Doctor Strangelove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Pollution

Here's my answer to The Question:

As Aldo Leopold sawed through that lightning-stricken tree he cut through the history of the North American economical stages in relation to the environment beginning in the 1930s . The Great Depression saw many individuals and, specific to this story, farmers lose all that they worked for to financial debt. The 1920s saw an economical boom where everyone wanted more; more money, more land, more everything, up until 1929 when everything crashed. 1910 witnessed several public documents concerning the conservation of nature and practices implemented to benefit sport fishing. The narrative goes all the way back to 1865 which marks the culmination of the first and second Industrial Revolutions, a time where economies began to trade extensively with one another through the creation of steam ships and railroads. This was one small step for man, and one giant leap towards the environmental crisis we live today. What we have now is a globalized/capitalist economy, where businesses sell products and services for monetary gain, and exploiting the earth of its natural resources is the norm. What we also have on our hands, though many choose to ignore it, is an environmental crisis. The pollution that industries (countries) have pumped out into the atmosphere over the past three-hundred years is finally taking its toll on our beloved planet. James Lovelock introduces the “positive feedback” theory in his article “The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back – and How We Can Save Humanity”. We will go into further discussion on Lovelocks ideas later on in this paper, but for now, the concept of positive feedback serves to explain the consequences of human action (or lack thereof) in dealing with the earth. Lovelock states that “all the systems known to affect climate are now in positive feedback” . This is to say that the earth’s natural response to the smut that humans have pumped into it is in full-throttle. For Lovelock, as well as other eminent scientists, the earth likes to be cool; so as we warm things up through daily “business” the earth is going to naturally regulate its temperature. As such, and at this very moment, the earth is trying to cool itself off, like a camel in the hot desert . As it does this certain creatures, that are not able to survive due to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, will perish. Guess who these creatures are.

The environmental crisis is an ever-growing concern for climatologists, biologists, activists, and the ecologically-aware individual. What we can do to stop, prevent, or delay the inevitable is at the center of the debate for ecologically sound practices. However, these groups make up only a small portion of the planet’s population and so taking action, especially political action, is easier said than done. Those who advocate for some form of action, be it political, spiritual or violent, base their conduct on the inherent belief in an interconnectedness between humans and nature. Several positions have been center stage in this ongoing debate between those who are for ecological change and those who oppose taking action which are entrenched in religious traditional beliefs. Appealing to the biblical perspective, stewardship, and different forms of activism have been tried and tested, and proven insufficient. This paper will address the reasons as to why these approaches do not work and suggest an alternative that more and more people are becoming attracted to. What separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, our ability to reason, is perhaps the only thing that can help us in saving ourselves from the evil that is on the horizon.

The Biblical Perspective:
There are three elements to the Biblical perspective that should be addressed in the discussion about the environmental crisis. These elements are the dominion of man over nature, the right to toil the earth, and the earth as a mere stepping stone to a better world. The Bible describes a God who created man, in his image, to hold dominion over the earth . With this in mind, humans feel justified in exploiting nature for personal gain. Fishing the seas empty, killing animals to the point of their extinction, and logging trees with no regard for the damage it causes are just a few acts that humans participate in based on God’s decree that we are “above” the rest. Thomas Aquinas once said that all lower creatures existed to serve the higher creatures . Thus, according to the food chain, humans are at the top and everything else exists for our benefit. In the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, upon eating from the tree of knowledge, the couple are banished from the Garden of Eden and God tells Adam that he will have to work for his food from now on . Although this event is seen as a punishment for mankind for disobeying the Almighty, it serves as another point in the debate over the environment because in order to feed himself, Adam must toil the earth. This marks the beginning of Agriculture, and the beginning of the end for ethical farming practices. Michael Pollan states in his work, titled “Potato” that “it makes all the difference in (and to) the world if one conceives of a farm as a factory or a forest as a farm” . Agriculture has grown from a survival tool into an industry that cares little for the harmful effects that it imposes on nature all because we are in our right to dominate nature. The last, and perhaps most ludicrous, assumption that is tied in with the Biblical perspective is the notion of the sweet hereafter. Many individuals believe that the earth, as we experience it in our physical reality, is a mere stepping stone to a better world. The idea that upon death we move on to our “real home” allows us to treat this home with disrespect. This ties in with the notion of Apocalypticism. In relation to the environment, this conception maintains that the world is so unbelievably corrupt that there is no other option but for it to be destroyed. Thus, this position allows for humans to continue to pollute, excavate, and exploit the planet without regard for the consequences because it (nature) and we (humans) deserve to perish. This idea is not a valid option because it advocates for a no-responsibility attitude towards the earth and, ultimately, towards each other.

