A criticism of Lynn White's solution to the ecological crisis

Lynn White’s ideas are interesting in that to me it also appears that Christian ideas have permeated through our society, however to blame Christianity as root of the ecological crisis and to say that “the remedy must also be essentially religious” seems hard to believe possible. Even if we were able to alter the world’s values to be more ecological through some sort of new view of what the religion means would it not just be a way to manipulate the religion as a means to an end? I am not convinced that such manipulation is a worthwhile way to save the planet; if humanity fails to grasp the value of nature and that the harmful effects we have on nature affect us than do we truly deserve such a planet? I feel that the true root cause of the ecological crisis has much more to deal with human nature (competitiveness, which Lynn White points to unknowingly when he says “Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process”). I also believe that ignorance plays a role in the crisis, though sometimes I have a difficult time believe this because it seems so obvious that the amount of material wealth we are collecting not only in our own belongings but in our infrastructure is having a harmful effect on the planet; however I do believe that even if we lose such ignorance it is hard to figure out anything to do that will have a large effect because we feel largely trapped within our societal context. Another problem is simply the huge number of human beings on the planet, which cannot be fixed through a reinterpretation of scripture. I do not agree with White’s statement that a reinterpretation of religious values will be able to fix these problems. White wrote the article in 1967, while the Vatican may be “going green” it seems there has been little religious progress on the issue of environmentalism and personally I believe that the answers to the ecological crisis will not come from religion but perhaps it will come through such things as a loss of ignorance about what effects we have on the planet and an actual willingness as an individual to take steps to help the planet even though it might mean sacrifice while others are still abusing resources.

I agree with Moncrief's beliefs on The Present American Scene, stating that our current situation falls under three main causants: an absence of personal moral direction about natural resource treatment, an inablility of social institutions to make adjustments to this stress, and an unwavering trust and faith in technology.

I believe he is right in saying it's not just religious, nor political, technological, or social factors. It's such a complex blend, that to undo and change our societys' mindset may make this a task not soon completed.

He makes a good point about much of our problems stemming from America's "ignorance" as far as environmental resources and inahabitants are concerned. Ignorance is bliss afterall. He makes a point to note that we are not efficient in taking account of actual price of our actions both economically and environmentally. Perhaps though, he could add more support to his argument by going into some detail about our inability to attain an agreed upon way to measure the use and misuse of natural resources. We have such a clouded, grayed idea of the worth and value of the environment. It's not just something occurring in the American Scene either. It's a worldwide happening that affects not only our measuring abilities but other countrys' too. If we all have differing views, then the chance for success for ayone, let alone the US, to actually change the present behaviors and stop turning a blind eye to environmental impacts is very slim. Who decides what is more important as far as an economic hit for a company, or a dangerous threat to the survival of a rare species that hardly any common person has heard of, knows about, or cares about?

We Are No Longer a Part of Nature

I view myself as a more spiritual person than religious person, and sometimes I find religion to be a little overbearing and selfish on the side of human beings. I mean, who said that humans are superior to all animals and nature? We claim that God had relayed this information, and that “he” speaks to us and “created us in his image” but who told us that? Our ancestors, and theirs before them? What if it’s like the game “whisper down the alley” and by the time it gets to each generation, the message is already altered and changed to favor those in power?

It truly irks me to think of all the damage humans have done to the earth that we share with so many other creatures and beings. Lynn White’s section on “Medieval View of Man and Nature” made me really think about how humans simply use everything in sight to their advantage, and if other species are harmed by it, so be it. White describes how the tilling of land changed over the years as more efficient methods were discovered and used, and when White states: “Formally man had been a part of nature; now he was the exploiter of nature” it stirred up my own frustrated emotions about how humans are raping the earth everyday with our constant deforestation, pollution, overuse of fuels, raw materials, and daily ignorance of our effects upon nature. As Moncrief put it in the beginning of his article “One hundred years ago at almost any location in the United States, potable drinking water was no further away than the closest brook or stream. Today there are hardly any streams in the United States…that can safely satisfy a human thirst without chemical treatment.”

We are no longer part of nature when we think or believe that we are above it, and when we treat it the way we currently do.

Moncrief Dances Around the Real Culprit

Moncrief’s critique of Lynn White’s argument that the tradition of Judeo-Christian values in science are to blame for the current ecological crisis rests upon expanding the blame to such other social institutions as democracy, urbanization, and capitalism. Moncrief is closer to a complete and compelling argument than White, but fails to articulate clearly how capitalism plays such a sinister role in environmental degradation. He briefly mentions the industrial development of Europe and North America, attributing it vaguely to capitalism. Later he articulates three characteristics of a society ill-equipped to deal with ecological crisis that, upon closer inspection, reflect the capitalistic nature of that society. If he clarified this connection, he could make a much stronger argument by reducing number of vague culprits he names and focusing his attention on articulating one.

