Posts
Stewardship and the Creation
I just finished reading Stewardship and the Creation: LDS Perspectives on the Environment, and the more I think about it the more remarkable the book seems. It's a compilation of essays and articles by LDS authors reflecting on environmental attitudes and issues. It levels some criticism at our western culture, and it even includes some soft criticism of creationism. What makes it remarkable is that it was published in 2006 by the Religious Studies Center of BYU, a research and publishing arm of the BYU religion department. You can read it for free at their website.
Environmental issues tend to be contentious, particularly in the current U.S. political climate. Skepticism--or even disdain--of environmental causes tends to emanate from the same political party that LDS members tend to belong to. As the bloggernacle's own Steven Peck (BYU professor and co-editor) writes:
While on a recent fishing trip with some good Latter-day Saint men who otherwise would never swear, they could not say the word environmentalist without putting the word damn in front of it.He further notes:
From my experience with members of the Church, I see that they have a profound love for nature. They love camping, hunting, and spending time in the wilderness. ... Many of those who express outrage at the mention of environmentalism are Scouters who profess a strong conservation ethic. They have profound memories of being in wilderness areas, which they speak about with love and passion. But talk to these same people about environmental protection, and they vehemently denounce it and claim such legislation is supported only by extremists and malcontents. When I suggest to my good Latter-day Saint family and friends about global warming, the worldwide loss of species, or the protection of our wild areas, they scoff not only at the idea that we should be concerned about these things but that there is even such a problem that needs attention.Yet, as Elder Neal A. Maxwell wrote,
This restored work not only involves the things of eternity but is also drenched in daily significance. True disciples, for instance, would be consistent environmentalists—caring both about maintaining the spiritual health of a marriage and preserving a rain forest; caring about preserving the nurturing capacity of a family as well as providing a healthy supply of air and water...Adam and Eve were to "dress the garden," not exploit it. Like them, we are to keep the commandments, so that we can enjoy all the resources God has given us, resources described as "enough and to spare" (D&C 104:17), if we use and husband them wisely. [A Wonderful Flood of Light, p. 103.]Cultural and political leanings notwithstanding, this book repeatedly points out that environmental concern has strong foundations in our scripture and the teachings of the prophets. If you don't like the word environmentalism, call it conservation, self-reliance, stewardship, or provident living. It ultimately amounts to much the same thing.
In light of the knee-jerk polarization that can occur on this topic, it is unfortunate that the book didn't open with Peck's essay, "An Ecologist’s View of Latter-day Saint Culture and the Environment," because he explores how Latter-day Saints approach several environmental issues and compares it to the broader environmental movement. In spite of a few high-profile disagreements (e.g. population control) and different starting premises, he finds substantial overlap. I think this essay best lays the groundwork for understanding the rest of the book, and I would recommend readers start with it.
A number of the essays are excellent and overlap somewhat in their presentation. I will warn you that some of the chapters are a bit dry, so if they don't interest you, move on to others. Some essays focus more on Utah itself-- especially the late 1800s--while others are more general. I found chapter 11, "A House Divided: Utah and the Return of the Wolf," particularly interesting. Wolves have an image problem that they apparently do not deserve, and I did not realize what central players they were/are in western ecology. (I couldn't help but wonder if their re-introduction to Utah might reduce the number of automobile-deer accidents).
There is always difficulty getting people to accept cause-and-effect relationships. Chapter 8, "The Hope for Extraordinary Ecological Improvement," describes damage that was done in Utah by overlogging and overgrazing. The result was a loss of mountain watersheds and consequent catastrophic floods. Yet some opposed projects to restore and protect the watersheds, attributing the floods to acts of God. There is certainly a basis in scripture for attributing natural disasters to God, but the scriptures and prophets have also been clear about our subjection to the laws of nature.
Chapter 13, "Rattlesnakes and Beehives: Why Latter-day Saints Should Support Ecologically Sustainable Development," makes the interesting suggestion that the latter portion of Doctrine and Covenants 59 can be read as a prophetic forewarning of our environmental problems. In that vein, we might think of it as the Word of Wisdom for the planet.
Chapter 12, "How Can Church Members Increase Their Environmental Awareness?" has a handy little chart of Ensign articles that treat environmental topics. It's not very large, but it's not nothing, either.
For the rest of this post, I'll just quote parts that stood out to me. Maybe they'll pique your interest enough to go read the book.
Chapter 1:
The dilemma we face in organizing our economic activities is that financial capital that Brigham Young identifies as being the least important is also the easiest to measure. Consequently, conventional thinking about economic activity is focused almost exclusively on financial capital with very little attention given to those aspects of human and natural capital that do not have an easily measured financial value.
