What I Have Against “Saving the Planet”

l. It’s grandiose. Why not save the solar system? Shouldn’t we at least try to do something about those sun spots? Grandiose ideas have a way of ending up in bloodshed, or at the very least causing endless trouble for innocent people just trying to get through the day. Remember the War on Poverty? Ten years and billions of dollars later, there was more poverty than before, and worse, the family life of poor people was being destroyed. We should have asked the children, “Which would you rather have: a little more money, or Daddy coming home?”

Unfortunately, “Let’s Make Things a little Easier on the Poor” doesn’t have that inspiring ring to it.

2. I don’t like “planet.” World, yes; Earth, fine. But Planet suggests one among many. Earth is not just our planet; it’s the only planet with life on it as far as we know, and not only life but rational life. Mathematical arguments that there has to be rational life on other planets are based on an unproven dogma, an act of faith: that life, even rational life, arises automatically by purely natural processes based on chance. To question this dogma is not to be anti-science — just the opposite: assent to dogma is a religious act and has no place in the empirical sciences.

Isaac Asimov wrote a whole book called Extraterrestrial Civilizations. It was classified as non-fiction. He might as well have written three hundred and twenty pages on The Lifestyles of Elves and Fairies. It may be that there are people somewhere out there but the last I heard, we didn’t have any evidence of it. None at all.

3. Most of the plans I’ve heard of to save the planet involve more hardship for poor people, especially in the Third World, and God knows they’re hanging on by their fingernails as it is. Many of the plans involve seeing to it that there are fewer people in the Third World. But what are we saving the planet for if not people? And if what they really mean is let’s save the planet for the rich people, let them say so.

4. Treating a problem as a crisis is dangerous. It rushes us, it makes it hard to think straight, and it exposes us to terrible temptations. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said recently that concern about human rights would have to be put aside for the duration of the economic crisis. Somehow I don’t think she was referring to her own human rights. “I’m sorry, I have to kill you. Please don’t take it personally. This is an emergency!”

Isn’t it always?

5. Why does “the planet” include everything on earth except us? What are we, some kind of illegal aliens? I could understand it if the idea was that we humans are the lords and stewards of the earth and we have the responsibility to use its resources wisely, for our own well-being and the glory of God. Oh, but isn’t that discrimination? Isn’t it… species-ism? Yer darn tootin’ it is. “Ye are of more value than many sparrows.”

Some pathetic empty-headed women are actually getting sterilized “for the sake of the planet.” Why are we Christians so hesitant to come out and say it: My child is more valuable than a whale. A baby is worth cutting down some trees for. In fact, the trees and the whales exist for the sake of the baby, not the other way around.

6. We are not saving the whales for the sake of the whales. Personally I think it’s a beautiful and reverent act to try and save a species of plant or animal from extinction, even though extinction is the normal lot of all animals sooner or later. But let’s get something straight: we’re not doing it for the sake of the whales or the polar bears or the gorillas, we’re doing it for ourselves — and quite rightly so. Polar bears don’t in the least mind becoming extinct; they don’t even know they’re here in the first place. Of course they have an instinct of self-preservation and don’t want to die. But as for the preservation of their whole species, they most assuredly don’t care one way or the other. It’s for our sake that we want to save them, because we alone, of all earthly organisms, are able to appreciate them.

So… Can a Christian be a tree-hugger?

Sure; what he can’t be is a tree worshiper. Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, an American convert to Orthodox Christianity, had no trouble making the distinction, living as he did in a Christian environment. He used to go out early in the morning, before worship services, and circle the monastery grounds, blessing and even kissing the trees. One morning a brother found him and said, “What’s this? Kissing trees?” Father Seraphim didn’t have to explain that in kissing the trees he was giving glory to the Creator of trees. He just “looked up, smiling radiantly, and continued walking.”

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU