Emily Stewart

ES Capstone Seminar

Prof. Hans Oberdiek

23 January 1999

The Environmental Crisis: Where Did It All Begin?

An Analysis of the Western Roots of the Environmental Crisis

As reports of ecological degradation increase around the world,

human concern about environmental issues is also heightening. Scientists,

philosophers and others have all begun the process of determining the

causes of the environmental crisis and trying to sort out how to fix these

problems. In this essay, I would like to examine two of the most widely

expounded philosophies on the cause of environmental degradation in the

Western hemisphere. The first philosophy states that the Judeo-Christian

religious tradition is primarily to blame while the second philosophy

labels technology as the main culprit of the environmental crisis. I will

argue that neither of these two philosophies provide full explanations for

the current world situation. Furthermore, I will suggest that the true

root of environmental degradation stems from human values, particularly

the value which humans place upon having control and "freedom" from the

natural world.

As you all read, the philosophy that the Judeo-Christian religious

tradition is to blame for the environmental crisis was first expounded by

historian Lynn White in 1967. Although many people have supported White's

theory, no one has been able to provide adequate factual proof for his

hypothesis. Further, his focus is too narrow to account for the extent of

environmental degradation in the modern world. I think that the

Judeo-Christian religion certainly played a role in the negligent

treatment of the Earth but it is not entirely too blame. Also, as Patrick

Dorel argues, the Judeo-Christian tradition can be interpreted to go

against White's theory and to support the notion that humans are intended

to be the caretakers of the earth. It completely depends upon which

Biblical passages one is reading. Since Dorel, Moncrief and Pojman all

addressed the problems with Lynn White's theory, I will not take up space

in debating the issue. However, I think it is important to begin with the

common understanding that White's theory is not adequately grounded in

factual reality.

Clearly, the religious argument does not provide a full

explanation for environmental degradation but what about the theory that

technology is to blame? Over the past few decades, many scholars and

philosophers have suggested that the main cause of the environmental

crisis lies in the increased use of technology, which separates mankind

from the natural world. In evaluating this philosophy, I think it is

useful to look at the writings of Tiles and Oberdiek. In the book Living

in a Technological Culture, Tiles and Oberdiek argue the premise that

technology is not value-neutral but neither is it entirely to blame for

environmental issues. Instead, they define technologies as "ways of doing

and making which are both affected by and affect ways of thinking" (Tiles

and Oberdiek 10). In other words, the technologies might affect the

environment and human lifestyles but technology serves primarily as a

reflection of human values, rather than serving as a creator of values.

Technology did not come out of a vacuum; it was created by humans as a

result of the desire for progress and a better life.

Rather than blaming technology or religion for the environmental

problems in today's world, I see the main culprit as human's desire for

control. The first major leap in terms of humans exerting control over

their environment dates back to the agricultural revolution. This has also

been found to be the point in history where drastic ecological damage

began occurring.[insert:the footnote didn't copy over but it basically

said that many authors have researched and written about this connection

between ecological crises and the agricultural revolution] The

agricultural revolution signalled a major change in human lifestyles.

Rather than moving about in tribes and surviving on whatever food was

found, humans suddenly had the security of having a fixed food supply. I

believe that this transition was the start of environmental problems on

one level. As with technology, I would suggest that the agricultural

revolution was a reflection of human values, rather than being a causal

force. However, also like technology, this change seems to have led to an

increase in ecological degradation by increasing the amount of control

which humans had over their environment. As humans no longer found

themselves needing to scrounge for food all day, the feeling of dependence

upon the earth simultaneously decreased. Furthermore, the agricultural

revolution also allowed for the formation of societies and, subsequently,

the development of one person being able to exert vast control over others

simply by harvesting the most crops. Thus, humans began to place greater

and greater value both on control of the earth and on control of one and

other. Often, by exerting greater control over the earth, one could also

exert greater control over other humans (an example of this phenomenon

lies in the development of the plow or other technologies).

Ultimately, I see the human need for control as the greatest

hindrance to ecological preservation. This need for control serves, in my

mind, as the foundation for both the agricultural and industrial

revolutions. Although there is no way to determine with certainty when and

how humans began to place such a high value on control, it is clear that

Baconian science, Marxist politics, and Judeo-Christian religion played

some role in strengthening and spreading the value. As Tiles and Oberdiek

wrote,"Both the programme of modern science and Marxist revolutionary

politics were founded on an instrumental view of technology and on a

vision of science as that which delivers the rational tools for

controlling nature, freeing humans from enslavement to it" (Tiles and

Oberdiek 18). The notion that we are enslaved by nature continues to be a

widely held belief in today's world. There is a tendency to view nature as

holding back human progress. This belief leads to a continued emphasis

upon trying to control nature and to "reign in" her powers.

The biggest problem with the approach that we must control nature

seems to be the lack of foresight in terms of the consequences of our

actions. From human history thus far, the attempts to control nature seem

to be leading to deadly consequences for all parties, including humanity.

What we so often fail to see is that there are no easy ways to perform

controlled experiments on natural ecosystems. This does not mean that we

should stop taking any actions which we cannot test the full consequences

of (it seems that we can never predict all consequences). However, it does

mean that we must begin exercising more caution when dealing with the

natural world.

The optimist faction (in debates about technology) might argue

that we are always in full control of the technology we create. I see this

as being quite narrowminded. I do not mean to say that the pessimists are

any less narrowminded; rather, I think that both parties fail to recognize

reality. Like Tiles and Oberdiek, I see technology as being neither good

nor evil. Nonetheless, I do see it as a dangerous tool. As an optimist

himself admitted, "Technology spells only possibility, and is in that

respect neutral. Its massive power can lead to massive error so

efficiently perpetrated as to be well-nigh irreversible (Mesthene, 1983,

quoted in Tiles and Oberdiek 17). The massive power part of the equation

is where the danger lies, in terms of environmental issues. Since this

massive power exists, we must learn to account for this power in world

decision-making.

Technology is not necessarily beyond human control but it is time

that we realized how out of control the power of technology can become.

>From biological weapons to environmental destruction, technology is being

used in a destructive way throughout the modern world. Rather than trying

to blame technology or religion, the step we need to take now is to figure

out how to reduce the amount of damage which we do to ourselves and the

earth. This step involves evaluating a whole range of modern issues, from

politics to individual values to global economic systems. As with

ecosystems, all of our actions have unexpected consequences and we must

learn to think more about these consequences.

Questions for the Seminar:

1) In addition to re-evaluating the consequences of our actions, I also

wonder if we must develop a widespread ethic of taking care of the earth,

such as Aldo Leopolds land ethic. Do you think this is the case or not?

2) Tiles and Oberdiek suggest that, Modern technologies, in short, behave

like ecosystems. When we intervene here, unexpected consequences pop up

there (Tiles and Oberdiek 25). Do you see any way for determining more

clearly what the consequences of our actions will be? If not, how do you

think humans need to act, in terms of preventing environmental

destruction?

3) Moncrief states that There appears to be an almost universal tendency

to maximize self-interests and a widespread willingness to shift

production costs to society to promote individual ends (24). Do you agree

with this? This reminds me of Garrett Hardins Tragedy of the Commons and I

wonder what ideas others have for preventing these tragedies. Do you think

its possible to get people to think more in terms of community, rather

than being so individualistic?