Moncrief lists the first characteristic as a loss of moral direction. He argues that the modern individual tends to “maximize self-interests” and attempt to “shift… costs to society to promote individual ends.” These are clear characteristics of a capitalist system, which embraces private ownership in order to gain profit for an individual through the immoral exploitation of labor and natural resources. Even in economics, shifting costs to society as a whole “externalizes” that cost away from the individual, and is not accounted for anywhere else.

His second characteristic he calls “institutional inadequacies.” He discusses the fact that air and water, along with other natural resources in the “commons” are considered free commodities, and as such government finds it difficult to regulate them. The struggle to commoditize natural things, which were not created within a market and thus cannot be true commodities, has haunted capitalism since its inception, but has most likely been intentionally unsolved. The ability to have an owner-less air or water enables capital to exploit them without fear of repercussion. In a world of private property, what cannot be owned can be used.

Lastly, Moncrief laments our society’s unyielding faith in technology. Technology must be recognized for what it is. Technology exists only because those with the money to fund it can create it, and only do in order to reap profit in a capitalist system. To say that our faith in technology will doom us is incomplete: our faith in the capitalist system that created both technology and environmental catastrophe is the true harbinger of peril.

Capitalism as a Culprit

The current state of the environment can be attributed to much more than Judeo-Christian belief systems. Moncrief makes valid points in favor of this argument. The environmental crisis is something that affects nations all over the world and not all of these nations follow or have a history of Judeo-Christian traditions. There are larger, more encompassing forces at work. For example, capitalist economies are dominant globally and their goals of maximizing profit while minimizing costs leave no room for concern about the environment. However, blame cannot be placed entirely upon large corporations. They would not exist if they didn’t have consumer support. We as consumers put our faith in the technology and products that have become a huge part of our lives and do not see the extent of the damage they cause. People are often too wrapped up in technological and economic advancement. Even those nations still developing or not a part of the capitalist system are focused on getting ahead. As third world nations develop further the problems will only worsen; resources will be stretched even thinner. These issues are not dependent on the religious or moral threads within a culture. Modifying a Judeo-Christian view that man is above nature will not halt technological and economic progress of our or other nations.

How the individual plays into the Environmental Crisis

Lewis Moncrief does a great job of examining the reasons why cultural effects are the main issue behind the environmental crisis the world faces. His statements about the misallocation of resources and downright irresponsibility on the behalf of world powers (i.e. major governments) illustrates well a number of the major causes of the current environmental issues at hand. I believe however that he doesn’t adequately investigate the more intimate side of how these cultural affects are playing a substantial role in our current situation. What I mean by this is Moncrief focuses on the large-scale idea that government mistakes have caused widespread environmental crisis, yet fails to examine how this has had a “trickle down” effect on individuals living in that society.
Today we live in a fast paced, materialistic society where we think little about most of the consequences of our actions. This, while in itself being a consequence of the cultural issues Moncrief talks about, has pushed us as a society into a “bigger/more is better” style of living. We drive faster cars, build bigger houses, and buy more clothes all the while spending huge amounts of natural resources whilst never questioning the long-term consequences of such a lifestyle. It is a combination of irresponsibility, as well as downright obliviousness on the part of the average person living in America. In the past 100 years America has had access to huge amounts of natural resources, so much so that the general public has taken the existence of such resources as granted. While government, as Moncrief explains, has fumbled on the issue of responsibly managing natural resources (as well as educating the people how to do so on a smaller level), the general public is just as guilty in creating this environmental crisis through their own ignorance.

Overview of Lynn White

In the beginning of Genesis, God instructs Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it… have dominion over …every living thing that moveth upon the earth." This controlling attitude towards the natural world fuels White’s surmise that Christianity should take some responsibility for the current destructive environmental mess.

White lays this environmental and ecological crisis at the feet of Christianity claiming that the human race has been programmed since the beginning of time, through biblical readings and claims, to have dominance over the Earth. From the earliest plow which “attacked the land with such violence” to the industrial revolution; mankind has dominated over the natural world. At first our dominance may have been with “good” intentions, but now it is simply because we can. White argues that in order for the Earth to recover from these man-made devastations such as deforestation, industrialization and over consumption, advanced science and technology are not going to do it, instead, we need a new religion that will combat this present ecological crisis.

