Driving to campus with Carrie is always a good time to talk about hard issues.
I was thinking today about Naturalists (link | link) who claim that ecological problems are a result of human intervention as if they’re separate from other natural disasters.
As a basis of understanding what I mean by ‘natrualism’ I should explain that I’m talking about people who believe that there is no supernatural existance, that everything is a result of natrual processes that affect one another and that espouse the philosophy that humans are no higher in any way than other animals in nature.
Now, if humans are simply another animal in a long chain of animals, then why are the effects of what we do on the earth any different than the slower effects of long-distance animal migration to new continents that eventually may wipe out other animal populations? If we are just the result as well as a step in the natural processes of the Universe then why do we need to worry about the effects of our actions on the earth, we’re just higher and more adaptable to natural selection and perhaps even a tool of natural selection to get rid of less viable species – the dodo, pandas, etc.
If the philosophy of naturalism is true than we’re charged with no extra responsibility to care for the planet, other animals or anything else if it does not inherently benefit us. For example, there is no reason that the sheep should still exist. They’re blind, stupid and slow – but they provide clothing and food for millions and therefore we keep them alive to exploit from them what we need to survive better. Perhaps even this is their key to championing Natural Selection.
To clarify, I am not a naturalist, and I do believe we’ve been charged with caring for the earth and the creatures that we’re surrounded by. I believe it is our job to steward creation and encourage what is best for all of it.