Humans are free to choose wisely to partner with nature in mutually effective ways, but we are also free to ignore or even interfere with or destroy the work of nature. However, humans are not free to choose the consequences of our actions, the one being sweet and the other being bitter. The penalties for violating natural laws are real and irrevocable, and we as a culture will surely bear the consequences.
There are many who confuse prosperity with the power to waste. An oft-spoken rationale for waste is that if people own something, they are entitled to do with it as they please. This rationale is based on an assumption of the primacy of financial capital while deemphasizing human and natural capital. Brigham Young offers a different perspective by reminding us that one can never have enough to be wasteful, that everything that was created was created for a purpose, and that we interfere with God’s plan when we waste something that He created for a purpose.
Most people realize that for democracy to succeed, it must have a responsible and informed electorate. What is not as obvious is that for free markets to succeed in bringing forth a just and lasting prosperity, the market must have a responsible and informed “consumerate” and “investorate.” For those of us who are fortunate to live in a free market democracy, it is an important part of our sacred stewardship to be part of the responsible and informed electorate, consumerate, and investorate.
Chapter 7:
The scriptures indicate that this arrangement [humans as dominant] has been in place since the creation of Adam, and anyone who takes them seriously has to concede a certain utilitarianism behind the Creation, with man as the designated utilizer. To view the earth, her creatures, and her products strictly in utilitarian terms, however, or to assign them values on the basis of their temporal, immediate, man-centered utility, does not seem justified—especially when it was God himself who started pronouncing his creations “good” long before Adam was on the scene.
Chapter 11:
None of our modern prophets were trained in the complexities of conservation biology. Nevertheless, because they recognize environmental stewardship as a commandment, they advocate the same fundamental ideals as conservationists, namely, that humans are responsible for all life on earth.
Chapter 13:
Of course, wherever human judgment is required, opposing and impassioned social argument is inevitable. Judgment surrounding questions of environmental protection is no exception, and naturally many Latter-day Saints prefer to avoid what could be contentious issues. However, the fact that decisions are difficult or politically loaded and that definitive or detailed instruction has not proceeded from Church leadership does not excuse Latter-day Saints from the obligation to apply wise judgment in the use of “all things which come of the earth” (D&C 59:18). Disciples of Christ cannot choose the do-nothing option simply because there are competing and politically sensitive arguments. The duty to obey supersedes the detail.
Though the natural environment is in a state of perpetual flux and there is in real terms no ideal environment, the past three to four decades have witnessed a global awakening to the fact that humanity, in its rush for the golden egg of economic prosperity, is threatening the very existence of the goose on which it is dependent; namely, this incredibly unpredictable and majestically beautiful natural environment.
15 comments:
For me, I suppose the conflict comes for two reaons: 1.) When environmentalism suggests that humans are a curse upon the earth, and that we are below it in importance. 2.) I am not opposed to preserving the environment (I love our national parks), but I am suspicious of a movement that could be used politically to oppress people or get gain.
Matronne,
1.) When environmentalism suggests that humans are a curse upon the earth, and that we are below it in importance.
As for being a curse, most such expressions I take to be a kind of hyperbole and rhetoric meant to highlight the negative effects we have on the earth. And depending on the issue, they may have a legitimate point. My guess is that the number of people who sincerely take these ideas as universal guiding principles are relatively few in number. There are plenty of people concerned about animal welfare who do not agree with the extremes of PETA, for example.
As for relative importance, a person could make the case that anytime humans yield to nature in a way that doesn't directly benefit them, they are putting the earth above humans in importance. I doubt that you would agree with that, and neither would I. I'm just saying that I don't think human ego should be preeminent in policy making.
And anyway, who cares what dumb things other people think, if a mutually agreeable goal can be reached? We shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face. Strange bedfellows occur in both politics and law.
2.) I am not opposed to preserving the environment...but I am suspicious of a movement that could be used politically to oppress people or get gain.
Liberty and constraint are always in tension. I don't think people should be able to dump their trash anywhere they want--even if it's public land. I'm betting that there are people who consider litter laws oppressive. These tensions are something we constantly negotiate as a society.
I doubt that most environmentally oriented organizations actually want to oppress people. However, the policies that they desire might be considered oppressive to others. Again, these are boundaries we need to negotiate as a society, weighing the costs and benefits.
As for gain, you are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. The critique of environmental advocates (such as Hugh Nibley, for example) is that the environment suffers precisely because of undue pursuit of material gain. There are other forms of gain (e.g. political), and I'm not saying that environmental advocates should operate free from scrutiny. But I think in most cases, to say that they are seeking material gain is to get things backwards and ignore the greater material interest of those who oppose environmental regulations.
It's not about ego. The earth was created for our use, and I just don't think that we should feel guilty for using the earth's resources- so long as it is done in a responsible way. (I guess the definition of "responsible" is the argument). I agree that a difference of opinion should not get in the way of compromise. As far as the extremists being few in numbers... it sure does seem like they are the loudest.
As far as policy making goes, I am just stating that it is a cause that COULD be abused. It seems anything could be justified with regards to preserving the environment. Where is the line between good impact and bad impact?
And by the way, I think it's ironic that some of our loudest environmental defenders live in mansions and fly jets. Is conservation only for the masses?
Jared* Thanks for this review. It really is nice to see that the book has not been forgotten. It was a magic moment bringing that together with George and Terry from Religious Ed. The Saints really have some responsibilities they should not be ignoring. Anyway thanks for the nicely done review.
2.) I am not opposed to preserving the environment (I love our national parks), but I am suspicious of a movement that could be used politically to oppress people or get gain.
Then you should be massively suspicious of the gas and oil industries, as well as other businesses who despoil the environment for the purposes of making some money, right? It's laughable to me that people would be suspicious of people advocating for cleaner, renewable energy and so forth on the grounds that such attempts are probably driven by money.
Jared,
I have concern with the way we think and talk about Sustainability. My concern is perhaps best illustrated by the rhetorical question; “is the glass half full, or half empty”? The answer, of course, depends of the observer. The optimist sees the glass half full. The pessimist sees the glass half empty. Without consideration of the alternative, we seem to have adopted the pessimist’s view. Not only do I think that is the wrong way to view Sustainability, I contend that it is not even sustainable, in the long run.
The way we think about Sustainability typically is the classic Malthusian Catastrophe in which exponential population growth outstrips available resources, and society collapses. There have been several Malthusian predictions over the years, and in spite of increasing global population, none of them have ever come true. The reason is that society (people) always adapt. Production increases, exploration increases proven reserves, or alternative resources are discovered.
Nevertheless, this pessimistic view as the “official” view of Sustainability persists. Population is increasing. Resources are finite. We must reduce consumption of resources so there may be some left for future generations. I contend that in the long run, this view of Sustainability is actually unsustainable. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable, i.e., a Malthusian Catastrophe.
I choose the optimist’s view of Sustainability. The glass is not half empty, it is half full. And people are not the problem, they are the solution!
When talking about Sustainability it seems to me that the very first thing we need to do is make clear what it is we intend to sustain. To my way of thinking, the following, in order of priority, are what we want to sustain.
I know that in the very long run the Earth and its resources are finite. However, pick essentially any commodity you like, and the proven reserves of that commodity are greater now than they were a decade ago, which was greater than the decade before that. How can that be if resources are finite and population and consumption are increasing? The answer is that increasing demand for resources spurs exploration for more proven reserves, new technology to use resources more efficiently, and/or development of other and better resources to do the same job. That’s the way it has been throughout history, and I see no reason to assume it will not continue, for at least the foreseeable future.
The key to real Sustainability it seems to me is a strong economy which generates the wealth necessary to fund environmental progress, and low cost energy is key to a strong economy. There is a reason developing economies have such a lousy record on environmental issues. They have more pressing issues, like feeding their people! It is only an economy producing significant wealth that can afford to the make the environment progress we have made in this country. I see no reason to assume that will not continue in the future. So, it seems to me, the key to real sustainability is a strong economy.
Matt,
I think you make some good points, particularly about the link between environmental degradation and poverty. I get your point about further exploration, but I don't think it has universal application, particularly when dealing with threatened species (animal and plant).
Jared,
Something on the order of 95% of all the species that have ever lived on the earth are now extinct, and mankind had nothing to do with the vast majority of that. So I get a little frustrated with over emphasis on “threatened species”. According to the fossil record, extinction is clearly the natural way of things on this earth. That doesn’t mean I think we should rape and pillage our environment. I like clean water and air as much as anyone, but I think we have to have priorities. People and their wealth producing economy has to be the highest priority, or nothing gets done on the environment.
I’d like to hear your response to the idea that the prevailing idea of sustainability (i.e. use less resources) is not sustainable because it just delays the inevitable.
Matt,
To address one of your comments, the relevant fact about biodiversity and extinction is not whether extinction is a normal part of evolutionary process, but how much that process is being disrupted and altered by human activity. Good estimates have the rate of extinction increasing by a factor of 100-1000 due to human activity.
I live in Oregon, which certainly has members who are passionately on one side or the other on this issue.
For people whose livelihoods disappeared when old growth logging and timber sales were drastically reduced, it can be especially hard to see why endangered animals habitat is all that important.