I’m sure several claims were made against White’s article; after all it challenges belief. There are claims that White makes in which I believe, for instance the realization that we do, as a race, inevitably rule over everything. However, I do not agree with this claim that we need to create a new religion or fix the old one. Relying on anything but ourselves seems like a quick fix, one that I am not willing to wait around for. White alludes to a religion that would promote more earth-friendly human behavior; if we are to rely on another religion, what ideas should we adapt… Buddhism, Hinduism or how about Taoism? All those religions incorporate some sort of earth-friendly belief. For instance, Taoism emphasizes compassion, moderation, and humility. Meanwhile Hinduism refers to spiritual enlightenment, Karma etc. (I apologize if I get this wrong) If this is the case, then why do East Asia, India and other areas that strongly believe these religions have the worst environmental records? If religion is the reason, according to White, why we are in our current environmental crisis, then why rely on religion to get us out?

Whether we try to understand God’s mine through natural theology or play the role of God, we have forever been in control of all that surrounds us.

The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Attitude to Nature

I believe the Patrick Dobel’s argument relies on the notion that those who argue that Christianity is an environmentally abusive religion or who use Christianity to justify environmental exploitation are misreading and distorting the true message of Christianity, which is that humans are to be the caretakers of the environment. While I believe the author lays out a strong and well-reasoned argument in support of this position, I would have liked to see him offer more examples of how religion is commonly distorted and manipulated. A more in depth analysis of how Christianity and other religions have been misread and distorted over time would have greatly strengthened his argument.
For example, I feel as though it would have been helpful if he had compared those who argue that Christianity is an environmentally unfriendly argument to those who promoted Christian violence in the name of God during the Crusades. Just as Christianity is a fundamentally environmentally friendly religion that advocates being a good steward of the environment, it is also a fundamentally peaceful and tolerant religion that was manipulated by those who advocated violence in the name of God and Jesus Christ. To draw a more contemporary comparison, he could have also discussed how Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion. Despite this, some small groups of radicals have perverted the true message of Islam to justify self-serving religious violence that increases their own power. Despite this shortcoming, I feel as though the author effectively responded to those who would argue Christianity advocates environmental exploitation, although drawing some comparisons to other ways in which religion is distorted to justify other things would have helped.

The Cultural Basis of Our Environmental Crisis

Lewis Moncrief makes many valid points in this article that strongly disprove Lynn White's theory on the responsibility of the Church in the degradation of the environment. Moncrief reminds the readers that humans have been altering their environment since their beginning. White himself says this in his article. Humans cannot exist without affecting their environment. It's impossible. Maybe the impact is increasingly obvious with the modern age, but there is no way to have any idea of the impact on the environment way back when. I agree wholeheartedly with Moncrief when he points out that the "fire drive method of hunting" that existed for the prehistoric humans had to have had strong impacts on the environment.

Moncrief reminds his readers that no culture can eliminate the "egocentric tendencies" of people. This is a strong case. Human beings will always be egocentric. It is an innate curse unfortunately. People are selfish in nature, thinking about their own betterment above all else. The Church does not change the way people are. It can't instill that which has always been inside human beings. Democratization most definitely enhanced the opportunity for every individual to take advantage of that innate selfishness. It allowed for more individuals to have their own impact on the environment. Moncrief makes a strong point suggesting that this democratization coupled with an increasing population took a terrible toll on the environment. It makes perfect sense. The environment didn't stand a chance.

Moncrief goes on to point out that the original frontiersmen eliminated much of the natural resources that to them seemed inexhaustible and "in the way" of their exploration and settlement. Ignorance is bliss for these people. The environment has been affected for a long time now. He is right in saying that there have been multiple forces to blame. The rest of the world's environment is suffering too. The Church cannot be held responsible for the global environment suffering. However, egocentric people exist all over the globe. Technology exists all over the globe, along with science and urbanization. It seems a lot more logical that there are many contributory factors in the equation.

Neither I nor Moncrief are saying that White is wrong because the truth is that no one can know for sure. Is there one cause? Is there multiple causes? How can it be fixed? We all know these questions are unanswered. Moncrief offers plausible alternatives to White's seemingly unfair finger pointing.

On Ecofeminism's Ideal World

Warren’s argument is vulnerable because of her shallow explanations of the most radical parts of her essay, mainly the plausibility of the mind transformation, and of the world without social domination.


