Musings on the Environment

I've been following the whole debate on global warming, aka climate change for some time, admittedly and purposefully at a distance.  I have been interested not so much in the data (how it's presented, whether it is accurate or doctored, and other) but because of the bigger worldview implications implicit in the arguments.  My personal sentiment on the issue can be summed up basically as: "What's all the fuss about?"

Even if one were to grant that the scientific community is correct in all the data presented thusfar, even include all the data sets where accusations of tampering or doctoring or deletion have been levied, what can the scientist determine from the data?  Humankind is negatively effecting his/her surrounding environment.  That's pretty much it.  Graphs and charts and data sets can be presented to more clearly present to what extent the effect has been negative, but still in all the scientists task ends at the conclusion, prescribing what to do next is for another.  Supposing we stipulate all the above, namely that mankind is negatively effecting the environment.  What can be said following this?  This is what I find fascinating about the discussion, what to do with the information.

We first must remember that the same scientists who collect, interpret and present the data say that God does not exist, that it is an intellectually lazy position to ascribe any information we don't have or can't explain to the work of a deity because if it exists in nature we will eventually be able to explain it with science.  Everything that is here today is a result of time and chance, in fact we are here through a purely natural process of evolution and natural selection; a process which is accidental, thoughtless, purposeless and has been described as "blind, pitiless and indifferent".  Why is that at all important?  Well, it occurs to me that there are only three ways to look at human effect and concerns for the environment on a naturalistic or materialistic worldview.

First, strictly utilitarian, i.e. save the environment to preserve the species.  This view is frought with horrible implications, however.  What means are to be employed to save the environment?  If saving the environment is the end, then any and all means prescribed by those experts who deem it necessary are right and binding on all humankind.  People could be reduced to carbon consumers making carbon footprints.  Who will make the decision on what steps to take?  Who will monitor compliance?  Perhaps a new division of the EPA akin to the IRS called the Internal Environmental Service (IES) that will require each individual to present documentation giving a truthful account of exactly how much energy that carbon consumer used in the calendar year.  Does one recycle?  How much?  Credits for hybrid or electric transportation?  How about the number of generational carbon consumers?  How many credits would need to be earned, or what kind of penalties would have to be paid to introduce another consumer of energy into this world, after all today's innocent children will be tomorrow's environmental impactors.  Could any of this ever really come to pass?  Maybe , maybe not, but that's not the point.  The point is all these things and more would be a logical outworking of the utilitarian view of the issue.  One other point here, why are we so eager to save humanity?  Evolution and natural selection gave rise to humankind, from whence came intellect, reasoning, the propensity to invent complex machines, to consume, to build bigger and better.  If natural processes are all that exists, then what we are today is the inextricable result of a thoughtless process with no pre-ordained end result.  In fact, it would have to be stipulated that we have been naturally selected to be exactly where we are right now.  If humankind ends up using up all the natural resources and cannot evolve a way to live without them, then we become extinct.  Nature will neither know, nor care.  In any case, a utilitarian view of saving the environment could not be grounded on any transcendent absolute to be applied to all of humankind, it would simply be the imposition of means determined by an elite group of 'experts' on a mass of carbon consumers to achieve an arbitrary and capricious end.  The flaws with this course seem to be obvious, but in my view is the most probable outcome if we remain on the current course.

Second, establish a new religion of environmentalism.  Some would say this is already the case, but it would now need to be readily accepted, formalized and implemented globally.  Nature would of course be established as god.  It would be a strictly monotheistic religion, environmentalism, lest some supernatural essence be allowed to usurp the absolute authority of the natural.  Govermental leaders would be the priests as they would be responsible for speaking in the media pulpits to instruct the laity of the guidelines and boundaries for behavior which binds each and every individual.  Scientists would then be the apologists, giving a defense for the hope that nature brings and confirming the message of the governmental leaders.  Those currently identified as "environmental activists" would of course be the evangelists, making their rounds to stir up revival in those areas where fervor and passion for environmental concerns had grown cold.  Nature would be seen as transcendent over everything in the universe and worship and sacrifice to Nature would be requisite of all humankind.  All the outworkings of point one would be put in place, only seen not as an imposition on society, but as a moral duty.  I believe this approach to be the least cogent and supportable, but also recognize it would most likely be the most effective.

Third, personal choice.  Recognizing the data as presented each individual must choose whether to see the environment as important and to what extent that choice will effect his/her behavior.  This seems to me to be the most consistent and reasonable of the three approaches.  If nothing is transcendent over all of mankind, then each one is left to his own to decide what to do.  One may think it is important to care for the environment, another may not care a wit and desires only to indulge completely in whatever is convenient at the time.  Neither right, nor wrong just making personal choices.  Inevitably the position will come up that individual decision may negatively effect another person, and the effect to the society would be a mitigating factor for overriding or setting aside personal choice.  But what action would be taken to stop behavior because it effects other people?  Who decides how much effecting is too much and how that is to be monitored?  We are back to the outworkings of point one.

Let me again stress that in presenting the above I have made a general assumption and stipulation that the scientific data is true and that humankind is responsible for negative effects on the environment.  I have also stipulated the starting assumption that the natural is all that exists and that there is no transcendent view on things.  I presented three positions that can be taken on the naturalistic/materialistic frame to support the need to save the environment.  I hope it would be clear to everyone who would think carefully about the issue that all the positions posited here are not defensible.  Moreover, it should be obvious that a transcendent view of the environment is non-existent and on the discussed worldviews the preservation of the environment or humankind may be desired, but cannot be consistent logically on the larger worldview.

So what might a solution look like?  Again, I would have to say that I have not personally thought throught the procedural aspects of some step-by-step program or system to address the scientific claim that humanity is negatively effecting the environment.  What I can say is what the Biblical-Christian worldview brings to the discussion.  God created all that is, i.e. God created nature for His name sake.  God created man, placed him on the earth and gave instruction that he was to subdue and take dominion over the earth.  This discussion has been lengthy enough, so suffice it to say that man is to behave as a steward, a caretaker over nature on behalf of it's Owner (incidentally, since God gives us all we possess this same idea of a steward or manager applies to our gifts, abilities, money, time, etc.).  So, as we have been given the earth to inhabit and to manage for God, then it is encumbent upon us to fulfill the position in which we have been placed and purpose to not treat with disdain that to which we have been blessed.  By way of illustration think of it this way; were we to manage a restaurant for an owner, it would anathama for that owner to return to the place of business only to find it in shambles.  Not only would it be justified to terminate us as manager, but pursued seeking restitution.  In short, because we are accountable ultimately to God for how we treat what He has given us to manage, we each will give an account for what we have done with that to which we have been entrusted.  I see this position as one that provides a genuine basis for the care of the environment, based on a transcendent Creator with the understanding of the universal expectation of stewardship to the ultimate end of glorifying God through obedience and faithful care of His possession.  The particulars I leave to another, but we must at least begin with a legitimate foundation on which to believe and set our behavior.  As I write today, I fear we are standing on a shifting foundation with no ultimate end in view and attempting to find some way to prescribe for all what we have an initmation must be the right thing to do, while at every turn sinking and wandering aimlessly.