These opposite attitudes toward the earth have no single, simple explanation. Many factors are probably at play. One theory that's worth considering argues that the physical environment in which a religion originates may have a lot to do with its outlook on nature. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is born out of the desert. Whenever I read about the desert, it always sounds beautiful and poetic. But when I've spent time in it, any romantic image I had constructed in my mind quickly went down the drain. All I wanted was to crawl between two rocks praying that my brain wouldn't start oozing out of my ears. Despite not being usually too big on technology, it wasn't long before I had visions of flying refrigerators coming to the rescue. The intense heat, the lack of water, and the limited vegetation make it clear that, in a desert, nature is not your friend. If you go looking for water in the wrong direction, you're history. The competition for scarce resources among animals and humans tends to be fierce. If your religion is born in the midst of beautiful mountains, flowing streams, and abundant resources, on the other hand, it comes as little surprise that your view of nature may be more positive. There are of course exceptions to this theory. For example, some tribal people living in the desert hold nature in high regard. But it's still very possible that our environment may be giving us a push toward certain ideas.
The differences between anthropocentric and Animistic worldviews have created never-ending arguments between starry-eyed fans of Animistic religions, who view tribal peoples as the perfect environmentalists, and critics who dismiss these ideas as overly romantic stereotypes. Both sides throw around conflicting historical evidence to support their claims. As fun as playing this game can be, we have much bigger problems at hand. Whether most tribal people were really able to achieve a perfect harmony with nature is not the point. The only thing that matters right here, right now, is whether
we
are able to do so. Regardless of which ideological framework we adopt, the end result should be a worldview guiding us to protect the planet we live on and find a balance with all living beings. We can debate theology from here to eternity, but the ongoing destruction of our global ecosystem is telling us something needs to change fast.
One of the greatest wars of the century is one most people aren't even aware exists. This is a war that is being fought on a daily basis and in every continent. It causes countless casualties and threatens the survival of humanity and the entire planet. Incredible amounts of suffering and destruction are tied to the competitive quest to tap into sources of nonrenewable energy: oil, coal, electricity, uranium, and all the other substances forming the lifeblood on which industrial societies run. Both governments and multinational corporations go to battle to gain an advantage in this struggle because, as Henry Kissinger stated . . .
Sorry for the interruption, but after naming Henry Kissinger, I had to rush to wash my hands. OK, now that I'm done, I can finish
the previous sentence . . . because as Henry Kissinger stated, “Control energy and you control the nations.”
112
Historically speaking, even slavery could be seen as an extension of these energy wars. In the past, the desire to exploit the energies of human muscles caused the devastation of a worldwide slave trade. Today, the legacy of the energy wars can be seen in the extinction of an increasing number of species, the clear-cutting of forests, the melting of the ice caps, horrendous air and water pollution, and global warming.
Religion is only part of the story behind this war. Even though embracing a theology that looks down on nature may reduce any inhibitions toward overexploiting the earth, practicing a more ecologically minded religion doesn't always translate into more enlightened behavior. For example, Shinto is one of the most environmentally friendly, pro-nature religions in the world. And yet it has not been able to prevent Japanese industries from causing many major environmental disasters.
Economic philosophies are also at play. Communist regimes have ruined many ecosystems just as effectively as the most rapaciously capitalist countries. Marxism advocates exploiting the earth no less than capitalism. The only difference rests on how these two philosophies plan on dividing the spoils of their pillage.
In this war, greed speaks louder than any ideology. But at the same time, we can't forget that few forces can move people and stimulate them into action as much as religion. So encouraging the development of an earth-friendly theology, creating a culture that rewards conservation over consumption, and making environmental protection a religious priority may help change the current tide.
On the surface, it seems puzzling that we even have to have this discussion. Regardless of race, class, gender, political preferences,
or religious affiliation, it would seem logical to assume everyone would greatly value protecting the ecosystem we depend on for all our needs. It should be a no-brainer, and certainly not a political issue. Theoretically, environmentalism should be something everyone agrees on. After all, we depend on a delicate ecosystem for all our needs. Environmentalism is not exactly a radical idea. It is simply the notion that it is not wise to poison the water you drink and the air you breathe. Who could have a problem with that?
Unfortunately, we have created societies that run on very polluting and fast-disappearing nonrenewable energy sources. Like junkies who haven't found an alternative, we keep returning to these sources to get a fix, even though we know we are hurting ourselves in the process. And anywhere there are junkies, you are going to find pushers. There's plenty of money to be made in the business of destroying the earth. Since a sizable amount of cash increases your political weight, energy corporations are regularly able to buy the complicity of governments throughout the world.
The political ties between government and big business are a fairly straightforward affair: a politician uses his or her influence to help a company make money by weakening environmental laws. In exchange, the politician will get much-needed campaign contributions for the next election, and perhaps even a comfy job at the end of their political career.
113
This mafia-style alliance is not necessarily limited to the borders of one's country, either. The role played by the CIA in organizing coups in Guatemala, Chile, and Iran (just to name a few cases) for the sake of advancing the interests of private corporations offers a perfect example of this.
