SUBDUING THE EARTH WHILE TENDING THE GARDEN: A PROPOSAL FOR A MORE BALANCED ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC ° RAYMOND E. GRIZZLE ° Assistant Professor of Biology Campbell University ° MICHAEL G. COGDILL ° Chair of the Department of Religion and Philosophy Campbell University Two passages in Genesis are at the core of Judeo-Christian environmental ethical development. God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen. 1:27-28, NIV) The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (Gen. 2:15, NIV) In these passages, we are given mandates to "subdue" and "take care of" creation.1 But are we really supposed to do both? Can two commands that appear to be antithetical be obeyed? Furthermore, isn't the command to "subdue" the earth, or have "dominion" over it, part of our environmental problems today? In this essay, we will answer all three questions in the affirmative. In the process, we will argue that even though the above two passages do indeed represent different (and arguably opposite) attitudes toward creation, both are necessary for development of a balanced and truly useful environmental ethic. The Chinese concept of yin and yang-the union of complementary opposites-is also relevant.2 In essence, this concept indicates that no matter how truthful or useful an approach or answer is with respect to a problem, if it is separated from its complementary truth(s), it is really only a "half-truth." Some problems do have simple answers, but environmental issues are typically complex and require complex answers. Half-truths may sometimes be useful in the short-term but they will never provide long-term answers to complex problems. Such a concept is certainly not foreign to Christian theology. Indeed, it is a critically important part of it. For example, Christ is fully God, yet fully man. Christ came as the "Prince of Peace" but he also came to "bring a sword." Salvation is by faith through grace, but faith without works is dead. Almost without exception, the environmental ethical approaches (whether Christian or not) being developed today are based squarely on a concept of creation that is best reflected in the second Genesis mandate quoted above. These ethics emphasize creation's beauty and value, and related characteristics. And they at least seem to imply, if they don't explicitly state, that other views are wrong. For example, popular college-level environmental texts (e.g., Chiras 1991; Kupchella and Hyland 1993; Miller 1992; Nebel and Wright 1993) describe two opposite ethical views, using terminology like "frontier ethic" vs. "environmental ethic" and "throwaway" worldview vs. "sustainable-earth" worldview. In each case, two apparently contrasting worldviews, or ethics-based positions, are presented. One is good or correct, and the other is bad or incorrect. We agree that there are bad things about the "frontier" or "throwaway" ethics described in these texts, but they are not all bad. Furthermore, it may well be that everything associated with "sustainable earth" ethics is not good. As mentioned above, environmental issues are usually complex and answers to environmental problems will typically be multi-faceted. Hence, we contend that the either-or approach so often heard today is simplistic at best, and at worst may be misleading to the point of resulting in no progress in our attempts to solve our environmental problems. We think the Scriptures offer an ethic that incorporates some components of both a "frontier" ethic and a "sustainable earth" ethic, and this is the ethic that is truthful and useful. We will develop our argument around the three questions stated above, but in reverse order. Isn't the Command to "subdue" the Earth, or Have "dominion" Over It, Part of Our Problem Today? In an extremely provocative article published in 1967, Lynn White Jr., argued that the Judeo-Christian view of creation as something to have "dominion over" is largely responsible for our environmental predicament. The response to his position has been vigorous and diverse over the years, and the result thus far seems to be that most people consider White's thesis as only partly correct.3 It may be useful to speculate on the causes of environmental degradation, but there does not appear to be anything near a consensus on this question. Many different factors have undoubtedly contributed to the wide variety of environmental problems occurring in many parts of the world.4 In any case, we think one way to explain the overall refutation of White's thesis is that at best it is only a half-truth. In other words, there is some truth in his argument, but it is not the whole picture. The overall response to White's article by Christian ethicists seems to have been one of development of only one part of the biblical picture of creation: viewing humans as stewards of God's good earth. In a review of the Christian literature on creation and environmental issues, Joseph Sheldon (1989) stated with respect to the literature since 1967: Many in the Church felt that White's scriptural interpretations were in error. The result was two-fold: a re-examination of the Church's theology of nature, and a resounding denial that Scripture teaches a dominionistic, utilitarian attitude toward the Creation rather than one based on loving, nurturing care. Furthermore, a review by Doug Bandow in Christianity Today (July 20, 1992) of several recent books5 on the environment by Christian authors was entitled "Ecoguilt." The gist of the review seemed to be that these books may have gone too far in their attempts to make up for the "bad press" (e.g. White 1967) the church has received in the last two decades; or for what is perceived to be a lack of leadership, or even interest, by the church in environmental issues. In our view, Bandow's review went too far in apparently dismissing some environmental problems and proposed solutions. However, he raised some valid and important points, including an admonishment that we should not so quickly abandon the biblical command to "subdue" the earth and "rule" over it. We obviously agree. Clearly the majority of the Christian environmental literature of the past two decades has overwhelmingly emphasized stewardship and the care of God's good earth. We are concerned that the other side of the picture has been neglected. In conclusion, our overall answer to the above question (Isn't the command to "subdue" the earth, or have "dominion" over it, part of our problem today?) is "Yes." But in answering "yes" we emphasize two points. First, we emphasize the word part in the question; humanity's attempts to subdue the earth are a part of the problem because we are not omniscient, and we are burdened by our sinful nature which includes greed. Second, if viewed from a yin and yang perspective, it may be stated that the command to subdue the earth is the only one that has been heeded in any large measure by humanity. In other words, if we have had an environmental ethic, it has only consisted of a half-truth. We fully agree with most Christian ethicists that we must learn to be more careful of how we live and treat the earth. However, we do not fully support what we perceive as the current one-sided emphasis on care of creation only. Emphasis of another "half-truth" (care for creation) is not a long-term answer to our problem. How Can Two Commands That Appear to be Antithetical Be Obeyed? Much has been written by Christian ethicists about the goodness of creation. However, creation is not all good (in the ordinary sense in which we use the word) in its present state. For example, what is "good" about the polio virus, smallpox, AIDS, a tornado that kills and destroys, drought that causes famine? Things that cause pain and suffering (for humans and other creatures) may be "needed" in some ecological sense, and God can certainly bring blessing and goodness out of them (see discussion of Rice [1989] in footnote 2), but they ordinarily are not things to be unreservedly pronounced "good." Yet these things are as much a part of creation as are beautiful sunsets, pristine mountain streams, colorful flowers, newborn babies, and other things that give enjoyment and elicit praise and thanksgiving towards our Creator. What we are suggesting is that we must consider all aspects of creation, not just its obvious goodness. We say this because creation in all its complexity requires it, and the Scriptures command it. We briefly consider below five aspects of humanity's overall role as a member of God's creation that point to the necessity of "subduing." 1. Housing is a universal need for humanity. Many of us spend a major part of our time working to pay for adequate housing for our families; housing that was constructed using trees that had to be killed for not only the house itself but also to make room for the house on the land. Houses are 6 designed to provide protection from our environment. We like to enjoy creation by various outdoor activities, but we also need to be protected from it if we are to survive. We may easily include the practice of constructing houses in an environmentally sound manner as part of an environmental ethic that emphasizes stewardship, but can the actual need for housing be included in such an ethic? 2. Predation is a fact of life. To exist on earth, all animals including humans must destroy and consume other creatures. How can we survive without at least eating plants? And what is the cost in creature consumption or destruction for those who eat animals, for those who live in houses, for those who drive cars? We obviously cannot be "living at peace," or "acting as stewards" with respect to those individual parts of creation that must be sacrificed for our survival. One might argue, however, that we may live at peace with a population of organisms from which we harvest some number of individuals for consumption, but we do not see how it is possible to "live at peace" with the actual unit that is destroyed. We suggest that existing ethical frameworks are inadequate in this area. 3. The development of modern medicine has been one of humanity's most dramatic success stories in many respects. Advances leading to greatly increased infant survival rates and the general increases in longevity for many human populations in the more developed parts of the world are clearly major triumphs. However, an important component of medicine is treatment of diseases, most of which are caused 7 by microbes or invertebrate parasites. This involves killing creatures, including in some cases vectors and reservoir hosts as well as the infectious organism itself. And human population increases are thought by some to be the most serious environmental problem facing humanity. How then can medical advances be viewed from a purely "stewardship" perspective? 