Earth, schmearth?

If you've already navigated yourself to a blog called "mormonsfortheenvironment.blogspot.com," then this post just might be preaching to the choir. But if you still want to look at what interest conservation could possibly have for those of the LDS persuasion, let's discuss.

First, the purely theological reasons- less abstract ones to follow. Moses seems to indicate the earth as having more of a presence than just a rock to stand on (7:48; also DC 88:25-26). Does this mean there’s a prophetic basis for the Gaia hypothesis? I can’t say I’d go that far. But in terms of seeing our place in the physical universe and our relationship with the resources we live from, it certainly gives you something to think about.

Then there’s a great line of thought (or Reagan administration policy) reasoning that with the Second Coming happening soon, and the earth being renewed then, isn’t worrying about the environment a waste of time?

Good point. Of course, the expectation of having brand-new resurrected bodies doesn’t stop us from following the law of chastity or Word of Wisdom out of disregard for the one we have now. In fact, rather than treat our current bodily estate as disposable because of our belief in a resurrection, we recognize the sacredness of our physical place. If we think it’s a good idea for the earth to be at a lovely Edenic state someday, then it’s a good idea now.

Or for a slightly different angle, one fellow I know once said: “Weren’t we the ones who did the creating? So when it’s time for the big cleanup, who d’you think’s gonna be doing that?”

The stewardship principle looms large in the LDS thought towards the environment. The earth was given to us for our benefit and like all of God’s other gifts, we will have to make an accounting of our use. Of course there isn’t much in the way of scriptural counsel on what exactly constitutes “responsible stewardship” of the earth’s resources. What exactly will we be accountable for? Regrettably, the one scripture that is often cited by ourselves and Christianity at large, Gen. 1:26 appears to have been dramatically mistranslated. (And considering what else has happened to the book of Genesis, perhaps this isn’t surprising). The terms translated into English as “dominion” and “subdue,” it would seem, come from the Hebrew equally well as “stewardship” and “cherish.” But again, still not much word on precisely what kind of reckoning our stewardship and cherishing will be accounted by.

To me, and this is where we enter the realm of Gospel According to Myself, a big huge part of our stewardship over the earth is social. How do you figure? It’s pretty simple: We’re carbon-based life forms. We breathe. We drink water, and get sick when it’s full of sewage. We have also been known to eat from time to time. Doesn’t it seem a little like poor stewardship to mess these things up for other people if we can avoid doing so?

One of the misconceptions I would like to discuss is that the environment is only a concern for the rich who have already had all their basic needs filled. In my experience—and I feel I cannot say it strongly enough—this is absolute fallacy, and an unfortunate one. The most basic needs like food, clean water, shelter, and fuel are the ones most closely tied to the productivity and health of land. This is especially true for the poorest who often live more off the land than in a cash-based trade network like we do. Land that is abused loses its productivity. End of story.

Except it’s not, because that’s the topic of next week’s post. Optional reading: Collapse by Jared Diamond.