Stewardship:
Stewardship, which requires humans to be responsible for the sustainable use of any natural resource, demands a spiritual relationship with the earth. This is to say that humans are, and should be, connected with nature. The notion that humans can communicate with nature imposes a certain sense of sacredness on nature – something that humans disregarded centuries ago. We now live in a time where a growing number of people do not link religion with economical gain. Thus, to believe in Stewardship is a step backwards into a past that no longer exists. Stewardship is linked to the Biblical perspective because it requires a relationship with God and the assertion that nature, having been created by God, is inherently good and should be treated as one would treat God. One could argue that Primitive cultures are an example of how to be ecological sound because they provide us with an example of ethical practices with regards to the environment. Sure, this could work, if Primitive cultures were not so backwards in every other aspect of life. As mentioned earlier, we live in a capitalist world; everyone needs to make a buck. Primitive cultures are ecological sound because they cannot afford to be anything else, and once they can afford to grow economically speaking, all regard for the environment goes out the window. For example, China is probably the fastest growing economy at the moment. This is because they have finally entered into what the West refers to as an Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution was an era which witnessed a sprint in the desire to make money by manufacturing goods. China is the largest manufacturer of goods now and a step in the direction of ecologically sound practices would hinder their growth and ability to compete in the globalized market. Countries that are already developed and thriving are able to look at China and shake their finger because they are rich enough to do so. Once you have money, you forget what you did to get it. Now the rich countries are looking to rectify the damage they’ve caused at the expense of an under-developed country’s growth.

Forms of Activism:
Activism or Eco-activism, in the context of this paper, is to take action in order to generate environmental change. Localism, Ecofeminism, and Violent Action, are all forms of Eco-activism that are geared towards environmental change and are worth discussing with regard to the religious dimension of ecologically viable practices. Localism is the practice of buying products locally to reduce trade. In Derek Wall’s “Small is Beautiful: Green Localism” it is explained that reducing trade will prevent economic growth and that this is good. Economic growth equals more pollution and “cheapens human existence” because “it is only what can be calculated, bought and sold that truly has worth” . This assertion is questionable. To assume that humans cannot appreciate something without it having cost money is to assume that humans are incapable of feeling at all. The common idea that humans only care about money has been at the root of the ecological crisis from the beginning. It is not the desire for money that is the problem; it is the managing of said money. Ecofeminism goes hand-in-hand with localism in that they believe money and power to be the problem, but goes further (not surprisingly) to assert that men are right there next to money and power. Ecofeminists appeal to ancient myths in religions to explain gender separation and subordination in economic growth and the environment. Rosemary R. Ruether writes in her article titled “Ecofeminism: The Challenge to Theology” that “law codes were developed to define these relations of power of dominant men over women, slaves, animals, and land as property” and that codes were handed down by “God/the gods” . So, according to this idea, the problem is now money, power, and men… or simply put, business. Violent Action is one of the methods by which humans defend nature from the evils of big business. This form of activism requires members of specific groups to take a physical stand in the name of the planet. Monkey-wrenching, living in trees and holding protests are just a few of the tactics that this form of activism uses. This need to battle big business is fuelled by the spiritual connection that these individuals feel in relation to nature. What these individuals do not realize, or chose to ignore, is the fact that their actions have the potential to harm nature and are counter productive since they use the products developed by big business to fight big business. If the spiritual connection between the activist and the environment was so great why would the activist harm nature in this two-fold manner? The response brings us back to the biblical element of it all; that humans are above nature and can manipulate it.

So, is it possible to address the environmental crisis, in a reasonable, viable fashion, without taking into account its religious dimensions? Absolutely! Not only is it possible, but it’s necessary. First of all, if we take the belief in God out of the picture the idea that humans hold dominion over the earth becomes null and void. If humans did not have God and the apocalyptic belief in the hereafter to use as the scapegoat we would have no choice but to respect the earth, the one and only earth that we have. The lack of respect for the planet is heavily based on the belief that it’s not our true home. Take that belief away and humans will be forced to be ecologically responsible for their actions. The spiritual component in the debate over being ecologically sound is a superficial one. It necessitates the notion of an interconnectedness between humans and nature that goes beyond reality. The idea that humans can communicate with nature (animals included) is a fantastical one because humans impose this act on nature; we communicate with it because we say we do. It also assumes a level of equality between humans and the earth, as though we are as good as it and vice versa. This is untrue. Humans, if anything, are below nature, subordinate to it, because we cannot communicate with it nor can we manipulate it without it eventually rebelling against us. Perhaps it is because of this subordinate position that we exploit all the resources that the earth has to offer.