Similarly to White’s argument, Warren’s solution to the nature and woman “problem” is a new “religion”, Warren devotes a lot of her theory on this new mental state that replaces the conqueror mentality with a “loving perception”. The revamped mind that Warren argues is necessary for an ecofeminist world requires the refusal of all social distinctions that lead to social domination such as race, gender, and class. She does not say how this mental state would be achieved, as if the whole change is either effortless or requires a miracle. Her dependence on a giant conversion in terms of Western philosophy hurts her argument. I do not understand why she neglects to exemplify how such a mental transformation could take place.


Another issue left cold is the rejection of the conqueror mentality. Warren’s answer to the outcome of humanity without the arrogant mentality is an integral part of the ecofeminist world, but why? What if people desired to conquer the problem of gender inequality or the subordination of nature? Her lone example of the society without domination is Native American Sioux tribe, whose treatment of nature is assumed to be extended to women of that society. One example does not extend her argument far however, and leaves the possibilities either a “cut and paste” version of our society, or something new.

The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism - by Karen J. Warren

In the article titled “The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism”, Karen J. Warren argues that ecofeminism, the idea that there are important connections between the historical domination of women by men and the historical domination of non-human nature by human beings as a species, is an essential component of any adequate environmental ethic. I find this argument to be insufficient.

Although the oppressive conceptual framework that falsely justifies the subordination and unfair treatment of women and the framework that falsely justifies the subordination and unfair treatment of nature are both products of our patriarchal society (and are based on what Warren calls the logic of domination) and have historical connections to one another, the two problems do not necessarily need to be (and should possibly not be) acknowledged together, as one entity, in order for us to make attempts to solve each of them.

Sexism and naturism are two separate forms of oppression, despite the connections they may have to one another. In order to eliminate sexism in our society, patriarchy must end. In order to improve the condition of our environment, we must drastically change the way that we live in many ways, such as by reducing consumption and by reducing or eliminating our use of fossil fuels. A complex assemblage of forces is responsible for both our ecological crisis and for the presence of sexism in our society, and although there is likely some overlap of causes regarding each problem, the two problems are still separate from one another and must be dealt with in different ways.

Simply by changing our attitude toward nature and the way that we treat the environment, we may not be able to solve our current ecological crisis, due to the damage we have already caused. Moreover, changing the way we treat the environment- specifically, changing our attitude from one based on a desire to dominate nature to one based on a desire to protect and conserve natural resources, may not do anything at all to improve the condition of women in our society that is the result of patriarchy. Likewise, solving the problem of the oppression of women by men may not do anything at all to change our attitudes about or treatment of our environment; the two problems are separate.

In order to address both the oppression of nature and the oppression of women more effectively, Warren should have spent more time in her article attacking the patriarchy and some of the many factors contributing toward our environmental crisis (such as capitalism and our culture of consumption) instead of emphasizing the importance of recognizing the connections between naturism and sexism.

A Critique of Lynn White

Lynn White's idea that Christianity is to blame for human beings' current ecological problems is a severely deficient theory. First and foremost one cannot simply blame one concept such as Christianity as the reason for man's relationship with nature and the state our planet's environment is in. Though Lynn does bring up other concepts such as technology and science he links these mostly western advances all back to Christianity. The problem with this linkage of environmentally detrimental western technology to Christianity is that a great deal of the technology was not simply advances made on already existing ideas from the Islamic and Greek scholars. Concepts like the oil drill or the dam were around many years centuries before the birth of Christ, and were used without paying reverence to spirits or the land.
Lynn makes note that these technologies, created by the West and thus Christianity, are being used around the world (despite some of these creations not being legitimately from the West). In countries where Christianity holds barely any control though the same if not worse events can be seen happening when concerned with nature. In countries around the world, whenever there has been an industrial boom, or a huge increase in infrastructure the environment has suffered. Even now in China, a country officially with no religion but predominantly Eastern in their though processes, does exactly what Christian 'nations' have done in the past. Whether you've been raised in an Islamic, Shinto, or Hindi life style you're just as likely to subject nature to your will as can be seen from the Middle East, through India, and all the way to Japan. Though people do exist who take the Bible literally, Lynn cannot place so much in this modern era on the book of Genesis, the world has simply changed too much.

Possibility for Sustainability in Genesis

White does not provide adequate support for the thesis that the Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically the account of creation in Genesis, is to blame for the current environmental crisis.