4. Agriculture is another of humanity's success stories. But agriculture must destroy and consume other creatures in order to be successful. Millions of acres of forests have been felled in the U.S. to make way for cultivated fields. Agricultural success has also been dependent upon our ability to respond to, or control or manipulate, natural phenomena such as climate changes and pests. We now know that these successes have come at substantial environmental costs in some cases. Only a generation ago, farmers in the U.S. were truly heroes because of their abilities to produce huge amounts of surplus food that could be stored or exported to more needy countries. Today, however, many environmentalists seem to be at war with farmers. Some farmers feel that whereas they once wore "white hats," they are now viewed as villains. As we learned of problems that have resulted from our farming practices, and attempted to impose more and more regulations on farmers, conflict was perhaps inevitable. The move in the U.S. from the small family farm to large agricultural conglomerates has also contributed to the problem. Farmers are also more and more involved in conflicts arising from competition for their 8 land by those wanting to convert farmland to a variety of non-agricultural uses. Agriculture is in trouble in the U.S., and the reasons are complex. As suggested for housing, farming in an environmentally sound manner readily fits into existing ethical frameworks, but we think the practice itself is more one of a struggle against various aspects of creation. We suggest that agricultural practices can best be incorporated into an environmental ethic that recognizes them broadly as an attempt to subdue creation. 5. Finally, economics has long been pitted against environmental concerns, and as Nash (1991) noted: "The dilemma is real." The conflict at present is essentially one between conservation and consumption of resources. Some of the most acrimonious of environmental debates involve economists who argue an "optimistic" view of population and economic growth, versus environmentalists who present a "doomsday" view based on economic and population growth causing environmental disaster. But this need not be the case. In fact, we suggest with others6 that this must not be the case if we are to survive our environmental problems. In a heavily populated, technological world where successfully functioning economies are a central component, it may be that a successful marriage of economics and environmental protection is the key to our long-term existence. We feel that the "subduing" of creation generally associated with economic growth must be a major part of environmental ethics. But Are We Really Supposed to Do Both? 9 Clearly, we have already answered this question. Hence, we suggest that the question that should now be addressed by environmental ethicists is: How can we do both? As discussed above, we perceive most recent efforts to mainly be aimed at developing the idea of stewardship and care for the earth, the "tending the garden" view. We recognize that the examples discussed herein of areas where "subduing" creation is appropriate are not news to anyone. What we are essentially proposing is an expansion of our environmental ethical efforts to explicitly address those characteristics of creation that do not appear to be readily included in a "caring for creation" view. We further suggest that it may be useful to re-focus our efforts towards a more ecologically realistic view of humans as at least partly predatory in our essential nature.7 If this is done, then we will consider our role of subduing the earth to be primary, and our role as stewards to be secondary (not meaning secondary in importance, but secondary in the sense of being developed within the overall framework of a predatory or consumer existence). From a yin and yang perspective, these two overall roles are complementary opposites: subduing and caring. This seems to us to best fit with our overall existence from an ecological or relational perspective. In essence, we are suggesting that a shift in emphasis occur so that we can adequately understand what it means to subdue the earth while tending the garden. Acknowledgments 10 The authors thank Wilbur Bullock and David Mahan for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this essay. Notes 1Most Christian ethicists argue that the "dominion" aspect really means some kind of stewardship, as opposed to a destructive domination relationship (e.g. DeWitt 1991; Van Dyke 1991; Wilkinson 1991; Bradley 1992). We are not proposing that this view is totally incorrect. Rather, we suggest that the Hebrew words radah and kabash, translated "dominion" and "subdue," respectively, in the NIV text mean more than just some kind of caring/stewardship relationship. In particular, we argue that there are some aspects of creation that must be subdued (even destroyed in a war-like fashion) if we are to survive; various pathogens fit in this category. Steffen (1992, p. 78) briefly argues in part for recognition of this view of "dominion," along with a "Garden ideal" dominion patterned more after what could or should be. (Also see notes 3 and 7 below.) 