After reading White’s “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, I do agree with what I think is the gist of the article. With this excerpt, White takes some things that people generally regard as true, and links them to his ideas making what he is saying in the article make a lot of sense. For this reason, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what’s stated in the article. First off, I find it extremely interesting how he uses a timeline in order to depict human’s progression with religion, development of science, development of technology, and then how the last two individually began to separate after all coming from religion. In the beginning of the excerpt, the phrase that stands out the most to me was “scientific power means technological power over nature.” I suppose that I had always known that science at times was not the most favorable to nature, but I had never really thought about its direct relationship with nature and how science and technology are “masters” of nature. After reading how White put it however, it all made sense. Second, White begins to describe around the time when man’s relationship with nature started to take a turn for the worse, and how religion, in a way, endorsed it. White says that “first, that viewed historically, modern science is an extrapolation of natural theology… and second, voluntarist realization of the Christian dogma of man’s transcendence of, and rightful master over, nature.” It is difficult for me to disagree with this because, again, what he’s saying makes sense. In their questioning of nature, it did lead to humans abusing it. They started experimenting with nature, not caring about what it would do to it. At the end of the excerpt, White asks for a solution, and introduces the concept of re-evaluating Christianity. I see this as a plausible yet impossible thing to do because over hundreds of years, Christianity has definitely evolved and has divided itself into different sects. I don’t think a re-evaluation of a religion that has been around for so long can simply be re-evaluated. Who would have the right to do this? Who would give someone the right to do this? I don’t know if forming a new religion is also the way to go about this, but by spreading the information in this article that could be something that ends up happening.
Megan
At first this article confused me, and I definitely have to re-read over some portions of the text in order to really understand White's argument. I agree with the argument that religion may have, at one point, promoted destruction of the environment. But I don't think that it was intentional. Yes God placed man over animals, but the interpretation of that scripture is personal. Some Christians took it to mean they were masters of the environment and had complete control over the earth. Other Christians, such as Saint Francis of Assisi interpreted the scripture as God places humans and animals in this environment together and that we must help rule as stewards. This goes back to the whole stewardship vs. dominion argument. Unfortunately as White says, humans and yes some Christians have taken complete advantage of the environment. However, I think that White makes a lot of generalizations throughout this text. Referring to all Christians as destructive, what about other lay people, or other religious groups? It is fair to say that Christianity may have promoted this destruction at one point but did other groups not as well? This was during a time when no one really understood the effect humans had on the earth, was it all just an accident? Overall, I agree with certain parts of White's argument but I am not a fan of the broad generalizations made in the text.
ReplyDeleteI think that Author, Lynn White, brought up many interesting points throughout her essay "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis". Her first part of the essay took me back a few months to the topic of deep ecology. If I recall correctly, deep ecology is the idea that humans are either responsible for harming the environment or responsible for sustaining it. This article appears to believe the former. It was very interesting how White was able to make a case that every little thing we, as humans, do affects the world (more likely for the worse). I was shocked to see how she managed to discuss how the first cannon shots had affected the world as well.
ReplyDeleteI, too, was very interested by this article. White's claims are certainly very bold and opinionated; however, I think he provides ample evidence for the most part. Some generalizations, such as overall bunching of Christians together under the same stigmas, remove some of the legitmacy of his article. Despite this, however, the connections that are well supported are really intriguing. I couldn't help but think how I could quote his work in my final research paper. I felt his broader connection were much more effective in winning over the reader. For example: "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them... [and] by beliefs about our nature and destiny--that is, by relgion" (4). This idea is the foundation for his thesis on Christian causality of the current ecological backlash. Therefore, whether or not he successfully persuaded the reader in his final claims, this idea is clearly depicted.
