I kind of have to laugh at that, because the answer is "obviously not". If I were really possessed of that kind of demon, I would be running around with a flame-thrower lambasting every green (or olive, since we don't have many truly green things here in New Mexico) thing I could find.
People like to demonize their opposition though, rather than actually see them as people with a slightly different agenda than they though. I understand that well enough, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.
I tend to fall back on the Bible when asked about the environment (italics mine).
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. ... The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
- Genesis 2:8-15
Men were created to tend, to care for, and the nurture the world in which we were put. That is certainly a clear part of our existence; yet after sin had corrupted the world, the nature of the environment changed.
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
- Genesis 3:17-19
So from this passage, men, we are clearly not to listen to our wives. :) All joking aside though, the environment was cursed to its current existence from that moment forth. Man had failed to obey God and was cursed along with all of creation as a result. After the great flood, God puts forth another mandate to mankind.
Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.
- Genesis 9:1-7
What does it mean when God says that he will demand an accounting from each and every animal? The definition of accounting that I think was intended here was, "an explanatory statement of conduct, as to a superior"or "a statement of reasons, causes, etc., explaining some event". If we eat an animal, we must not take that lightly. Something had to die that we might live. This is a hard concept to swallow in this modern day of packaged and processed food. It is so easy to forget where the food that we eat came from and what price was attached.
By these verses then, reckless environmental destruction is certainly hideous and awful, but what defines reckless? To be utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action is reckless. I tend to think it wise for us to remember that we too live in this world and happen to require plants and animals to survive. Not only for survival though, but also for balance and equilibrium. This is the principle on which environmental arguments should be based.
So what is the answer? Corporation or environment? The corporation exists to produce things and employ people, to provide for the livelihood of thousands of individuals. That is a responsibility which cannot be lightly shirked. The environment also exists to support our existence, and as such cannot be recklessly trodden upon. We must balance our actions and weigh the consequences. Can we strip away a mountain top or rain forest without endangering life in the area on a long term scale? Will the environment reclaim this area when we are done? Are we going to help it recover when we are finished with the land? Are there other lands around that will be able to absorb the displaced wildlife? It is the answers to these questions that determine the morally right choice in the matter. If a corporation is serious about their moral duty to the environment, these question MUST be considered and answered ahead of time. The costs of such actions to restore must be calculated into the cost of the enterprise. Corporations owe it to the people of the world to factor this in.
To cease these activities altogether is most certainly not the right answer. But to pursue them with reckless abandon is not either. The morally right path lies somewhere in between.
So, I suppose the environmentalists should be carrying around signs that read: "GOD WILL DEMAND AN ACCOUNTING OF EVERY ANIMAL!"
That 'ought to strike the fear of God into amoral corporations.
No comments:
Post a Comment