We are currently in the middle
of a human-caused extinction crisis (the loss of many species on a
Geologically tiny time-scale) that is only projected to get worse over
coming decades, as humans continue to homogenize the natural world in
order to grow crops, create living spaces, and provide resources for an
expanding population. If you are a religious person, or have some
thoughts on how religious people think about this, I'd like to know if
you think that religious beliefs either justify these actions or
contradict them. I emphasize some of the Christian perspectives below,
but would be particularly interested to hear your point-of-view if you
have another faith-background.
In several places in the bible, we are told that all species have intrinsic value (e.g., God created the birds of the sky, fish of the sea, etc... and saw that it was "good"). Yet, the bible also clearly indicates that humans are the 'pinnacle' of creation, and are therefore more important than other species. It even tells us that we are to "have dominion over them" - which at the very least indicates that we have precedence to displace, if not the priveledge to use and misuse as we please. This is something of a paradox for Christians - some would suggest that, both because because God deemed it to have intrinsic value, and because the diversity of life around us relates directly to our quality of life, it is justifiable to protect that biodiversity from over-exploitation. I think few Christians would argue about the prior argument, but the latter is one that many people disagree with. As an ecologist, I can say that there is ample evidence for high natural biodiversity having a huge positive impact on human quality of life. For example, there are well-documented cases of artificially increasing agricultural production through the use of fertilizers, while simultaneously reducing the native microflora and microfauna of the soil, leading to long-term degredation of ecological capacity, including the capacity to produce crops.
From an evolutionary perspective, one could also justify preservation or exploitation: all species evolved from the same elementary life-forms via essentially random processes, and are therefore of equal value, including humans. We are no more valuable than dogs, gophers, or mushrooms, and therefore do not have the right (whatever that means) to 'play God' and cause these other species to go extinct. To some extent, this argument ignores that, throughout the geological history of the earth, a small group of highly successful species has often come to dominate ecosystems or even continents, thereby leading to the extinction of many other species. Indeed, some people have used this justification for the rampant exploitation of natural resources that happens today, suggesting that we are simply following our biologically hard-wired instincts to consume more and increase our genetic inheritance (in theory). Furthemore, there are clearly different 'levels' of importance (at least ecological importance) for different species - some are simply too rare, too few in number, or too specialized to have much of an impact on the function of the system as a whole. Although I can assure you that the human species is unique so far in the magnitude of our 'domination', I can't say with certainty that we are or are not following our instincts by causing extinctions, be it from over-use (e.g., passenger pigeons) or from purposeful eradication (e.g., large predators, biting insects).
Now it is clear to most biologists that causing species to go extinct on such a large scale as we currently are is probably not very good for US as a species. Most of the things we've tried to or successfully gotten rid of have not even been well-understood, and have occasionally caused some pretty serious ripple-effects. To be sure, there may be some ecological redundancy at larger scales, but most biologists would agree that it's a bad idea to start taking things out and expect that the various ecosystem goods and services will still be available to us later on, particularly given the complexity of these systems. Think of it as playing Jenga while wearing really dark glasses and boxing gloves.
But, despite this view being widely published throughout the scientific literature, and apparently having widespread public support, you don't generally hear priests, reverends, or rhabis telling their congregations to stop eating bluefin tuna or buying new mahogany furniture. I'm not suggesting they ignore environmental issues - I've heard many preach about responsible consumption, and a couple of years ago the pope actually declared that pollution was a sin - but they seem to ignore that species are being lost at an alarming rate.
Unlike many outspoken scientists, I think religious leaders have great potential to help with the challenges we scientists get to document. But I'm not seeing it yet (at least not at more than a lip-service level), so I'd be grateful if any reading this post could point towards a few examples of local leaders doing so, and perhaps answer a few questions to help me understand all these social and religious complexities.
1) Do you believe that all species have intrinsic value? (in other words, that they have value even if we don't see any particular use for them)
2) Do we have the moral obligation to prevent species from going extinct?
3) How do you justify that belief?
4) If you justify it on religious grounds (even partly), have you ever heard a religious leader speak about it as a problem?
In several places in the bible, we are told that all species have intrinsic value (e.g., God created the birds of the sky, fish of the sea, etc... and saw that it was "good"). Yet, the bible also clearly indicates that humans are the 'pinnacle' of creation, and are therefore more important than other species. It even tells us that we are to "have dominion over them" - which at the very least indicates that we have precedence to displace, if not the priveledge to use and misuse as we please. This is something of a paradox for Christians - some would suggest that, both because because God deemed it to have intrinsic value, and because the diversity of life around us relates directly to our quality of life, it is justifiable to protect that biodiversity from over-exploitation. I think few Christians would argue about the prior argument, but the latter is one that many people disagree with. As an ecologist, I can say that there is ample evidence for high natural biodiversity having a huge positive impact on human quality of life. For example, there are well-documented cases of artificially increasing agricultural production through the use of fertilizers, while simultaneously reducing the native microflora and microfauna of the soil, leading to long-term degredation of ecological capacity, including the capacity to produce crops.
From an evolutionary perspective, one could also justify preservation or exploitation: all species evolved from the same elementary life-forms via essentially random processes, and are therefore of equal value, including humans. We are no more valuable than dogs, gophers, or mushrooms, and therefore do not have the right (whatever that means) to 'play God' and cause these other species to go extinct. To some extent, this argument ignores that, throughout the geological history of the earth, a small group of highly successful species has often come to dominate ecosystems or even continents, thereby leading to the extinction of many other species. Indeed, some people have used this justification for the rampant exploitation of natural resources that happens today, suggesting that we are simply following our biologically hard-wired instincts to consume more and increase our genetic inheritance (in theory). Furthemore, there are clearly different 'levels' of importance (at least ecological importance) for different species - some are simply too rare, too few in number, or too specialized to have much of an impact on the function of the system as a whole. Although I can assure you that the human species is unique so far in the magnitude of our 'domination', I can't say with certainty that we are or are not following our instincts by causing extinctions, be it from over-use (e.g., passenger pigeons) or from purposeful eradication (e.g., large predators, biting insects).
Now it is clear to most biologists that causing species to go extinct on such a large scale as we currently are is probably not very good for US as a species. Most of the things we've tried to or successfully gotten rid of have not even been well-understood, and have occasionally caused some pretty serious ripple-effects. To be sure, there may be some ecological redundancy at larger scales, but most biologists would agree that it's a bad idea to start taking things out and expect that the various ecosystem goods and services will still be available to us later on, particularly given the complexity of these systems. Think of it as playing Jenga while wearing really dark glasses and boxing gloves.
But, despite this view being widely published throughout the scientific literature, and apparently having widespread public support, you don't generally hear priests, reverends, or rhabis telling their congregations to stop eating bluefin tuna or buying new mahogany furniture. I'm not suggesting they ignore environmental issues - I've heard many preach about responsible consumption, and a couple of years ago the pope actually declared that pollution was a sin - but they seem to ignore that species are being lost at an alarming rate.
Unlike many outspoken scientists, I think religious leaders have great potential to help with the challenges we scientists get to document. But I'm not seeing it yet (at least not at more than a lip-service level), so I'd be grateful if any reading this post could point towards a few examples of local leaders doing so, and perhaps answer a few questions to help me understand all these social and religious complexities.
1) Do you believe that all species have intrinsic value? (in other words, that they have value even if we don't see any particular use for them)
2) Do we have the moral obligation to prevent species from going extinct?
3) How do you justify that belief?
4) If you justify it on religious grounds (even partly), have you ever heard a religious leader speak about it as a problem?
No comments:
Post a Comment