Religion of Environmentalism
14. February, 2007I happened upon this article, by Joseph Brean of the National Post (Canada), about how the Green movement is more and more resembling a religion, and thought I’d share a link to the article as well as my reaction to it. I don’t go so far as to call myself an Environmentalist – I believe in global warming, I’m distressed about species and habitat loss, I recycle and try to minimize the amount of trash I create in the first place, I’m against whaling (and also against ramming whaling ships, thinking of the potential disaster when a ship sinks or leaks petrol), and I’m a full supporter of the Outdoor Code, as learned when I was in the Boy Scouts; yet I spend entirely too much time on a computer, and just this evening used an environmentally unfriendly can of leather sealant to make my new leather boots resistent to all the rain we get around here….
The idea that Environmentalism could be like a religion was something that had never occurred to me until reading this article. Brean seems to hinge all of the similarities on one main concept: a tendency for people to react to a future we believe we are able to predict through various means (in this case, climatological models). Brean’s article points out that many of these same models could predict catastrophic climate changes even with pre-industrial CO2 levels. While this might dampen the beliefs in global warming of some, my belief is still there: I look at the plight of the polar bears as all the evidence I need, since they evolved specifically to live in a frozen environment 100,000 – 200,000 years ago, have seen periods of glacial advance and retreat, yet seem only now truly endangered because their polar home is melting out from under them. Their not having encountered something like this before is evidenced by their lack of evolved adaptations to the current situation. Brean considers the polar bears to be “iconography” printed by the news papers.
I found the following quote to be interesting, as it attempts to offer an historically religious explanation for the state of our natural world:
“By destroying pagan animism [the belief that natural objects have souls], Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects,” … “Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.”
Brean follows this up with a description of how prophetic the above statement turned out to be, and adds this:
Today, the popularity of British author James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis — that the Earth itself functions as a living organism — confirms the return of a sort of idolatrous animism, a religion of nature.
It’s good to know that this modern, global religious movement is animistic – it makes me think that the Pagan umbrella has received another occupant! Or has it really? Most Pagans and Heathens would agree that a reverence for Earth and Nature (in Heathenry, Earth is a goddess, and Nature is a force even our gods are subject to) is a strong element in our culture – environmental awareness and friendliness are not exactly new to us. Not all Environmentalists would consider themselves Pagan or Heathen (although I suspect strongly that issues of religious concern take a back seat in their priorities to issues of environmental concern in determining who Environmentalists are and aren’t friendly with). Brean further dashes any hope of a new Pagan religion by quoting Michael Crichton as having called Environmentalism, “the religion of choice for urban atheists.”
Ultimately, it makes little difference to me – and it makes little difference that Brean’s association between Environmentalism and religion is not intended as the highest compliment for either. I’m not interested in predicting the future of our climate (although I do have a sharp sense for the weather) – I’m more focused on looking around at what we are doing now, and the truth remains that we are taking our Earth for granted, we are altering the nature around us and destroying or gobbling up resources vital for our own survival. Focusing the science on the here-and-now, with no mind or heed for what may come tomorrow as a result, brings us no further along in our wisdom than we were at the dawn of the Industrial Age.
Interesting article, Bernulf. I agree with Brean that the destruction of Paganism (and not only animism) made the destruction of our natural habitat easier. Christianity has quite a different attitude towards nature than Paganism, obviously. I’ve never been comfortable with the Gaia Hypothesis and the idea of environmentalism as a religion is abhorrent to me. Some environmentalists are already little different than religious zealots and the last thing any of us need is to have another person’s view of the environment shoved down our throats as dogma. We’ve got enough of that from other directions already.
Iconography- sad. Recently I’ve stewed a lot over wolves being thought of that way. Working to leave a smaller footprint and to preserve and restore what was intended to be is a very large part of my “religion.” It’s also a part of plain ol’ daily existence. I know Christians who do the same, considering the environment sacred. And if environmentalism is to be considered some sort of new religion by anyone, so be it, as long as it doesn’t cast more doubt over the fact that we need to quit ripping and trashing. I wasn’t comfortable with the general tone of the Joseph Brean article. It seems sort of like it belittles environmentalism, and not just the extreme kind, which casts some doubt. Interesting read though.
Just stopped by to wish you and Chroi a very happy Valentine’s Day. :)
Chell, Hrafnkell, thank you for your comments :-)
Hrafnkell, I agree with you about not needing another outlet for zealots in the world today; and I’m not completely at ease with the idea of Environmentalism as a religion within itself. I think that environmentalism should be a valid component in any other religion (if we regard the Earth as a creation of our gods, respect for that creation should be a built-in component to our religion – not to mention those among us who view the Earth as a goddess outright). Gaia Theory is something I am actually quite comfortable with – as an animist, it makes sense to me and, as a Heathen, I could see Gaia Theory as being another expression for Jörð. That it’s withstood the scientific testing that it has, has made the predictions it has, and has thus been ‘upgraded’ from Gaia Hypothesis to Gaia Theory suggests to me that it might have something to it.
Chell – regarding the way wolves have been treated, I think you and I are sitting in exactly the same boat. And we share in common an acquaintance with Christians who have no problem seeing the sacredness of something they believe their Creator created. I think you and I are also on the same wavelength in hoping, if environmentalism were to become an outright religious movement, that it would not actually harm the movement by causing the mainstream global population to dismiss it as a religion not their own. Environmental concerns should not be turned into an exclusive religion, but rather kept as an inclusive movement aimed at humanity living more responsibly on our planet.
I hope you and yours had a happy Valentine’s Day, too, Chell, and thank you for the kind wishes! As it turns out, we had a pretty decent day :-)