That being said, it is an issue that even after technology truly began to affect the earth with the 16th century research of Copernicus and Vesalius, research to save these environmental problems came three centuries later. Even earlier than this was the 14th century allocation of materials for cannon balls or London's 1285 smog issue form burning soft coal. What humans saw as advancement was really turning nature upside down.
White's call to action is simple: "revert to a romanticized past: make those ugly gasoline stations look like Anne Hathaway's Cottage or (in the Far West) like ghost-town saloons." But then she quickly comes to the realization that atavism and prettification are beyond us at this point in our ecological crisis.
Events from Medieval Europe's development of technology turned man into the "exploiter of nature." And with that came the amount of guilt Christianity should feel toward their impact on the environment. White claims that christianity's western ideas make man superior to nature and therefore give man the right to use it at the slightest whim.
What do you think of these ideas? Do you agree that Christianity played a large role in our modern environmental issue? If so, in what ways?
Also, do you agree that there is no solution?
White explains that Christianity grants man superiority over nature. And with the marriage of technology and science, man is easily granted unlimited power over the environment. Quite honestly, I think this idea does not make much sense. In my eyes, religion is ever changing and conforms to society's wants. It almost seems like people are molding ancient religious texts to more modern works that benefit themselves. Having said that, I don't think that Christianity has played a large role in our modern environmental issues. In fact, I believe that Christianty (and other religions for that matter) is simply used as a cover for our own selfish decisions. Growing up I was told that everything was created for a reason, each with its own purpose. And so, the thought that everything should benefit mankind is preposterous. That aside, I must agree that at this point, there is no solution to our ecological predicament. Although there are ways to conserve the remainder of our resources, we will eventually be the demise of our own planet.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh that “events from Medieval Europe's development of technology turned man into the ‘exploiter of nature’” could have caused Christians to feel guilty for their actions against the environment. This guilt could come from the idea expressed in Colossians 1:16-17: “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Christians could feel guilt from exploiting nature because they feel that they actually are hurting God’s creation. The other Biblical passage we read in class, Romans 8, says “that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” It says that the world was already suffering back in the ancient times before the destruction we see today, so we can understand that times must be very bad now. Paul’s letter to the Romans says that suffering is necessary to become one with the Spirit and Son. Do you think this idea of required suffering supports society’s destructive actions toward nature? That if we destroy our planet, such as in Wall-E, humanity has suffered enough to enter Heaven?
ReplyDeleteI found this article very interesting. I really like how White relates the Christians' views on the environment back to the creation story in Genesis. I read the story in class, and I completely agree with White's interpretation. In the story, especially the second creation story, God creates nature to benefit man. In both stories, God grants humans dominion over nature. He makes the animals as companions of man, and creates the Garden of Eden so that man will have a place to live. With the view that nature was created for the use of man, it is easy to see how nature could become so abused. I like what White says at the end about how if we want to fix nature, we first need a new religion, or a least a new view of it. I agree. I think that we need to view nature not as something that is there for us as humans to use and abuse, but as something that is equal to us.
ReplyDeleteI thought White's point of view is interesting, although I disagree. I think nature and humans are equal because there are many aspects in which we depend on each other. If anything, nature could be superior because it encompasses humans and gives us capabilities to progress. A point in the article that intrigued me is when White mentions that Eastern theology had been intellectualist in terms of science and technology, but that seems to contradict their belief in creation. They reject the idea of humans as a part of a natural process, as White explains. I do agree with the unfortunate reality that "Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects"; the mentality that nature is subordinate is dangerous because it gives justification to the abuse of resources. If we view nature simply as a tool and not as a necessary component to our own lives, then technology and the rate of advancement could be harmful to nature.
ReplyDeleteI thought that although White does make a good point that our effects on the environment were unintentional, but at the same time we haven't done much to fix the problems we have caused. I feel that although Christians' believe that God grants human domination over nature, this no excuse for the damage we have caused to nature. For religious people I think that things will not be able to change until the view of the relationship between humans and the environment changes. I do not think that there is no solution, just that it would be difficult. What we need to realize is that nature is more of less dominant of us, because we depend on it to survive. The problems may not affect us today, but eventually they may end humanity. In this aspect, we should respect nature as if it is dominant.
ReplyDeleteWhite's work is able to challenge even contemporary readers by pointing out that the idea of equating scientific knowledge with technological power was not found before 1850. It is a relatively recent notion that we tend to accept today as if it has always been the case, thus, absolutely taking it for granted.
ReplyDeleteI disagreed with him on a few points, though. On the fourth page, for instance, he states that "distribution of land was based no longer on needs of a family but rather on the capacity of a power machine to till the earth." However, it seems that it depended on the people's work ethic. Though the power machine made the labor less arduous, the people who worked these machines still labored for what was produced in order to make their contributions. Thus, it depended on how much they were willing to work. Moreover, he states that "it would appear" that the plowed strips were allotted in proportion to contributions, so we can not really be sure this system was actually in place. It only appears this way.
Also I don’t agree that it is Christian values that need to be displaced. If they were to be replaced by values of other religions, people would still want to plow land, kill animals, cut down trees, and continue to exploit natural resources. What needs displacement is our dependency on harmful methods of attaining our subsistence, not the fact that we get it from nature.
I found this reading to be very interesting. I consider myself an environmentalist, and more than anything it is a set of ideals and a way of living that make me this way, much like a religion. In saying that, I think it is really interesting how White says that all of our environmental problems have stemmed from our science wish was derived through christian values and means. In fixing the environmental dilemma we cannot use our science, but instead need to combat it with religion. And I would say to combat it with the religion of environmentalism. We see the environmental issue's relationship with religion in Colossians 1 when it says that everything was created through God. This creates the idea of mans power over nature where, technology, science, and environmental destruction came from. To fix our world I would say that you treat your planet as you would treat your god, with love and respect.
ReplyDeleteI thought White's article was very interesting. The section in which he talks about the evolution of how land is used and how that was advanced by technology was intersting because there is truth to the fact that agriculture has been the "chief occupation" around the world, regardless of the level of advancement. He talks about efficiency with oxen, and how the amount of these animals alone has altered how land is plowed and the way and shape in which it is developed. Although this is an interesting concept, I still have to wonder if what White is saying can be backed up with other sources.
ReplyDeleteWhen he writes about Christianity and how God created everything on earth, including Adam and Eve and all of the animals, I need to question whether or not nature was actually intended for man's use. I certainly don't think that man having absolute power of nature is moral or realistic, because eventually all of the natural resources humans take for granted will be depleted and eventually run out. I think that humans and nature need to work together to co-exist in a more healthy way.
I really liked this reading, I agree with the argument that humans take nature for granted and that we often tend to think that we are in control of it. From a religious standpoint, White argues that Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt, referring to how religion puts itself above it. He says that "Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects," supporting the argument that the hierarchy of religion numbed the importance of nature. The most important quote that I read was near the beginning: "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think of themselves in relation to the things around them." I love this quote because it refects the way people take care of themselves and the world around them. People tend to take more care of thier environment the more educated they are. I think that science and religion coincide and can work hand in hand. Saying that, I think that religion has the ability to hurt environment as much as it can improve it.
ReplyDeleteWhite made some interesting points. He made connected the views of religions to mankind. He said that, "Although man's body is made clay, he is not simply part of nature: he is made in God's image." This says that humans are greater than nature. Humans have come to think that they can change and manipulate the earth to fit their needs. However, I feel that God created nature for us to use and live in a symbiotic relationship with. We should benefit from nature but nature should also benefit from our presence. However, we have destroyed the environment.
ReplyDeleteLynn's piece was very informative and interesting. I agree with many of his points and unfortunately I do feel that Christianity teaches the idea that humans are superior to nature. This unfortunate mindset has lead to some of our environmental issues today as people have come to believe that because God created the earth for them, a idea discussed in the creation stories of Genesis, they have the right to use the land and resources in any way they please. Lynn speaks about how humans have essentially come to exploit the land on which they live.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be very interesting, and brought up several assumptions that I thought, which, according to White's research, are incorrect. I especially liked the two sections in which he discussed the differences in the theology of the Eastern and Western Churches, and how these mindsets displayed the opposing ideals in regards to the environment, which White describes: "Man and nature are two things, and man is master." The last section that I found particularly important is how White incorporates the religious beliefs of many scientists (or self-proclaimed "theologians") of bringing together what we refer to as polar opposites: science and religion. It is only within the last quarter millennia where scientists have separated the two topics, instead of fitting them together.
