should be to develop a means to encourage and achieve responsible stewardship. A property rights ethic effectively achieves this task by enforcing accountability for actions. Consider a simple, everyday example: Nearly everyone knows of particular spots in neighborhood parks or other common areas where people seem to walk their dogs. These same people, however, would never consider exercising their dogs in the backyards of their neighbors. The difference is property rights.

Property like public parks, that is owned by everyone, ends up being cared for by no one person. In contrast, private property has an identifiable owner -- one that has an interest in seeing that his possessions are well cared for and maintained. And so, while people can get away with polluting public parks with their dogs, it is unthinkable in private backyards where the homeowner is likely to raise vocal objections.

The same is true with the more obvious environmental problems. Most air and water pollution problems, for example, stem from common property institutions. Stretches of oceans that are jointly owned by everyone are rapidly becoming overfished. In contrast, privately leased oyster beds and fish farms are rapidly gaining shares in the seafood industry. The difference is accountability. With public property, the incentive is to fish as rapidly as possible before competing fishermen get the take. But on private property, where people can limit access and otherwise carefully manage, owners have the incentive to allow the fish to grow to optimal sizes before harvesting.

The classic textbook pollution problem is the pollution of streams by riverside industries. When industry dumps its by-products into the waterways, it is concerned only with the private costs of its capital and labor in determining the best way to maximize profits. What it overlooks, of course, is the social cost of the pollution it causes by dumping, just as dog owners overlook the cost of polluting public parks and fishermen ignore the costs of overfishing in common oceans.

A proper property rights institution can alter each of these instances of poor stewardship. What is needed is a twofold approach: First, we need to privatize as much of our resource base as possible in order to get a steward behind each one. Privately leased oyster beds, fish farms, forests, and other examples have amply demonstrated the care of private stewards. Secondly, where it is difficult to discern clear property rights, as in airsheds, or certain watersheds, we need to institute some sort of mechanism to treat pollution as property with a market value. By treating environmental and natural resources within a market context we can achieve an efficient allocation of resources in which people are held accountable and responsible for their actions.

Consider, for example, the approach taken by Singapore to reduce production of CFCs (chloroflurocarbons) which are believed to deplete the earth's protective ozone layer.

Under a newly implemented auction system, industrial users of CFCs must bid for the right to produce the chemical. By forcing producers to recognize the perceived social costs, there have been tremendous changes in industrial processes. Some electronics companies have decreased CFC use by 75 to 80 percent. Some of this is due to the discovery of alternative materials, but surprisingly, much of the cutback stems from better housekeeping -- fixing leaks and other careless uses. When CFC emissions were "free," there was no incentive to "clean house." The reduction in CFC use via the auction has been efficient: Those industries most able to adopt substitutes have done so -- without the need for a big bureaucracy.

These examples suggest how changes can be made to create greater stewards of the environment.

Resistance to the Property Rights Ethic

The property rights ethic has been widely rejected by environmental special interest groups and extremists. Instead, they support the growth of governmental control of environmental resources through a proliferation of stronger laws and regulations and through increased governmental ownership of natural resources. Unfortunately, these efforts only magnify the conditions that created fears of "exploitation" by weakening and distorting incentives for people to act responsibly in their stewardship duties. By its very nature, the command and control approach restricts our choices for stewardship.

Now, more than ever, it is important to recognize the critical crossroads that we are at. The rhetoric and emotionalism of environmentalism can lead us further down the path of regulatory control. This path, however, not only poses tremendous restrictions on liberty, it also overlooks the ability of incentives to guide people towards environmental stewardship. If, instead, we pursue the property rights ethic, we can learn more about ways to protect the environment and voluntarily incorporate such actions into our daily lives.

[_Fortigurn]

Leviticus 25:
3 Six years you may sow your field, and six years you may prune your vineyard and gather the produce,
4 but in the seventh year the land must have a Sabbath of complete rest—a Sabbath to the Lord. You must not sow your field or prune your vineyard.

Deuteronomy 20:
19 If you besiege a city for a long time while attempting to capture it, you must not chop down its trees, for you may eat from them and should not cut them down. A tree in the field is not human that you should besiege it.

Deuteronomy 22:
6 If you happen to notice a bird’s nest along the road, whether in a tree or on the ground, and there are chicks or eggs with the mother bird sitting on them, [b]you must not take the mother from the young.
7 You must be sure to let the mother go, but you may take the young for yourself. Do this so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life.

Rabbi Wolff cites a Midrash that deals with this issue. It appears in the Talmudic tractate Ta'anit, which relates the story of Honi hame'agel (Honi the circle-maker): One day as Honi was walking along he saw a man planting a carob tree. Honi asked him "how many years until it will bear fruit"? The man answered: "not for seventy years".

Honi asked him, "do you really believe you'll live another seventy years?" The man answered: "I found this world provided with carob trees, and as my ancestors planted them for me, so I too plant them for my descendants."

Yet Nahmanides, (1194-1270) another Medieval commentator, views this commandment in terms of an eco-centric understanding of the value of species preservation. According to his interpretation of this passage, "Scripture will not permit a destructive act that will bring about the extinction of a species, even though it has permitted the ritual slaughtering of that species for food. He who kills the mother and offspring on one day is considered as if he destroyed the species."