But even if we rule out conspiracies (and that's not always wise, since they are the daily bread of energy politics and environmental policies), many people honestly feel that protecting the earth is a
luxury that is antithetical to a healthy economy. On the surface this may appear as a legitimate conflict, but it only demonstrates a deep ignorance of both ecological
and
economic principles. The reality is that in the long run not taking care of the environment messes up the economy far more than sound environmental policies. By clear-cutting a forest, for example, a logging company will make money today, and its employees will have a job for a few months. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will go up, but with no plants to hold the soil in place, soil erosion is inevitable. At the first rain, the destruction caused by mudslides will net economic damages exceeding the money made by logging in the first place. The cost of clean ups and healthcare bills to treat the diseases caused by pollution outweigh all the economic benefits created by polluting.
114
Environmental protection laws were definitely not some soft, fuzzy idea born out of a romantic view of nature. It's what smart self-interest is all about. Good environmental policies benefit us, first and foremost. In 2003, the Pentagon—not exactly an organization of tree-huggers—released a report naming global warming the greatest threat to American national security—greater than terrorism and international drug trade combined. The Pentagon report stated that many natural resources are dwindling. The amounts of supplies available, from oil to clean water, are declining day by day. Given the basic imbalance between supply and demand, the Pentagon report outlines the likelihood of food shortages, epidemics, and wars in the near future for access to energy sources.
115
After being on the brink of divorce for so long, humanity is going to have to find a way to rekindle its relationship with nature. Whether
we like it or not, we need to live closer to the land than we have over the last few centuries. This is not moral advice or some “it would be good if . . .” type of statement. It's going to happen, one way or another. The current model is destined to collapse. An economic system based on the notion of limitless growth simply can't survive in a world where natural resources are finite. We already consume more than the earth produces, and the human population keeps growing. This can't go on forever.
116
In recent years, more industries are seeing the writing on the wall and are responding to popular demand by taking a more eco-friendly approach to business. This new approach seeks to make money without sacrificing the earth and its people along the way. Maybe this change could usher in an age in which we figure out a way to combine the best insights of animistic cultures with technological innovations and modern comforts. If we are feeling very optimistic, we could even envision a future where a country's success is measured not only by its GDP, but also by the happiness of its people, its sustainability, and a higher quality of life. The level of sensibility for environmental issues has grown tremendously over the last couple of decades. Whether this signals a momentous shift in global awareness or it represents a case of too little, too late, remains to be seen.
Catastrophe-lovers predict a doom and gloom future. They say humanity has hopped on a train in collision course with disaster: a quick ride on the Apocalypse Express before going out with a bang. Maybe they are right, but maybe we are going to survive after all, albeit by dramatically scaling back our current levels of consumption. No one can know for sure how things are going to change. The only thing we know for certain is that things will change.
How do we go about developing new, cleaner, less destructive technologies to help humans and the world? How do we limit
population growth without applying the Chinese “we'll bash you on the head if you have more than one child” model? How do we break the corporate hold on government, and encourage more enlightened long-term environmental policies? How do we begin to undo our addiction to overconsumption? Where do we find the money to pay for the enormous damage already caused? How do we convince more corporations to forgo the appeal of immediate profits earned through short-sighted actions in favor of greener, more eco-friendly models? All of these steps are needed. All are possible. None are easy.
The very real problems we are facing require specific, practical solutions. So it would be easy to assume only scientific discoveries, new technologies, or different approaches to business hold the keys to this story. And it would be equally easy to consider religions as having virtually no role in our quest to create a sustainable future. But a change in our collective mindset, in our way of perceiving our place in relation to everything else in the world, is just as essential a contribution—if not more so—than all the others. As American Indian author and theologian Vine Deloria Jr. writes,
It is becoming increasingly apparent that we shall not have the benefits of this world for much longer. The imminent and expected destruction of the life cycle of world ecology can be prevented by a radical shift in outlook from our present naïve conception of this world as a testing ground of abstract morality to a more mature view of the universe as a comprehensive matrix of life forms. Making this shift in viewpoint is essentially religious, not economic or political.
117
Our environmental crisis was not caused exclusively by religious ideologies, so we can't expect religious ideologies alone to solve it. But hardly any force possesses religion's unparalleled power to shape
people's culture and values, and ultimately mobilize them into action. So, religions today are faced with a choice. They can either avoid the issue and miss an opportunity to play an important role in facing the greatest collective threat to our survival, or they can put helping human beings at this critical juncture at the top of their priority list. The battle is raging. Will religions get in the trenches or sit on the sidelines?
If religions decide to get down and dirty, they have many fields of battle where their participation is badly needed. The biblical injunction to “be fruitful, and multiply,”
118
for example, may have been necessary in a past when premature deaths threatened human survival. But when overpopulation is pushing us to the brink of a Malthusian nightmare made of more mouths to feed and fewer resources, this message is in dire need of revision. A new theology preaching birth control, a voluntary reduction in population, and an emphasis on quality over quantity when it comes to having kids is very much in order.
Even more important, religions need to teach what science is beginning to discover: that everything on earth is interconnected and interdependent. Any life-affirming religion wanting to play a meaningful role in our future needs to place a deep reverence for nature as one of its cornerstones. Celebrating nature is the place to start. Moving from reverence and celebration into action to protect the earth is the next step for a religious, environmental movement.
One of the defining characteristics of Buddhism, for example, is a commitment to show compassion to all people, and to all other living creatures as well. This determination to try to avoid causing pain to anybody and anything is simple and beautiful. It makes it harder to justify slaughtering people across the border to get to their resources. It makes it harder to destroy entire ecosystems in search
of profit. And it makes it harder to throw a live lobster in a pot of boiling water for the sake of a juicier dinner. If more religions were to adopt this view, our relationship with the world may radically change.
119