ReplyDeleteLynn attaches many social issues to the ecological crisis that we are now faced with. She argues that many of these causes are rooted to doctrinal beliefs of Christianity and ideas of European exceptionalism. I agree with her that Europeans exploited technology in order to conquer other lands and dubiously justifed it in the name of God. However, I strongly disagree that this was a consequence of the Chrisitian mindset. This birth of technological progress and ecological manipulation could have, and very well did, become integral to almost every major civilization. The fact that Europe appeared to be at the forefront of this scientific era was simply a matter of chance. Had China been endowed with the same scale of resources that Europe had as a result of its colonies, it is likely that their current roles in the international system would be reversed. It was not exclusively a Christian doctrine that guided them to exploit the land. Indeed, 17th century Yang See Delta, China was noted to be critically plagued by pollution and deforestation, even without the level of technology that the Europeans had. She makes another point that all intellectual discoveries made during the Renaissance were made under the approval of the Chruch and rooted in faith. I agree with her that the Church dominated the realm of scientific discovery during this period. However, the church served a critical function after the fall of Rome by providing a sturdy infrastructure that ruling elites could build bureaucracy and even governments. While it is guilty of many misdeeds I feel that it is incredibly important to recognize its merits, and also recognize that many of these attributes, good and bad, were present in other societies as well.
ReplyDelete-Alex Leeds
For Christian, Bible is not just a book, bible represent the truth because all the verse in Bible is God’s voice. The first chapter which is Genies tells us that God made the whole earth. God made Adam which is the first man on the earth. God told Adam everything on the earth can be controlled by him and his wife, indicating God made the whole earth for human. Nowadays, more and more people use modern technology and modern science to “explore” natural. The relation between men and nature changed. Harmony is replaced by destruction. People think that they should explore nature and control nature to know God better, because the nature theology told so. However people forgot that Adam was created by God. Religion created this connection and started “explore” thing. However, they cannot deal with ecologic crisis. Saint Francis says “both our represent science and our represent technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them along.” Author thinks that the historical root of ecological crisis is the thinking about human from Christian. If people want to solve this situation, people have to realize that they are not the controller of nature. They have no right to destroy the earth. The second root of ecological crisis is science. Lots of people say that science is a new religion in the world, because science provides a better environment for people to live, but it also destroys the nature at the same time. I think that if we want to solve this problem, human need back to nature and understand that there are not the controller of the nature and human also need to know that human is becoming slave of technology, and they should avoid it.
ReplyDeleteI was really interested in the reference to Western democracy as the root of the environmental crisis. I have obviously heard numerous ideas on the industrial revolution and its impact on the environment, but I had never thought about Western ideology as a problem. White claims that we live in a post-Christian world, in which the general societal attitude toward nature reflects the Christian view of man and his place in the environment. The Creation story, White says, declares man superior to the surrounding environment, for all the plants, animals, rivers and trees are there for his benefit. White suggests a strong religious tie to our treatment of the environment, and therefore believes that we must either alter our religious views or find a new religion to solve the ecological crisis- science and technology cannot undo what they have done. I am really interested in this concept of the Christian view of the environment, and wonder if a different religion who viewed the environment differently were to dominate the world, would the ecological situation be completely different? Is it too late for that to happen, or is it a possibility for the future? If so, should this religion be one of the present world, an old one from the past, or an entirely new one to begin a new ecological future?
ReplyDeleteThe human impact on the environment, while being often harmful in the past, was given an added impetus by Christianity in its Westernized form. Western society, as a product of Westernized Christianity, inherits an unfair attitude toward the natural world that is the key to our present ecological crisis. White recognized the significant influence of religious tradition on personal beliefs toward the natural environment, and especially that of the Judeo-Christian experience, into which he grouped Islam and Marxism. This force was "anti-environment" because it progressively emphasized the separation of man from nature; the natural world existed to meet man's needs.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I was very intrigued with some of the points that White brings up. His quote “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them” (4) is particularly true in my mind. I also think that this lends itself back to the discussion of dominion vs. stewardship as Andrea mentioned and it is therefore a discussion worth revisiting. Another aspect of White articles that I found of particular interest is the intersection between nature and technology. His quote “Formerly man had been part of nature; now he was the exploiter of nature” is a spot on connection between the two. Technology allowed humans to take unnatural advantage of the world around them and continues today to be the tool by which we do so. Similarly, I think this connection and that of how people view their relation with nature are intertwined. Technology imbalanced of the equation and facilitated the belief that man is above nature.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this article covered a lot of different topics so I'm not sure where to start. I found it interesting to see all the different places that science originated. I feel like in school we learn that algebra came from a certain culture and biology came from another. But in reality, it's difficult to distinguish what came from where; all that is evident is that technology and science comes from many different cultures and accumulates throughout time.