2Myers (1987) provides an interesting application of the "yin and yang" concept from the perspective of psychological research. Also, see Rice (1989) for a discussion of God's practice of "bringing blessings out of adversity" in his dealings with humanity and other components of the natural world, that suggests a yin and yang view of creation generally. 3In one of the first Christian responses to White (1967), Bullock (1968) pointed out that the "dominion" given to humans in the Scriptures involves having authority over other parts of creation, but it does not include wanton exploitation and waste. Others have similarly refuted White's thesis (see Sheldon [1989] for a review; also see Van Dyke [1991]). 4See Nash (1991) for a brief survey of the complexity of the causes behind our environmental problems. Chiras (1992) provides a comprehensive model describing the major root causes of our environmental problems generally. 5Donahoe (1990); DeWitt (1991); Gore (1991); Nash (1991); Regenstein (1991); Wilkinson (1991); Bradley (1992); Kjos (1992); Wilkinson and Wilkinson (1992) 6The relationship between economics and environmental issues is an active area of research and debate. Recent Christian perspectives include Daly and Cobb (1989), and portions of Nash (1991) and Wilkinson (1991). Vice President Al Gore (1991) has outlined an interesting "global Marshall Plan" aimed explicitly at reforming various economic policies with respect to environmental concerns. 7Nash (1991) discusses a number of issues in similar fashion to our overall argument herein. In particular, he proposes the notion of humans as "altruistic predators" as a basis for further development of a Christian environmental ethic. 11 It is interesting to note that existing ethical frameworks seem to emphasize the symbiotic aspect of our existence with our fellow creatures, while most of ecological and evolutionary theory has emphasized biotic interactions such as competition and predation. Literature Cited Bradley, Ian. God is Green: Ecology for Christians. New York: Doubleday, Image Books, 1992 Bullock, Wilbur. 1968. Man's Mastery of Earth: Success or Failure? Gordon Review XI, No. 2. Chiras, Daniel D. Environmental Science: Action for a Sustainable Future, 3rd ed. Redwood City, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1991. Chiras, Daniel D. 1992. "An Inquiry Into the Root Causes of the Environmental Crisis." Environmental Carcinogens & Ecotoxicological Reviews. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 73-119. Daly, Herman E., and John B. Cobb. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. DeWitt, Calvin B., ed. The Environment and the Christian: What Does the New Testament Say about the Environment? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991. Donahoe, Sydney L. Earth Keeping, Making It a Family Habit. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990. Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Houghton-Mifflin, 1992. Kjos, Berit. Under the Spell of Mother Earth. Victor Books, 1992. Kupchella, Charles E., Hyland, Margaret C. Environmental Science: Living Within the System of Nature, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993. Miller, G. Tyler, Jr. Living in the Environment, An Introduction to Environmental Science, 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co, 1992. Myers, David G. 1987. Yin and Yang in Psychological Research and Christian Belief: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 128-139. Nash, James A. Loving Nature, Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1991. Nebel, Bernard J.and Richard T. Wright. Environmental Science: The Way the World Works, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993. Norton, Bryan G. Toward Unity among Environmentalists. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Regenstein, Lewis G. Replenish the Earth. Denver, CO: SCM Press, 1991. Rice, Stanley. 1989. "Bringing Blessings Out of Adversity: God's Activity in the World of Nature." Perspectives 12 on Science & Christian Faith, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 2-9. Schaeffer, Francis A. Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1970. Sheldon, Joseph K. 1993. "Twenty-One Years After 'The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis': How Has the Church Responded?" Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, Vol. 41, No.3, pp. 152-158. Van Dyke, Fred G. 1991. "Ecology and the Christian Mind: Christians and the Environment in a New Decade." Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 174-184. Wilkinson, Loren, ed. Earth Keeping in the Nineties. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991. Wilkinson, Loren & Mary Ruth Wilkinson. Caring for Creation in Your Own Backyard. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, Vine Books, 1992. 13