And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I will accept that at face value. But how many lives are enriched and prolonged due to our use of fossil fuels, fertilizers. extracted resources and so on?
How many are impoverished when we focus obsessively on the downside of human productivity and fecundity?
Corwin, thank you for bringing that up! I worked with Ben on this essay, and that was a point we discussed. Ben tried to reflect this reality when he acknowledged the progress that modern energy and agricultural practices have enabled. In some ways, the emotions of this problem echo the emotions of the classic philosophical problem known as the trolley dilemma. If we act, people will die, but if we refrain from acting, more people will die. Of course, that dilemma is so difficult because death is unavoidable in either case. But hopefully we can find a third way, a both/and world where we can have the benefits of human progress AND the benefits of a healthy environment. I think that is what the author meant when he said that this isn’t a case of humans vs the planet. And hopefully this essay shows a way to engage in this question with love, not fear. I personally believe that we need more, not less, of the inventiveness and risk-taking that powered our industrial progress in order to continue our work of creating a society of health and wealth for all. I won’t speak for Brother Abbott, but I think he would agree with me 😉.
The issue of ownership versus stewardship is an interesting one. I practice in a small corner or real estate law where I work often with landowners who have owned land for generations. I see frequently that they consider their ownership more of a stewardship for future generations. I’m a believer in robust property rights as a way of protecting our land, and as a way of cultivating a mindset of responsibility to avoid the tragedy of the commons. I think the more we see how we are interconnected, and the more we see the extended impact of our actions, the more we can see the full value of what we own. We may come to see that what we own is our choices, and all the rest is merely the flow of energy and matter that passes through our hands over time.
I do think that as a whole, we haven’t considered the significance of Earth’s place in Gods plan as we could/should. It certainly has implications for notions of dominion, ownership, and agency.
Another one of the ecological laws is that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL). However, I wonder how much tradeoff thinking applies to Gospel approaches. Whether or not it does, I only find that approach compelling when there aren't viable alternatives. Elder John Groberg anticipated these alternatives back in 1979:
"I am not sure how to do it, but I am sure that there is a right way; we just need to discover it. I do not believe that the Lord is pleased with the constant corruption and pollution we so willingly endure—not just spiritually, but physically—to achieve some of our goals. I personally cannot help but believe that there is a better way. I cannot help but feel that God knows how to transform all of these base materials into useful tools without all the choking clouds of dust and the stench of pollution in our rivers and streams. He put our resources here, he put us here, and he knows what we need. He knows what is here and how to get things done. I do not think that he is against energy. I think that he is for all of these things, and wants us to use them in the proper way to get around, do his work, and build up his kingdom. But my faith is that there is a better way than we now know. He wants us to use the elements—to mold them for our use—but in a different way."
We now have ways of providing energy, food, and water with much less pollution and damage to the Earth. Solar and wind are not only viable, they are economically and technologically dominant (here is an overview from last year of this "renewable energy revolution" https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023EF003639). This creates an alignment between reducing pollution and elevating the quality of life for all of God's children. Setting the historical pros and cons analysis aside, looking forward, I think the path is pretty clear morally.
We can only clean the earth one person at a time loving our neighbor, but we always get in the way by trying to get faithless results coercively and immediately. Unrealistic? Faith and love are unrealistic.
This is so beautiful. Thank you!
“15 million premature deaths each year”
I will accept that at face value. But how many lives are enriched and prolonged due to our use of fossil fuels, fertilizers. extracted resources and so on?
How many are impoverished when we focus obsessively on the downside of human productivity and fecundity?
I love clean air and clean water but we’ll get more of it if we focus on enriching God’s greatest creation, mankind, than by treasuring the earth as our possession. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/9?id=p30&lang=eng#p30
Corwin, thank you for bringing that up! I worked with Ben on this essay, and that was a point we discussed. Ben tried to reflect this reality when he acknowledged the progress that modern energy and agricultural practices have enabled. In some ways, the emotions of this problem echo the emotions of the classic philosophical problem known as the trolley dilemma. If we act, people will die, but if we refrain from acting, more people will die. Of course, that dilemma is so difficult because death is unavoidable in either case. But hopefully we can find a third way, a both/and world where we can have the benefits of human progress AND the benefits of a healthy environment. I think that is what the author meant when he said that this isn’t a case of humans vs the planet. And hopefully this essay shows a way to engage in this question with love, not fear. I personally believe that we need more, not less, of the inventiveness and risk-taking that powered our industrial progress in order to continue our work of creating a society of health and wealth for all. I won’t speak for Brother Abbott, but I think he would agree with me 😉.
The issue of ownership versus stewardship is an interesting one. I practice in a small corner or real estate law where I work often with landowners who have owned land for generations. I see frequently that they consider their ownership more of a stewardship for future generations. I’m a believer in robust property rights as a way of protecting our land, and as a way of cultivating a mindset of responsibility to avoid the tragedy of the commons. I think the more we see how we are interconnected, and the more we see the extended impact of our actions, the more we can see the full value of what we own. We may come to see that what we own is our choices, and all the rest is merely the flow of energy and matter that passes through our hands over time.
I do think that as a whole, we haven’t considered the significance of Earth’s place in Gods plan as we could/should. It certainly has implications for notions of dominion, ownership, and agency.
Thanks for your comment, Corwin.
Another one of the ecological laws is that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL). However, I wonder how much tradeoff thinking applies to Gospel approaches. Whether or not it does, I only find that approach compelling when there aren't viable alternatives. Elder John Groberg anticipated these alternatives back in 1979:
"I am not sure how to do it, but I am sure that there is a right way; we just need to discover it. I do not believe that the Lord is pleased with the constant corruption and pollution we so willingly endure—not just spiritually, but physically—to achieve some of our goals. I personally cannot help but believe that there is a better way. I cannot help but feel that God knows how to transform all of these base materials into useful tools without all the choking clouds of dust and the stench of pollution in our rivers and streams. He put our resources here, he put us here, and he knows what we need. He knows what is here and how to get things done. I do not think that he is against energy. I think that he is for all of these things, and wants us to use them in the proper way to get around, do his work, and build up his kingdom. But my faith is that there is a better way than we now know. He wants us to use the elements—to mold them for our use—but in a different way."
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/john-h-groberg/your-mission/
We now have ways of providing energy, food, and water with much less pollution and damage to the Earth. Solar and wind are not only viable, they are economically and technologically dominant (here is an overview from last year of this "renewable energy revolution" https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023EF003639). This creates an alignment between reducing pollution and elevating the quality of life for all of God's children. Setting the historical pros and cons analysis aside, looking forward, I think the path is pretty clear morally.
What do you think?
We can only clean the earth one person at a time loving our neighbor, but we always get in the way by trying to get faithless results coercively and immediately. Unrealistic? Faith and love are unrealistic.
The resurrection is unrealistic.