Thus according to Nahmanides, species extinction is intrinsically wrong - regardless of how or whether it affects humans.

...a classic rabbinical midrash on this passage suggests a more nuanced interpretation: "When God created Adam he led him past all the trees in the Garden of Eden and told him, `See how beautiful and excellent are all My works. Beware lest you spoil and ruin My world. For if you spoil it there is nobody to repair it after you'"

In addition to the fourth commandment's explicit requirement that all creatures, human as well as animal, have a day of rest, Deuteronomy forbids the farmer to plough with an ox and a donkey yoked together because, according to one interpretation, this would impose greater hardship on the weaker animal. (Deuteronomy 22:10) .

Likewise a farmer is not permitted to muzzle an ox during the threshing period to prevent his eating grain. (Deuteronomy 25:4) Nor can an ox or a sheep be slaughtered on the same day as its offspring. (Leviticus 22: 28)

More than five centuries before the advent of radical ecology, the Jewish medieval philosopher Maimonides (1131-1205) wrote in Guide for the Perplexed, "It should not be believed that all the beings exist for the sake of the existence of humanity. On the contrary, all the other beings too have been intended for their own sakes, and not for the sake of something else."

[_Coggins7]

The crux of Fort's series of quotes above is that none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the modern environmental movement or its core philosophical precepts.

And he's not going to find anything in the Old Testament or New Testament that does.

One particular flaw in the psychology of the Left is its unenviable taste for disingenuity; papering over what it really believes and accepts philosophically with a thick coating of sugar and frosting to make it appear to be something other that what it actually is.

Hence, Socialism is about brotherhood and liberty (when its really about alienation and bondage), convenience abortion on demand is about "the health of the mother" and "choice" (when its really about the circumvention of the consequences of behavior), "peace" is about understanding and harmony among nations (when its really about moral and intellectual cowardice), and environmentalism is about love of nature and stewardship of the environment (when its really about...Socialism).

Freedom is slavery, war is peace, black is white.

[_Coggins7]

Fort should really be quoting from the Testament of The Twelve Patriarchs here, where we have animals in the afterlife condemning those humans who have mistreated them in this one, with human beings being called to account for their actions. Other, similar concepts can be found, here and there, throughout the Old Testament Pseudopigrapha and related materials.

[_asbestosman]

Coggins,

Not that I expect you to respond to me, but I can fancy that you might read this.

I do not think it right to use politics to force people to be wiser consumers. I believe in the free market--well mostly. I believe in it more than I believe in communism and big government or governmental regulation. But here's the thing. I think we have a huge cultural problem. Our culture is very wasteful when we drive a block or two to the grocery store. Instead we should get off our butts and walk, or do what people in Europe do (no, not socialism which I despise) -- bike + mass transit.

Now I grant that many people in the US live in rural areas. I'm all for them doing what they need to do. I just wish there were a way to encourage a change in culture. Because it saves the environment? Well, it might, and it might not. I certainly can't use that as an arguement for why our culture should change. No, I think it should change because it will actually save us money and make our nation and our planet wealthier. Did I mention that I'm a penny pincher? You know, me avoiding the gas pumps when possible makes me feel good. If it hurts big oil, I won't shed a tear as those big execs would have to forgoe buying a private jet next year. You see, the thing is I think environmentalism when entered into voluntarily will make individuals wealthier. Coggins, unless you are an oil tychoon, I think you'd be better off if the economy re-adjusted itself to be more efficient with its resources.

The biggest way the common man benefits from cheap energy is in shipping. Thanks to shipping I can purchase cheap goods from Asia. Thanks to that competition, Americans have to work harder to attract business so in theory we get better products. No, getting rid of cheap energy is not an option I advocate. Rather I think being more efficient is key. I also think that investing in alternatives (like perhaps better nuclear energy) will pay off. Did I say nuclear? Yep, guess I'm not a total lefty-paganist.

By the way, I like the concept of environmental property rights, but I think it needs improvement. I hear that there are currently too many loopholes, but I think it's a step in the right direction inasmuch as it encourages a net improvement in accountability and an incentive to be cleaner and more effecient.

[_Pokatator]

Cog, what is "Evinonmentalism"? E-vino? E-wine?

[_Fortigurn]

The crux of Fort's series of quotes above is that none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the modern environmental movement or its core philosophical precepts.

And he's not going to find anything in the Old Testament or New Testament that does.

Clearly you didn't read my post. You've just added to my sig.

[_Fortigurn]

Fort should really be quoting from the Testament of The Twelve Patriarchs here, where we have animals in the afterlife condemning those humans who have mistreated them in this one, with human beings being called to account for their actions. Other, similar concepts can be found, here and there, throughout the Old Testament Pseudopigrapha and related materials.

Obviously you're not that familiar with the Bible:

Numbers 22:
28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you that you have beaten me these three times?”
29 And Balaam said to the donkey, “You have made me look stupid; I wish there were a sword in my hand, for I would kill you right now.”
30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am not I your donkey that you have ridden ever since I was yours until this day? Have I ever attempted39 to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.”

[_Mr. Coffee]

Imagine, there are people out there that say I must be nuts because I can't take a book that has TALKING DONKIES seriously.

[_Fortigurn]

How very foolish of them.