ReplyDeleteI liked many others found this article to be interesting, I agree with White when he says that in order to fix our relationship with the envirorment first we need to "try to clarify our thinking by looking, in some hisotrical depth, at the presuppositions that underlie modern technology and science". If we really care about the world we live in wer are going to have to fix the (as white says it) marriage between science and technology. I agree with the statement above me that Christianity does lean people towards the idea that man is superior to the envirorment.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting reading and I kept on remembering Brave New World, since it mentioned Huxley and the book’s foresight about the relationship between science, technology, society and the environment. White calls it an “exploitative” attitude toward nature in the Western world during the Middle Ages. White’s ideas are very provocative and certainly almost ignite an extended debate about the role of religion in creating and sustaining the West’s increasingly successful control of the natural world through technology. As we discussed in last class, based on some of the sacred text readings, Christianity’s views on the relationship between humans and the environment range from anthropocentric to biocentric (I think those are the correct terms!). Hence, the Biblical belief that nature, seen as inferior or on the same level to people, can be controlled by man, has brought a lack of respect for the sacredness of the environment, according to White. I do not think Christianity itself has placed such a monumental role in our environment today as White makes it to be – if anything it should be attributed to our materialistic and self absorbed culture, clearly not what a religion is preaching. It is not the religion that is at fault, it is the culture.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this article. I found White's take on Christianity and the environment very interesting especially how he connected this relationship to the Genesis story. I also in a way, enjoyed reading his take on why people on Earth take their environment for granted. However, I seemed to take away from this the fact that it is not really the religion that causes the issues within society but rather the culture in which those religions are nurtured and fostered. Similar to raising a child, the religious ideas fostered within an individual are dependent of the environment in which they have been exposed. I thought this was an interesting aspect of religion that White highlighted on, not directly, but rather indirectly through the connection of religion, and Christianity specifically, with the environment.
ReplyDeleteI think that while the Bible does put emphasis and a lot of higher moral/social responsibility on humankind (whom God technically put in "charge" of nature according to the Genesis passage), the Bible also does not at all condone a careless and cruel anthropocentric behavior of mankind towards other animals (we are after all animals ourselves). While I do think Christianity has been used as an excuse by harsh, self centered rulers in the past (ie in the major Protestant Reform when thousands were killed in the name of Christianity, the environmental issues and pollution emission going on today can not be pinpointed to the root of Western Christian beliefs. I think if anything it can be traced to Western ideas of consumerism and ideas of what constitutes happiness, but the fact that Biblical teachings put animals on a lower pedestal than humans does not mean that they promote environmental pollution. The Western Christian mindset made have permeated into the education system, family lives, cultural norms, and politics, but in terms of how people consume goods, treat nature, and live with the environment, I think that is much more an individual decision and result of economic circumstance (as well as the Western work/career/progress mentality).
ReplyDeleteMany people have said they are uncomfortable or unhappy with the notion that Christianity has ideals that humans are above nature. I see nothing wrong with this issue - in fact, I see this issue as true. Although nature was (biblically and scientifically) created before the presence of humans, God clearly had a plan for Humans to succeed in both lenses: in faith and in science. And yes, Humans are above any form of nature. Nature is either seen as the least important or the most important factor in people's lives it seems because either people realize that nature only supplies some minerals while success can provide and entire family with food.
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with White's conclusion. The destruction of the environment was more a result of humans' continuous desire for more in conjunction with technological advancement. Religious views speed up the process with the idea of human "dominion" over all of nature and are now slowing down the movement to stop people's rampant consumerism. It seems to stem from the human ability to subjugate ideas to suit wants and simplicity rather than change individually to meet the demands of the idea. If people as a whole took the idea of the "common good" we discussed in class seriously, the ideas of intergenerational conservancy would become mainstream. The problem lies in the human inability to act. It is sometimes called the bystander effect, large groups of people standby and continue on the same path of destruction assuming that someone else will step in and correct the issues. Religion is just a reflection of human nature that changes slowly over time. Serious responsibility to others and the environment will not come from an outside stimuli but from each of us analyzing and assigning a value to our impact, either positive or negative, on the world today and the future.
ReplyDelete