[T]he idea that the growth in human population is the direct cause of most environmental damage does not belong to the fringes; it's an important tenet of mainstream environmentalism. A minimum of research on mainstream environmentalist websites shows that these groups are in agreement: there are too many people on the earth, and we can't repair the damage done to the environment without taking aggressive measures to limit and restrict human population. Many of the mainstream environmental groups believe that human population on the Earth should be no more than half a billion to a billion people; and while, to their credit, they don't envision using force to achieve that objective, there's a widespread belief that humans will have to adopt the single-child family as a model for several generations to return the human population to this 'sustainable' level.
The underlying philosophy seems to be that the increase in the human lifespan coupled with the slow decline in death rates has been a tragedy for the planet. There's a tendency to think of the human presence on the planet as a 'cancer,' a term I encountered more than once in my brief reading. Far from being stewards of the earth, people are seen as being a plague upon it; in fact, the 'stewardship' notion was explicitly rejected at least once, on the grounds that it was a 'patriarchal' idea on par with the subjugation of women.
Does this mean that Christians should have nothing to do with conservation? Not at all. But I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if we think we can ever have more than an uneasy and temporary alliance with groups who see no transcendent value to human life, and who therefore speak quite openly about our 'duty' to eliminate most of the human presence on this planet. The difference between a Christian conservationist and an environmentalist can be summed up in this way: the first wishes to conserve and protect the natural resources of the planet for the sake of future generations, while the second wishes to eliminate future generations for the sake of the planet. [Emphasis mine -- RD]
On Christian environmentalism
Monday March 5, 2007
Erin Manning is one of the smartest and most interesting of this blog's regular commentators. Here's part of what she had to say from the weekend thread on environmentalism and its controversies among Christians:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Rod Dreher's New Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Franklin, just to be clear, you don't think that I believe those who push contraception and abortion on the third world are trying to profit by it, do you? I've never said that; I just think we come off very badly, showing up in villages where families still find value in relatively large numbers of children, and insisting they accept the first world's notions of proper family size. Sigaliris, I do know that when people push my buttons, rhetorically speaking, I have a tendency to push back; that said, I do try to temper what I say and to remember the humanity of those I address, even when we disagree. So why does this insistence that contraception is so vital and necessary to all women tend to push my buttons? I think it's because I strongly reject that idea, and I've put up with quite a lot of ridicule and marginalization here in my own country because of it. As I said earlier, my opposition to contraception is philosophical. To me, artificial contraception is truly a kind of war against women. I don't expect most people in this post-Christian materialist/relativist world to agree with me, or even to have the framework to understand where I'm coming from; but I get awfully tired of the attitude I get from just about everyone I encounter, that only an idiot or a religious nut could possibly reject all the wonderful anti-fertility pills and devices out there.
The worst part, to me, is the attitude I've encountered from medical professionals, that smug condescending assumption that I must be a little, downtrodden, oppressed woman to reject their de-fertilizing drugs and liberating latex. I can't tell you how many 'lectures' I've sat through in various doctors' offices, when they insist on 'educating' me about contraception with the implication that if I continue to refuse to use it, I've pretty much demonstrated to them my unworthiness to be treated like an actual human being. Maybe I'm guilty of projection, here, but the thought of importing this attitude to my sisters in the third world, many of whom share my Catholic faith, makes me rather angry.
Erin, No, I don't think that about you, and I'm grateful for your willingness to share personal details on a very personal and intense topic. All I ask is that we pay attention to the details of the culture in which the village practices its preference for lots of children. I think you already agree with this, but I also think it needs to be stated: we should not let your Catholic sisters suffer in situations that do not need morally reprehensible solutions to make them better. I just don't want the discussion bogged down on contraception while their children are abused, or they are denied minimal health care.