For others who own large tracks of land near our urban growth boundaries, but clearly outside it, there is frustration that the urban growth boundary does not allow them to build a subdivision or two. (That part of the debate has died down some with the recession and high unemployment in the state, since the number of foreclosures has kept even approved projects in the urban growth boundary from being built until there are more buyers and less inventory.)
On the other side of the spectrum Oregon has the highest number of 501(c)3 organization whose primary mission relates to environmental issues in one way or another.
Even in difficult economic times the Portland Metro area continues to expand the MAX (Metro Area Express - basically a light rail system) since in the long run it is both less expensive and less polluting than buses. Don't get me wrong, most people in the metro area love that we have a bus system that reaches over 80% of the population within Metro's boundaries. When I worked downtown, everyone in my office of 30+ people used MAX, busses or rode their bikes to work.
One of the strangest things to me is to live in an area where even most conservative lawmakers in the state don't question the science behind environmental policies, but I could tell you 12 people in my ward who regularly express (usually in Sunday School) that the Bible, Book of Mormon and Latter-Day prophets are opposed to environmental protection in any form because this is the Promised Land and we are the masters of it. I usually keep my mouth shut in the hopes that we will get back to the actual lesson topic (I have yet to see one entitled "Why God wants us to rape and pillage the Earth") instead of taking the class on a twenty minute romp through us vs. them thinking. Do you think an anonymous gift of this book for Christmas would be too obvious?
I am also a little bewildered by people who say they love national parks, camping and scenic areas, but only if they are easy to get to and have camp grounds in them with running water, electricity and flush toilets. I also get confused by "conservative Mormons" who support the prophet so much that they keep their sons out of the Boy Scouts because BSA is too liberal. (I am so tempted to ask if they have a different church handbook that says the scouting program - is NOT - the official program of the church for Young Men in any country where it is available. I haven't asked, but I came very close about a month ago.)
I personally think that if we followed Brigham Young's advice to never have more than we need, so we aren't throwing away a surplus, and took a more cooperative approach in most areas of life, from community gardens to carpooling and finding exotic vacations closer to home, that we wouldn't have to discuss whether environmentalism was taking something away from people. (wow that ended up as a run on sentence, sorry mom the English teacher)
I am not a bleeding heart liberal or a staunch conservative. I am grateful that I can register as nonaffiliated in my state, since I haven't found a party I can agree with most of the time, and I certainly can't find one that is in line with gospel teachings more than the other(s).
hbar,
I don’t know if what you say is true, but I’m willing to stipulate that it may be, so what do you propose we do about it?
On a related question, how many new species are evolving to take the place of species going extinct?
Matt,
If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that worrying about a Malthusian collapse could be a self-fulfilling prophecy because of a downward spiral of failure to use resources leading to inability to use resources. It sounds plausible--at least in theory--though I'm not sure that I agree because the world is complicated. I think it really depends on the context and how the issue is approached.
For example, in the western U.S. there is legitimate concern about water supply. I don't see how efforts to be more efficient in water usage necessarily make exhaustion of the water supply inevitable. We could come up with all kinds of scenarios, but I think it boils down to viewing natural resource use as an investment. We can be wise or foolish in what we do with them. (I'm reminded of the Church video where they guy drinks the bottle of water rather than using it to prime the pump.) Ideally, market forces would guide us into wise usage, and they probably do much of the time. But I'll bet there are many instances where they fail because they don't recognize the true cost.
You are right about the importance of wealth. In fact, as countries become more wealthy, families start to shrink because of some combination of i) better survival rates, ii) access to birth control, and iii) change in the economic incentives. I think it's possible that a more wealthy world will have a more stable population. But I'm really just doing armchair speculation.
The danger in all of this is getting trapped into viewing economic prosperity and environmental health as alternatives. It might be that in some cases it really is a choice of one or the other, but I am skeptical that such is the case as much as we might think.
Julia,
Thanks for the comment. I don't think I've ever heard of BSA being accused of being too liberal. Wow.
You might consult the table of Ensign articles mentioned above. The book has a few nice quotes from Church leaders as well.
Matt,
The first step is habitat preservation. Good research (see, for example, the papers by Stuart Pimm) indicates it works quite well in most cases. Other steps are more particular to different circumstances. But it is important to note that environmental degradation and biodiversity loss are wealth issues. If we engage in them excessively, then we are likely going to hurt wealth creation if we look at just slightly longer time frames. For example it is now being acknowledged that more "environmentally friendly" fishing restrictions end up more profitable within a few years for all involved, because boats have to spend less time fishing, reducing their expenses more than they reduce their revenue.
I featured you blog on my Sunday "New Favorite Blog(s)" post. You can see it here if you are interested.
http://poetrysansonions.blogspot.com/2012/05/my-new-favorite-blogs.html?m=0
Post a Comment