Science, Religion, and Ecology

8/8/2019 Science, Religion, and Ecology

1/4

Science, with its theories of natural selection andequilibrium, and religion, with its biblical descriptipns of land forever flowing with {{milk and honey,"have viewed nature as ever-renewing. Both have pri-oritized growth and its resulting abundance. As ourtwenty-first-century environmental crises challenge theseconcepts, scientists can teach us to sustain the envir-onment while the motivations of biblical stewardshipremind us to treasure Earth's biodiversity and celebratecreation.

Lfeperpetually renewed in the midst of ts perpetualperishing: the theme is a common one in both evolutionarynatural history and Christian faith. Natural systems haveevolved historically and ecosystems have been tested overthousands of years for thei r dynamic resilience, sometimesremaining stable and at other times undergoing change.As human life evolved, classical monotheism arose witha sense of dwelling in a promised land forever, althoughbiblical writers acknowledged the transience of life. Concern for ecosystem health and integrity have evolvedas well. Humans may now stand at a rupture point inhistory-facing, as some believe, the end of nature. Ecological management, with its scientific focus on preservingnature's resources and developing technologies, continuesthe concept of biblical stewardship. A critical question iswhether to seek sustainable development or a sustainablebiosphere.A Dynamic, Enduring EarthBoth science and religion, in principle and in practice, faceconcerns about environmental sustainability. Both worldviews encounter an historical dynamism (i.e., forces ofchange) superimposed on recurr ing stability. Evolutionary

natural history finds natural selection operating over incremental variations across enormous time spans, with thefittest selected to survive. This drives perennial change asspecies acquire new skills, exploit new niches, and migratetoward shifting environments.

The theory ofpunctuated equilibrium, in some contrast,interprets the fossil record as evidence for periods ofmillionsofyears of relative stasis, punctuated by relatively briefperiods of rapid change. Biologists also speak of evolutionarystable strategies. Natural selection drives changes, bu tnatural selection fails without enough stability in ecosystems to make the mutations selected for dependably reliable for survival over the immediately forthcoming years.Natural systems were often "sustained" in the past for longperiods of time. Critics reject such balance of nature infavor of episodic events, open ecological systems, dynamism and change. Disturbances in the orderly successionofecosystems produce a patchwork landscape. Ecosystemshave various kinds of resilience, bu t if the disturbancesbecome amplified enough, the stability gets swamped bydisorder. Equilibrium and non-equilibrium do representtwo ends of a spectrum with real ecosystems somewherein between, and seeing one or the other can depend on thelevel and scale of analysis. At the levels of population andspecies diversity, or community composition, ecosystemscan show predictable patterns, approaching steady states onrestricted ranges. When unusual disturbances come, theycan be displaced beyond recovery of their former patterns.Then they settle into new equilibriums.

The processes and products originally in place will, withhigh probability, have been those for which organisms arenatura lly selected for their adaptive fits; misfits go extinctand easily disrupted ecosystems collapse and are replacedby more stable ones. Ecosystems get tested over thousandsof years for their resilience. As a result, they have both

Used with permission. Originally published in ed. Willis Jenkins, ed., Encyclopedia or Sustainability Berkshire Publishing Group, 2010. Pages 353-358. Fo r individual library patrons use and not for redistribution. 353


2/4

354 BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SUSTAINABILlTY: THE SPIRIT OF SUSTAINABILITY

stability and dynamic novelty. Many general characteristicsare repeated; many local details vary. Patterns of growthan d development are orderly and predictable enough tomake ecological science possible. This ecosystemic nature,once flourishing independe ntly and for millennia continuin g along with humans, has in the last one hundred yearscome under increasing jeopardy-variously described as athreat to ecosystem health, integrity, stability, or quality.Classical monotheism arose with a more fixed accountof earth structures an d processes, set in place at an initial "start-up" creation, and thereafter ongoing with littlechange. Facing death, as Jacob is "gathered to my people"he blesses Israel: "The blessings of your father are mighty.beyond the blessings of the eternal mountains, the bountiesof the everlasting hills" (Genesis 49:26, RSV). Life is anongoing struggle, an d therefore hopes arise for the adventof redemption when the Messiah comes, or, for Christians,comes again. Bu t in the course of Earth history, if Israelkeeps the commandments, God says, "then I will let youdwell in this place in the land that I gave of old to yourfathers for ever" (Jeremiah 7:7).

The sages and prophets knew the transience oflife. Consider "a flower of th e field": "the wind passes over it, and itis gone, and its place knows it no more" (Psalm 103:15-16).But they also knew a sustainability and saw, under God, apromised land in which "it might go well with them andwith their children for ever" (Deuteronomy 5:29). That certainly sounds like sustainability.

The perpetual cycle of life, which involvesrenewal in the midst of perishing, is a common ""'''-'theme in both natural evolutionary history an din Christian faith. Both science and reli-gion agree that Earth has long sustained and renewed life, although theclassical regeneration of new life outof old on th e scale of millennia hasexpanded to that of billions of years incontemporary science.