In Genesis, man is instructed to ‘conquer’ the earth, and to ‘be master’ over other living things. However, it is of course true that nature could ‘serve man’ in an environmentally sustainable fashion. It is troubling to think that people would be inclined to interpret the account in Genesis in such a way that they feel obligated to recklessly exploit the natural world, and it does not seem that the emergence of Christianity should have encouraged people to engage in this kind of exploitative behavior. Contrarily, the Judeo-Christian tradition can be seen as promoting that mankind be good stewards of the earth, as we can see in the second account of the creation which says, “Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it” (v. 15). White does not give consideration to this prominent statement in Genesis, which seems to promote the conclusion which is the opposite of his own.

While being told to ‘conquer’ the earth may have in some way contributed to Western man’s sense of entitlement to use the earth’s resources as he wishes, it has not been adequately supported that this is the main historical cause of mankind’s exploitation of nature or for our environmental crisis. He has offered conceivable correlations between the account of Genesis and mankind’s understanding of himself as being superior to the rest of the living things on earth, but he does not establish that this responsible for the exploitation of the earth as opposed to other possible factors.

The Earth: a Gift and a Privilege

As I have always understood, and what seems to be reflected in Dobel’s arguments, the earth was a gift to humans. They were given dominion over the earth and all the other living things that live upon it being that they were made in the likeness and image of God. If this dominion has led to the obvious destruction of the earth and its resources, I am still not convinced. Dobel seems to be in the same mindset.
If the earth was a gift and it was entrusted to humans than it would be in the best interest for current inhabitants to care for the earth for their own survival. Yet, it would also be in their best interest to concern themselves with its wellbeing for the sake of future generations, which they were given the task by God to produce.
Where I feel that Dobel has gone astray is when he argues that the earth and the creatures of the earth have an intrinsic value of their own, separate from their relationship to human need. “The earth must be regarded as an autonomous ethical entity bound not just by the restraints of physical law but also by respect for its inherent goodness and covenanted limitations placed upon our sojourn.” He says this then goes onto describe a kind of balance between earth and nature but the main concern is on the benefits this balance will bring to humans.
In this way, I believe that it should be considered that the story of creation is in the order that it is and is declared “good” at each step not because each step is by itself an intrinsically good entity but that it is good only in relation to the end result of the planet’s need to existence, the existence of humans. God created man and gave all that he created over to him to live off of and rule over. Man understands that this is a gift, a privilege, not a right by any means, clearly shown through that act of God exiling man from his garden for disobedience. However, man has maintained the authority over earth and its creatures.

The Cultural Basis of Our Environmental Crisis

In his article, Moncreif states that as human beings “the desire for a better life is universal; that is, the desire for higher status position and the achievement of culturally defined desirable goals is common to all societies.” He continues later with “there appears to be an almost universal tendency to maximize self-interests.” I think that this is one of the major, if not the most important, underlying reason to why we are in the environmental crisis that we find ourselves in today. It is the fact that as humans we essentially look out for our best interests. Whether some would like to admit that, it’s generally true. Sure, some people care more about others than themselves, but if a situation arose that would benefit them in some way, I wouldn’t doubt that they would take advantage of that. I think that is exactly what we do with our environment. We don’t care enough to actually do anything about it because we are all getting away with it and it is benefiting some people, either monetarily, or saving time, or what have you. The air pollution dumped out by chemical plants needs to be disposed of somehow and it’s easy for them to just open up their vents and let it out. Companies that dump waste, probably more than they are legally supposed to, into the seas and rivers don’t really care about what that’s doing to the animals or to our future generations; they need to dump it somewhere. Basically, my point is that there is no way religion is the cause of the crisis on our hands as White declared, in that respect I fully agree with Moncrief. When it comes right down to it, if you see someone throw their McDonald’s bag out of their car window, are you going to turn around and pick it up and take it to a trash can? No, you’ll shake your head and keep driving simply because it’s easier for you. As humans we will always want to be wealthier or prettier or happier, and sadly many people accomplish that, or at least try to, by exploiting our environment. They do it without caring because the Earth God isn’t going to come down and strike them with a bolt of lightning for doing so. Whether it’s wrong, that doesn’t matter. It happens, and I agree that it is one of the reasons our environment is in such bad shape.