The Alternatives:
There are two alternatives to the aforementioned options in finding an ecologically sound solution to the environmental crisis. The first is similar to the apocalyptic perspective in that it is a cop-out. It is the option to acknowledge and accept defeat; that we cannot fix the environment, it will fix itself. The earth is a living organism and we are simply a virus. We are a virus that grew from a relatively small population into a total pandemic of people. The earth is over populated; there are too many people. The formula for saving the planet then becomes simple: less people equals less physiological needs to satisfy which equals less damage to the earth. Alas, we cannot reduce the population by the percentage required to restore ecological sustainability because that would be immoral. In any case, the earth will fight the plague on its own. However, if we do not wish to be wiped out of existence, we need to come to terms with this reality and find a way to respect nature and coexist with it. The second alternative is Science. If we approach the problem from a logical point of view, and reasoning, we will see that there are some options available to us. As suggested earlier in this paper, James Lovelock approaches the environmental crisis from a scientist’s perspective. Lovelock began his research in the same way as many of us do, by reasoning. For Lovelock, all waste serves a purpose. He gives the example of urine. Humans urinate to rid the body of waste. The nitrogen found in urea. Lovelock discovered that the nitrogen that humans and animals excrete is a source of nutrients for the earth. This discovery led Lovelock to ask questions about the selfish-gene and its relationship to evolution and his ponderings eventually developed in a scientific theory: Gaia Theory; a theory that the planet responds to imbalances and rectifies the disparities on its own to stay cool . He states that “together, these thoughts led me to the hypothesis that living organisms regulate the climate and the chemistry of the atmosphere in their own interest” . Lovelock proved this theory through the use of Daisyworld, his simulation model of the earth, orbiting the sun, with various forms of life on it. He demonstrated that over the course of time, as the sun heated the earth, certain life forms changed, flourished, or died, all is response to the increasing heat and concluded that Gaia (Earth) was self regulating with the goal to “sustain habitability” . This is to say that the earth wants to remain habitable but maybe not habitable for humans. It all depends on how we go from here. Further to the notion of the selfish gene, Lovelock appeals to Darwin’s theory of natural selection whereby races will adopt genes that allow them to survive and those who do not obtain the gene are left behind. Lovelock suggests that humans, as a result of this natural process, are in the midst of destroying our own race. To explain provides us with a graph that shows at what temperature the planet becomes dead . The graph elucidates that as the planet heats up, though humans may no die right away, other elements will, which in turn will affect the “positive feedback” that was mentioned in the introduction to this paper.
So selfish we are:

We have come full-circle and are now back where we started: what can we do to save ourselves? And do we want to? Or should we? These are the questions that arise in light of the many paths we have to choose from in regards to the environmental crisis. If we stick with the primitive belief in the Biblical perspective, we do not need to change anything because we’re supposed to exploit the earth’s natural resources, and dominate over the animals and plants. Or we can choose the apocalyptic path and say we just don’t care because this earth is corrupt and there is another one waiting for us – our real home. Maybe stewardship is a good option since we are inherently connected with nature and we should engage in superficial communication with it to make ourselves feel better about what we have done, and continue to do, to damage it. Perhaps we all need to get involved in the political side of things as activists and try to influence public policy by damaging equipment and flying to Alaska to demonstrate our solidarity with the planet. Or maybe we should take a second and think about a few things in a logical and rational frame of mind. I grow a garden, not because I refuse to buy modified produce from a mono-cultured industry, I grow a garden because it tastes better and is practical for me. We should look at ourselves in the mirror and really consider what is practical. Good food is practical, reasonable prices are practical; continuing to exist on this planet is damn practical. As humans, we differ from other species because we have the ability to reason, and this is why certain elements of our culture have evolved, and will continue to evolve. Upon removing the religious dimensions from the debate on environmental sustainability, we are left with the scientific theory of cause and effect. How we use the earth will effect how long we can stay. The planet is heating up, fast, and it is important to try and cool it down without killing ourselves. For me, doing the little things, like having my own garden, composting, and not eating at McDonald’s are practical, and healthy. My logic tells me that McDonald’s is not only gross, but bad for the environment. My logic tells me that turning off the lights saves electricity. My logic tells me that the earth heating up is probably not a good thing. If logic can tell us this much, how come we choose to ignore logic when it comes to actually doing something for the good of the earth? Has the selfish gene made us completely oblivious to what we are doing? Do we care only about ourselves so much so that we’re willing to die in order the preserve self-interest? We need to wake up. Gaia has, and she’s pissed.