Erin, thanks for your generous response. It was more than I expected. I think I have some understanding of where you re coming from. Doctors often do behave this way, in any area where they think they have expertise, but especially with anything related to women s issues like fertility and pregnancy. I ve been there, and you have my sympathy! I ve felt that contempt you speak of, too. I worked full time, out of necessity, for several years when my kids were small and my youngest was still breast-feeding. My co-workers were women who were childless by choice and let s just say they were less than supportive. In fact, they were openly disdainful that I was so involved with my family. I ve received the smackdown from both sides of the fence, though. I was involved for a long time with a conservative, mostly Catholic, religious group, and from them I also received the message that my life was unworthy of respect. People in leadership renounced contraception and had large numbers of children. Anyone who didn t follow their lead got the same kind of condescension you describe. And it still goes on today in some areas of the Church. My years of pregnancy and nursing, my long-time marriage and loving family life, all means nothing to them because I didn t get there via NFP. I m morally defective, and my family is defective, end of story. Yes, contempt stings, and it wrongly colors my responses at times. I think you and I may have some significant philosophical differences, but one thing I believe--I hope--we have in common is respect for the capacities of women and concern for the well-being of women and children. I ve spent most of my life taking care of children--my own and others . I love kids, and I admire mothers of large families who have chosen that way of life and are happy with it. I hate to see women who are overwhelmed and in need, but even then I d never say that some of the children they have should not be there. My first concern is with the people who are already here, and what they need for a good life. To me, that includes health care and education. I do not believe that contraception is vital and necessary for all women. I believe that women who have options will choose to do what s best for themselves and the children they already have--and that may mean having fewer additional children. Some women will decide not to have any children at all. I agree with you that it should be their choice. I just want them to HAVE that choice, and I don t think that s possible unless they have access to artificial means of birth control as well as NFP. And I guess that s where we have to disagree, because you think contraception is evil and should not be a choice for anyone, and I don t. Rest assured, though, I don t think you re an idiot for not using it, and I respect your reasons. If we were neighbors, I d be interested in sitting down with you and hearing how you came to your conclusions.
"If we were neighbors, I d be interested in sitting down with you and hearing how you came to your conclusions." Sigaliris, I think my understanding of contraception as an evil began with my experience growing up in a counter culturally large family. The pressure I've gotten from the world at large is nothing compared to what my mother experienced, though those that tangled with her on the subject soon wished they hadn't! In high school, I read Humanae Vitae, and was struck by its beautiful simplicity and the prophetic nature of much of what it said. It's hard to imagine, reading it today, that so much of what came to pass in the world could have been predicted in 1968, but I think Pope Paul VI had a real vision of the evils a post-contraceptive world would find itself mired in. The teachings of Pope John Paul II on the Gospel of Life had an influence on me, too, as did the untiring witness of Mother Teresa, who wasn't afraid to tell a roomful of American politicians to give her the child--that she wanted the 'unwanted.' It's hard not to hear Jesus' voice in such pronouncements given with so much love. In the end, I came to see the interconnectedness of the issues of life, and that artificial contraception creates the illusion of control, the sense that we are in charge and can successfully keep from conceiving any time we want to. But when contraception fails, as it often does, there is only the destruction of unborn life as an option for those who refuse even to admit the possibility of conception. There's something more philosophical about my beliefs, too, having to do with the language of the body and what the contraceptive couple are really 'saying' to each other, but I have a feeling it would be difficult to do justice to those ideas within the confines of the blog. Let me just finish by saying that I'm sorry you encountered the attitude you did among the Catholics in your religious group. As a Catholic, I've encountered plenty of Catholics who don't follow the Church's teachings on contraception, but I believe that this is due to several factors, not the least of which has been the complete failure of the Catholic Church in America to articulate these teachings and help the faithful come to an understanding of them! My former pastor would give at least a few homilies a year on artificial contraception, and while sometimes people would walk out, in the end they couldn't say they didn't know WHAT the Church taught or WHY. But such efforts are undermined by other pastors who refuse to tackle the subject in public or in private, and who on some occasions give bad advice to the faithful in their charge--a failing for which they will be held accountable. So, in my encounters with Catholics who don't accept Church teaching on contraception, I begin with the (charitable, I hope) assumption that they don't know what they're doing. I'm far more likely to help them in a spiritual sense if I don't begin from a position from which I've already sat in judgment on them and passed sentence, and it puzzles and frustrates me that other Catholics take a more condemnatory approach.
Interesting conversation and debate happening here. The bigger issue is stewardship of the planet itself and the the wisdom that God has given us through his word. Focusing on that can help us forget all the politiczing and right wing/left wing jargon that is too prevalent in the conversation. We cannot let politics take this issue from us as the church. We cannot resort to name calling or labeling--if a Christian takes the cause of environmentalism too seriously he is labeled a liberal or a left-winger--this should not be. We need a balanced and focused discussion and know first what GOD says about the issue. A good recent book (from a surprising source Norman Geisler) handles the issue with balance and wisdom. The book is 'Love Your Neighbor-Thinking Wisely About Right and Wrong.' It has a great chapter on environmentalism and the biblical view on stewardship of His creation. A good book and if we can just stick to the Word then the muddy waters should clear on what we should do as His Body.
Check out the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-Neighbor-Thinking-Wisely/dp/1581349459/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2085712-9684969?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188245590&sr=8-1
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.