Many scientists believe, even in a sustainabilitycrisis, that nature carinot be abolished bu t nature's abilityto sustain life can be irreparably damaged. Nature has notended and never will. Humans depend on nature for theirlife support . Humans use nature resourcefully; they mayupset an d degrade natural systems. But the natural forcescan and will return ifhumans are taken out of he equation.There is always, once, and future nature.

Other more pessimistic scientists believe that humanson Earth are at a rupture point in history. EuropeanWestern civilization is self-destructing, spreading andtriggering disruptions-climate change an d decreasingbiodiversity-around the globe. Until now, the technosphere was contained within the biosphere. Hereafter thetechnosphere will explode these limits . Earth is now in

a post-evolutionary phase, a post- ecological phase. Thenext millennium is the epoch of the "end of nature." Thenew epoch is the Anthropocene. That puts us indeed ata hinge point of history. What ought we to do to ensuresustainability?Stewardship and ManagementScientists turning to environmental policy often appeal forecosystem management. This is attractive to scientists, wh osee the need for understanding ecosystems objectively andfor developing applied technologies, and also to humanists, wh o desire benefits for people. The combined ecosystem and/or management policy promises to operate atsystem-wide levels, presumably to manage for indefinitesustainability of ecosystems and their outputs alike.

"Sound scientific management" connects with the idea onature as "natural resources" and at least permits a "respecnature" dimension, althoug h the question of "manage forwhat" is often presumed as human benefits. Christian ethicists note that the secular word "manage" is a stand-in forthe earlier theological word "steward." Adam was placedin the garden "to till and keep it" (Genesis 2:15). They rr:ayadd that "trustee" is a better model than "stewardship,"since stewards are managing in the interests of ownerswhereas "trustees" are charged with caring for what is puinto their trust.

Environmental science can inform the evaluationof nature in subtle ways. Scientists describe the order

dynamic stability, and diversity in bioticcommunities. They describe interdependence, or speak of health or integrity, perhaps of these communities

resilience or ejficiency. Scientists describethe adapted it that organisms have in thei

niches. They describe an ecosystem asflourishing, as self-organizing. Strictly inter

preted, these are only descriptive terms; andyet often they are already quasi-evaluative terms. Ecology

is rather like medical science, with therapeutic purposeseeking such flourishing health. Theologians may remarkthat such terms sound like a secular celebration of the gooearth described in the Genesis parable of creation, or th epromised land of Israel.

Religion an d science have to be carefully delineatedeach in its own domain. Asking about technical ecologyin the Bible is a mistake (e.g., the Lotka-Volterra equationsdealing with population size an d carrying capacity). Buecology is a science at native range. Residents on landscapeslive immersed in their local ecology. Within the pragmatiranges of the sower who sows, waits for th e seed to growand reaps the harvest, the Hebrews knew their landscapeAbraham and Lot, and later Jacob and Esau, dispersed


3/4

their flocks and herds because "the land could no t support both of them dwelling together" (Genesis 13:2-13,36:6-8). These nomads were exceeding the carrying capacity, ecologists no w say. They knew enough to let land liefallow in the seventh year for its regeneration.

Fo r sustainability, one needs human ecology, humaneecology, and this requires insight into human nature moreso than into wild nature. True, humans cannot know theright way to act if they are ignorant of th e causal outcomes in the natural systems they modify. But there mustbe more. "Hear therefore, 0 Israel, and be careful to do[these commandments] that it may go well with you, andthat you may multiply greatly, as the Lord, the Go d ofyourfathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk an dhoney" (Deuteronomy 6:3). It is not the land husbandryor the science, bu t rather the ethics into which the biblical seers have insight. The deeper claim is that there canbe no intelligent human ecology except as people learn touse land justly an d charitably. Lands do not flow with milkand honey for all unless and until "justice rolls down likewaters" (Amos 5:24).

Limits to GrowthWestern religion and Western science have for centuries both joined in pushing back limits. Humans havemore genius at this than any other species. We have livedwith a deep-seated belief that one should hopefor abundance an d work toward obtaining it.Christian faith brought "the abundant life";the DuPont corporation championed "bette r things for better living though chemistry." One accentuates the spiritual; the otheraccentuates th e material side of ife. Still, science and religion joined to get people fed an dsheltered, to keep them healthy, and to raisestandards of living.

We have built the right to self-developmentand the right to self-realization into our concept ofhuman rights. Religious activists and missionaries have fought for that as much as economists anddevelopment scientists . Bu t now we have begun torealize that such an egalitarian ethic scales everybody up and drives an unsustainable world. Wheneverybody seeks their own good, aided by appliedsciences, there is escalating consumption. Wheneverybody seeks everybody else's good, urged bygospel compassion, there is, again, escalating consumption. This brings the worry whether either suchdevelopment science or such compassionate religionis well equipped to deal with th e sorts of global levelproblems we no w face. Global threats require that growthbe limited in th e name of sustainability.

SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND ECOLOGY 355

The four main concerns on the world agenda for thenew millennium are these: escalating population, escalating consumption, the increasingly horrific consequences owar, an d deteriorating environment. Escalating populationand consumption are enabled by science, as is the technology for war, an d the spillover is a degraded environment.Religions have fostered population growth, or are ambivalent about it; they have enabled human(e) developmenwith increased consumption; they are often ambivalenabout environmental conservation. As a result, populationconsumption, and environment are no t sustainable on ourpresent course. A World Council of Churches theme, "justice, peace, and the integrity of creation," has focused moreattention on conserving population growth and consumption than on saving the environment.Sustainable Development?Sustainable Biosphere?The prime model is sustainability, bu t if one asks what isto be sustained, there are two foci. The favored answer isthis: sustainable development. When humans face limitsthey need to find growth patterns that can be sustainedSuch a duty seems plain and urgent; scientists, developerssocial gospel activists, and missionaries can be unanimousabout it. Sustainable development is useful just because iis a wide-angle lens, an orienting concept that is at once

directed and encompassing, a coalition-level policythat sets aspirations, thresholds, and allows pluralist strategies for their accomplishment. One

needs the best that science can contribute (e.g.,genetically modified foods, carbon dioxidemonitors, an d scientific models an d data)an d the best that religion can contribute(e.g., agricultural missions, sermons moderating escalating consumerism, etc.).

The underly ing conviction is that the trajectory of development is generally r ight -bu t the developers in their enthusiasm havehitherto failed to recognize environmentalconstraints. Scientists can teach us ho w tosustain the environment, bu t we will needth e motivations of stewardship (and, better yet, trusteeship) to succeed. Economistswh o also like to think of themselves as scientists, may remark that a "growth economy" is the only economy theoretically or

practically desirable, or even possible. Theydislike "no-growth economies," but now

accentuate "green economics ."A massive Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

sponsored by the United Nations, involving overthirteen hundred experts from almost one hundred


4/4

356 BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SUSTAINABILlTY: THE SPIRIT OF SUSTAINABILITY

nations, begins this way: "At the heart of this assessmentis a stark warning. Human activity is putting such strain onthe natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longerbe taken for granted" (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment2005,5).But there is another possible focus: "sustainable biosphere." Ecologists want to insist that "sustainable" is notso much an economic as an environmental term. The Ecological Society of America claims the following: "Achieving a sustainable biosphere is the single most importanttask facing humankind today" (Risser, Lubchenco, andLevin 1991). The fundamental flaw in "sustainable development" is that it sees the Earth as a resource only.

The underlying conviction in the sustainable biospheremodel is that the current"development" trajectory is generally wrong because it will inevitably overshoot, fed by theaspirations of those who always seek to push back limits.The environment is not some undesirable, unavoidable setof constraints to be subdued and conquered with clevertechnological fixes. Rather, nature is the matrix of multiple values; many, even most of them are not counted ineconomic transactions. Nature provides numerous othervalues (e.g., life support, biodiversity, sense of place) thatwe wish to sustain. The test of a good Earth is not howmuch milk and honey can be squeezed out of it to dripinto human mouths.

A "sustainable biosphere" model demands that the economy be worked out "within" a quality of life in a qualityenvironment-c le an air, water, stable agricultural soils,attractive residential landscapes, forests, mountains, rivers, rural lands, parks, wild lands, wildlife, renewable

resources. Decisions about this quality environment willneed input from society at large, including its scientistsand its peoples of faith. Development is desired, and society must learn to live within the carrying capacity of itslandscapes. Even more humans need to treasure Earth'sbiodiversity, to celebrate creation. Here science and religion complement each other in teaching us how to sustain the home planet, the Earth with promise, the globalpromised land.

Holmes ROLSTON IIIColorado State University

FURTHER READINGAttfield, Robin. (2003). Environmental ethics: An overview for the

twenty-first century. Cambridge, U.K.: Poli ty Press .Burkhardt,Jeffrey. (1989). The morality beh ind sustainability.]ournaloAgricu ltura l Ethics, 2, 113-128.Daly, Herman E., & Cobb, John B., Jr. (1999). For the common good:

Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable uture. (2nd ed.) . Boston: Beacon Press.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). L iving beyond our meansNatural assets and human well-being: Statement from the boardWashington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Risser, Paul G.; Lubchenco, Jane; & Levin, Simon A. (1991). Biological research priorities-a sustainable biosphere. BioScience, 41,625-627.

National Commission on the Environment. (1993) . Choosing a sustainable future: 1he report of he National Commission on the EnvironmentWashington, DC: Island Press.

Norton, Bryan G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy ofadaptive ecosystemmanagement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. .Rolston, Holmes, III. (1996). The Bible and ecology. In terpretation:Jour

nal ofBible and 1heology, 50, 16-26.Rolston, Holmes, III. (2003). Justifying sustainable development: A con

tinuing ethical search. Global Dialogue, 4(1), 103-113.

Documents

Science, Religion, and Ecology