Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Answers in Genesis: Resource Consumption Is the Best Way to Protect the Environment

Answers in Genesis: Resource Consumption Is the Best Way to Protect the Environment

Last updated on: February 12, 2020 at 2:06 pm by Libby Anne

Answers in Genesis: Resource Consumption Is the Best Way to Protect the Environment 2020-02-12T14:06:12-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

E. Calvin Beisner of Answers in Genesis is writing about global climate change, and it gets … weird.

While some, like Dr. Michael Nortcott, think — as he expresses it repeatedly in his recent book A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming — that we must choose between people’s rising out of poverty and protecting the environment, as if either prevented the other (a bifurcation fallacy), we believe the two are not exclusive alternatives but mutually interdependent.

Hold onto this, because this summary is highly misleading. First though, this is how Beisner responds to the idea that we might have to choose between protecting the environment and raising people out of poverty:

A clean, healthful, beautiful environment being a costly good, and wealthier people being able to afford more of a costly good than poor people, it follows that growing wealth — accompanied by ethics and values informed by Scripture, and in the context of a just civil social order — can protect and improve our surroundings (the real meaning, by the way, of the word environment) rather than degrade them.

Uh … okay. Okay, no.

I mean really, no. In a very real way, global wealth is built on environmental destruction. And sure, wealthy people tend to want beautiful surroundings, but they also often only are about their surroundings, and not what happens to people on the other side of the globe (or even the other side of town). This is basically like saying that greed is good, because if everyone is greedy everyone will get richer and be better off, and … no.

Beisner’s claim that growing wealth will “improve our surroundings” is predicated on the idea that wealth will end up spread around, at a time of unprecedented inequality. Who’s to say that the exact sort of handwaving Beisner engages in won’t just result in a class of uber rich people with their crystal clean resorts and a much larger global poor living amongst waste and environmental destruction? Certainly, Beisner references “ethics and values informed by Scripture,” but unless I’m missing something the people informed by those values are the very ones cutting taxes on the rich and calling the poor lazy good for nothings.

Besides, this isn’t really about having a clean beach by your resort. Climate change deniers frequently equate things like clean water with global climate change, which is a result not of “pollution” but of carbon dioxide production. Remember the language Beisner used: rich people, he said, want “a clean, healthful, beautiful environment.”

But I told you Beisner’s summary of Northcott was misleading, didn’t I?

While Dr. Northcott and others prescribe abandonment of industrial civilization, or what Dr. Northcott calls “the machine world,” and a return to a hunter-gatherer, or at most a “primitive,” subsistence agricultural social order, as the solution to environmental problems, we believe a technologically advanced society and ecological well-being can co-exist, and indeed that they must coexist if humanity is to fulfill the stipulation of Genesis 1:28 to multiply and to fill, subdue, and rule the earth — a stipulation not repealed after the Fall but repeated in God’s covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:1–17).

Uh … wow.

First, abandoning industrial civilization for a “primitive” substance agriculture hunter-gatherer lifestyle would mean mass death on a scale unseen ever before. The earth simply has too many people. Our global population is sustained by pesticides and factory farming. Our global supply change is greased with oil. If we gave these things up, millions—perhaps billions—would starve. Also, I assume this would mean giving up modern medicine.

Look, I get that a subsistence lifestyle can seem idyllic and simple at a time marked by major social problems and pending ecological disaster, but that subsistence lifestyle was never actually either idyllic or simple.

Nor is Beisner’s rebuttal of Northcott at all comforting. Beisner writes that we need a technologically advanced society to fulfill God’s command that people subdue and rule the earth. Which is odd, because the Bible never mentions internal combustion engines or electricity. Besides, all that subduing and ruling suddenly feels somewhat predatory and violent and … well, here we are. It turns out that an assumption that the earth exists to be plundered (er, subdued and ruled) by man can end up in, well, the earth being plundered.

Are these seriously the only two options Beisner offers his readers? Returning to a subsistence existence, or full speed ahead on machinery, technology, and resource extraction?

Here’s another excerpt from Beisner’s article:

Already we can recognize some important distinctions between a biblical ethic of creation stewardship, on the one hand, and secular and pagan religious environmentalisms on the other.

I should note that Northcott is actually a Christian, but okay.

The common environmentalist vision of human beings as chiefly consumers and polluters, using up earth’s resources and degrading it through their waste (a view expressed by Paul Ehrlich and others in the famous formula I=PAT, that is, environmental impact [which is always harmful] is a function of population, affluence, and technology).

There is a reason for this formula.

They claim that an increase in any of those factors inevitably brings more harm to the earth.

Well, unless we consciously change something, yeah.

This vision of man as essentially consumer and polluter confronts the biblical view that people are designed to be producers and stewards, capable of transforming raw materials into resources through ingenuity and hard work, making more resources than they consume, so that each generation can pass on to the next more of the material blessings than it received, and through godly subduing and ruling of the earth actually improving the environment.

Except that that is not how it has ever worked.

Humans can create more resources than they consume, yes, and you could argue that a lot of claims about future scarcity are hype, based on the fact that past claims about future scarcity have been hype. But the idea that resource consumption and the material production naturally go hand in hand with improving the environment is some of the most nonsense thinking I’ve heard in a while. When has that ever been the case?

Look, I’m not saying we can’t find ways to use resources and produce goods without harming the environment, but doing this takes conscious work. And we’re really still not there yet, even using the most environmentally friendly technology. Meanwhile, the very people talking about “godly subduing and ruling the earth” are all in supporting a president who makes fun of clean power, boasts about opening coal mines, and removes regulations created to protect our air and water. In other words, we’re not talking about people who are consciously trying to make production and resource consumption environmentally friendly. The reverse, rather.

I’ll finish with this:

Fear of environmental catastrophe grows out of the lack of the fear of God. That, I would argue, is the real root of the environmental scares that have plagued the modern world. And such fears will continue — with or without scientific basis — until people repent and fear the Lord.

Oh yeah, that’s totally the problem. Oh and by the way, the idea that God loves you but you should quake in fear of him is weird. That’s not how love works.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Beisner finally shows his hand here: he’s not just arguing that consuming resources and subduing the earth for man’s benefit will naturally result in a better environment, he’s a climate change skeptic (if not an outright denier). I am not surprised. From where I’m standing, fundamentalist Christians like Beisner tend to be climate change deniers in part because the Bible doesn’t say anything about man being able to change a global climate created by God—and because they believe the earth is going to be destroyed by fire, and a new heaven and new earth created, after a seven-year global tribulation that’ll start in a few years or decades anyway.

I’m not sure what’s more maddening, the idea that human consumption and resources extraction will result in a better and cleaner environment or the casual nod to climate change denial. I’ll close by reminding readers that this guy’s political party is in power, and don’t give a whit about protecting the environment. Oh, and Beisner’s not one of those Christian environmentalists who talks about stewardship and wants environmental protections—I skipped the part of his post where he directly argues that those Christians are wrong, but here’s a taste:

Although some Christian environmental writers attempt to use Genesis 2:15’s stipulation of cultivating and keeping the Garden to define Genesis 1:28’s stipulation of subduing and ruling the earth, that is surely mistaken, for two reasons. … What God assigned Adam to do in the Garden (to cultivate and keep) was not the same thing He assigned him to do in the earth (to subdue and rule).

So there’s that.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism

environmentalism

Previous Post

February 12, 2020

Republicans' New Climate Change Plan Is All About Deflection

Next Post

February 13, 2020 Will Ingesting Silver Kill the Coronavirus?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which letter encourages believers to "be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

James 2 Peter 1 John Romans