ReplyDeleteI also found the part about agriculture interesting. At first I was confused as to what the plows had to do with anything but the exploitation of the land is now very obvious to me. God put man on the earth so that he could rule over everything, including nature. All the pieces kind of fit together and it does seem like that was how the world was meant to be.
Zoya Mufti
ReplyDeleteThis article was definitely a dense read for me. The author brought up a lot of points that I had never considered. For instance, when White explains the idea of how when the first cannons were fired there was mass erosion and deforestation due to the need for resources such as potash, sulphur, iron ore and charcoal. White then went on to explain that hydrogen bombs “are of a different order” because these weapons had the potential to change the genetics of life on earth. Before I read this article, when I thought of cannons, bombs and nuclear weapons the first thing that came to my mind was the amount of deaths and causalities caused by the violence. I was more concerned with the humanitarian crisis at hand. But what I realized after reading the article was that the impact of these weapons created another type of humanitarian issue in the form of an environmental issue.
I think that the basis of what White has to say, that the ecological crisis was caused by the basic idea that man has a dominion over the Earth, is true. If all people believed that it was morally wrong to deplete natural resources and destroy nature, there probably wouldn't be a problem, or at least not as big of one. However, like mentioned already, I think White is wrong when she draws this ideology into Christianity. There are many other historical factors that caused environmental degradation, and to lump the entire problem onto a religion seems pretty extreme. Most Christians do not even hold such strong beliefs that they believe the environment should be completely destroyed for our gain. Though her points are interesting and she definitely draws an argument, I am not convinced.
ReplyDeleteThis article has by far been the most intriguing. It is controversial in its content. Lynn White takes a stern stance in his beliefs. He explicitly states that "our ecologic crisis is the product of an emerging democratic culture" and that "the issue is whether a democratized world can survive its own implication" (White 2). By far, in my opinion, the most controversial claim White makes is that "Christianity inherited from Judaism not only a concept of time as non-repetitive and linear, but also a striking story of victory" (White 4). His claims however, do have some validity within them. His claims are dense and take some time to think about - but they do have merit.
ReplyDeleteThis article, for me, was somewhat groundbreaking. White made so many great connections to humans in history and the reasons behind why we treat nature the way we do. She discussed how humanity’s oversight of nature has affected our quality of life and she somehow connects that to technology and how all technology is Western. Though on the surface the reading was a bit complex, it was more blatantly obvious the points she was making. I agreed with most of her thoughts and in particular when she discusses how technology is Western; White shows how this is due to democratization and innovation because of a Western somewhat laziness. I really liked that. As I continued reading, I really enjoyed how White mentions that scientists used to be theologians and hold God highly until the late 18th century. This sounds absurd considering today’s society; science and religion just do not mix. I thought this part was particularly intriguing.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, Lynn White seems to be very outspoken and bold with her opinions about religion and the environment. She believes that Christianity and its attitudes underlie the root of our current ecological crisis. She provides sufficient evidence to support this claim, and even suggests a new kind of religion stemming from St. Francis’ idea of religion “for the spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature” (8).
ReplyDeleteAs complex as Whites’ argument was, I have to say I disagree with it for the most part. I think White was extremely general in describing how all Christians think, such as when she cited a Governor of California and his views of nature intertwined with religion. White paints a picture that all Christians are out to destroy nature, simply because they feel they have dominion over it. This is simply not the case.
It is true that there is a strong sentiment that exists that expresses that humans are superior to nature and can use it at their disposal. I also agree that Christianity and its concepts may have contributed to this sentiment in some way. However, I do not think that Christianity is the cause of the current ecological crisis and a new religion is the ultimate solution. I feel technology and science are entities all in a category to themselves, and they would have the same effect with or without religion. I agree that a new mindset that is needed to solve the current ecological crisis, but I doubt a new religion is the solution.