The Power and Promise of Eco-feminism

The Power and Promise of Eco-feminism is noteworthy and helps to provide a different perspective to oppressive conceptual frameworks in combination with our environmental crisis. Ecological feminism claims that the domination of women historically and conceptually is tied to the domination of nature. I am a firm believer in the study of the relationship between human and the environment and the implications that has on our behavioral, social and environmental problems; however, this theory seems to just add to the gap between theory and action.
Warren asserts that we can’t solve the social problem of sexism without attacking the way our patriarchal society conceives of and treats nature. Moreover, she argues that we can’t solve the environmental problem without attacking sexism. Eco-feminism, as argued by Warren, falsely prioritizes feminism as the sole solution to our global impact on the environmental degradation crisis.
Our current environmental crisis is the result of many different frameworks and should present the premise that the complex problems and issues of women and the environment should not be compartmentalized. Instead, the conceptual framework that will facilitate an ethics of stewardship and equality for all life, should posit that the roots of contemporary social, cultural, behavioral, political and environmental issues are intertwined among numerous fields, not just feminism.
Warren effectively makes a case that the global impact of the environmental crisis has had an effect on the lives of women. The degradation of the planet and oppression of women were caused by the same set of attitudes of oppression. However, this theory is lacking in reaching its full potential to motivate and empower people, to bring about serious and urgent change. Eco-feminism, as presented, seems to be restricted and lacks the forward-looking nature and notion of responsibility inherent in our current environmentalist ideology.
However, there is potential in feminism serving an entry point into the environmental ethics realm. Eco-feminism may assist in finding solutions to the environmental crises. But right now, it is restricted and insufficient.

The Effect of Biblical Interpretation on the Environment

I believe that Dobel, when arguing against the contribution of the Bible and Christianity to ecological destruction, fails to take the discrepancy of interpretation into account. Religion can have a profound effect of the lives of people or on a culture, and many see Christianity as a supreme authority concerning their way of life, which would include the way in which they treat the environment. If a Christian finds evidence of permission to perform an action in the Bible, he may view the act as justifiable; passages from Genesis do seem to suggest that man is to dominate and subdue the earth. When Dobel contends that the message in the Bible is not to dominate it but to maintain a more humble attitude towards the environment, he does not acknowledge that one’s beliefs regarding the Bible’s message depend upon the individual’s own interpretation. Given the common human characteristic of egocentricity, and that many people are bound to interpret passages literally and not read into them so much, the possibility that there may exist opinions differing from that of Dobel does not seem too unlikely. It is possible that at some points in time influential religious authorities or civilizations might have prevalently espoused the view of human superiority and ultimate control over nature—the religion will become what the people make of it. Such people may then adopt attitudes based upon their interpretations, which may then become ingrained in their society over time. Behaviors accompany attitudes, and behaviors quickly turn into habits, habits are passed down to progeny, and habits do not easily die, even if the beliefs they originated from might. If Christians interpreted the Bible as allowing one to dominate the earth and then did so, then the actions of a society of Christians could contribute to and propagate what they may believe to be justified environmental destruction.

Environmental Destruction is due to Egocentricity not Christianity

Human beings are slowly destroying the environment through exploiting natural resources, pollution, and overall lack of concern for beings unrelated to ourselves. We face a crisis that affects each and every one of us and will continue to grow in magnitude if no measures are taken to combat it. Various theories have been proposed attempting to describe why we as humans believe it is acceptable to do harm to our planet and to disregard the value of any non-human inhabitants.
Lynn White suggests that it is the Judeo-Christian belief that man's role is to control and dominate nature, which is primarily to blame for our contempt of nature. In Genesis, Adam and Eve are instructed to multiply, fill the earth, and conquer it” (Genesis 1) and he gives them dominion over all living things on earth. White claims that it is this instruction from the Bible that has led man to believe that he reigns supreme over all other beings. As a result of this feeling of superiority, man has exploited the earth for his own purposes without questioning whether or not he is doing more harm than good.
While this theory may have been true in Medieval times when religion dictated all parts of one’s life, it hardly seems relevant in our modern secular society, The United States is composed of three hundred million people from varied cultures, backgrounds, and belief systems. If the Judeo-Christian idea of domination of nature was truly the root of our current ecological crisis, there would likely have been a decrease over time in the amount of environmental destruction as our nation evolved from being centered on the church to a much more secular society. What we have seen instead is a continual and steady increase in the exploitation of resources.
The human race's egocentric nature and inability to recognize the impact its actions have on the future is more likely to blame for the environmental crisis than religion. A business owner cares more about making money than the affects that dumping toxic sludge from his factory into a stream will have on the water and the animals that inhabit it. Religion is not to blame for this selfish nature. We do not chop down trees because the Bible says we have the right to do so. We do so because it ultimately benefits us and unfortunately, we fail to care what implications it has for those generations that follow us.