This article didn’t seem that different from various other readings we have seen in this course. I did think it was interesting that White brought up the fact that the majority of our relations with the environment are based on a Christian view of time. Before Christianity, a cyclical notion of time was widely accepted. Even if someone does not classify themselves as a Christian, they most likely believe in the linear and non-repetitive concept of time that Christianity made widespread. It is this concept of time that encourages man’s domination over the land instead of working with it. There are many phrases in the Bible that could easily be interpreted to suggest that exploiting earth’s resources isn’t a bad thing. I do not think, however, that Christianity is the source of our environmental crisis. China, for instance, has a very small population of Christians and yet it is one of the most polluted countries in the world. I think that even if the majority of humanity still believed in the cyclical nature of time that used to be accepted, man would exploit the earth. This is because new technology would develop and people would be unwilling to give up the conveniences of that technology provides. if people still believed in the cyclical nature of time (and Christianity did not exist) and the automobile was available for purchase, people would still buy it even though they know it is bad for the environment. Admittedly, people might be more inclined to recycle if they knew that time was cyclical but overall I don’t think that people would behave much differently towards the environment in the absence of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI found myself agreeing with many of the points that Lynn White made in the article but disagreeing whith her larger thesis. Agriculture quite clearly seems to have been the basis for much of humankind's destruction/mauling of nature over the years. Agriculture existed well before Christianity. Is it not possible that religion came to be around our pre-existing conceptions about our place in the ecosystem? Take for example the AZtecs. They lived on a floating city. They manipulated nature to their liking. Without Christianity. They may not have been as destructive to nature as Eurasian Christian societies but they also lived a life spiritually and physically colser to nature. So the question remains did our attidues toward nature influence our theology or did our theology influence our attidues toward nature? Personally, in the chicken and egg argument of values/morals vs religion I pick values/morals as coming first every time. But that's just my bias.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of bias I thought White had an enoumous hubris about western sicence and Chrsitianity in general. Phrases like "The victory of Christianity over paganism" makes me chringe a little bit. And calling Marxism and Islam "Judeo-Christain heresy?" I thought this reading had a glareing bias. She completely disregarded eastern science in the modern times. While yes she may be fairly correct that western science has risen to prominence it lagged behind for a long time. Western science took many a lesson for the East before it truly began to expand and grow. I found the article to be a little unballanced in its arguments.
Yes I think humans need to rexamin how we treat nature. But I do not believe that religion as at the heart of it. White may have been right about a lot of things in this article (and in my opinion wrong about a lot too) but I just can't get behind her larger point.
This article wasn't particularly enlightening for me. I found White to be a little too much of a complainer about how humans are destroying everything. Her argument about the plows was especially confusing. I didn't understand how suddenly tilling the earth with plows established human domination over the land. Farming practices can be done in harmony with the natural flow of nature. Even with the industrial revolution and exploitation of resources, i dont believe there is any amount of damage humans can do to the earth that can't be undone.
ReplyDeleteAt Lynn White’s argument is well structured and supported for the first five pages. At this point, she makes a leap of faith and rests her whole indictment of Christianity on one sentence; “I personally doubt that disastrous ecological backlash can be avoided simply by applying to our problems more science and technology.”
ReplyDeleteIn the introduction of this passage White observes how and why technology evolved under Christian leadership. She then goes on to explain how this technology has affected the earth, and how Christianity is partly to blame. Whether or not these charges are true, White assumes that the changes are hurting the planet, and that there is no solution to the problem. White contradicts herself when she denies that the Christian thought that encourages action would not produce a solution to a problem that society encounters. If the Modus Operandi of Christian theology and science is to overcome obstacles, then why is this not applied to the obstacles created by science itself?
I agree with the basic premise that man has, throughout his history, thought of the earth as his dominion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree with the author in that Christianity was the root for this. In fact, before religion, man did not honor the earth, at all. He took what he needed to survive and left chaos in his wake. With religion, man assigned godly positions to various natural phenomenon--recall how there existed gods of earth, water, plants, etc.--and thus assigned them greater respect, as well.
Christianity, I'll admit, might have caused undue damage to the earth by creating strife in the form of conflict and wars. Religious wars, with their pillagings, burnings, etc. scarred the earth.
However, I think that even without religion, and specifically, Christianity, this would have been the case. If wars hadn't been over religion, they would have been over something else.
Lynn Whites article was very generalized and critical of Christianity. Although I agree with his argument for the first part of the article, discussing the emergence of mans dominion over land as a result of technology, I did not agree with the latter part suggesting that we need to find a "new religion or change the one we have" to solve our environmental problems. I did not agree with the majority of what he stated however it was an interesting article solely based on his radical views and controversial statements.
ReplyDelete