Few of us deny the
importance of promoting the conservation of energy and other resources. But, conservation without “consistency” is
like a baker wanting “consistency” in bread or cookie dough without first
gathering all the ingredients and then following the recipe. Conservation of resources without “consistency”
leads to a misguided and confused environmentalism. It confuses the role and value of humans with that of the other
creatures with whom we share planet Earth.
Without “consistent conservation” based on the Christian environmental
stewardship ethic, policymaking and execution of policy will be “half-baked”
and even toxic. [For a more detailed discussion of these points, click HERE to read Part 1 of this series.]
In Part 2 of this series, we will consider the history of the environmental
movement. In particular, we will discuss
the contributions and legacies of two men who each represent a very different
view of the value of human life and how we can conserve natural resources. But first, we will recount some of our own life
experiences with the environmental movement of the 1960’s.
Growing Environmental Awareness
I learned from both my father and grandfather the importance of caring for the
soil and water. My grandfather was one of the first in our region to implement
contour (strip) farming along hillsides to reduce soil erosion. We also planted tree seedlings on nearby strip
mine land to restore the disturbed landscape.
I learned to conserve water because, not having “running water” in our
home, one of my chores was to carry our drinking water from a spring-fed
reservoir. Our home heating and cooking
depended on coal and wood which we carried from nearby stockpiles prepared
before each winter.
Abby and I were blessed not only to grow up close to the processes of the soil
and water, but also to learn lessons of hard work and responsibility toward employers. She worked at a local grocery store, and I was
a manual laborer in the Belden Brick Company.
Like most young people growing up in the 1960’s and earlier, we were not
ignorant or confused about the origin and conveyance of our basic needs for
energy, clean water, food, and shelter.
Ehrlich’s Environmentalism
When we entered secondary school and then college in the 1960’s, we became
acquainted with powerful influencers of thought in resource conservation. Some voices like that of Dr. Paul Ehrlich,
professor of biology at Stanford University, prophesied a future of doom and
gloom. Ehrlich had visited India where
he saw millions of people living under the grip of hopeless poverty,
starvation, and despair. The opening
sentence of Ehrlich’s widely read book, The Population Bomb (1968), presented a
shocking prediction to our generation of young college students at the time:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked
upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the
world death rate ...
Ehrlich’s solution was population control.
He predicted it would come about either from deliberate human effort or
by a combination of human effort and the inevitable death toll from disease and
starvation. While his predictions turned
out to be badly wrong, the resulting fear and concern from his dire warnings
challenged the thinking of many in positions of influence. Ehrlich’s interpretations and predictions were
based on a narrow viewpoint and therefore, his “recipe” for addressing the human
predicament lacked important ingredients.
The result—Ehrlich’s conservation was an “inconsistent conservation.”
Dr. Ehrlich’s failed prediction can be attributed in part to his misunderstanding of the
dynamics of human population growth. World Birth Rate was already on the decline when Dr. Ehrlich made his dire prediction. According
to the United Nations World Population Prospects, the World Birth Rate
had been decreasing since the 1950’s. It declined from 37.8 births per
1,000 people in 1950 to 17.8 per 1,000, in 2021. This trend resulted from several factors
including more women working outside the home.
Then, in the 1960’s, concurrent with Ehrlich’s prediction, came the loosening of
moral standards and the growing women’s liberation movement. Together, these developments led to a
progression from increased voluntary birth control to a greater acceptance of
abortion; and then, to legalized abortion and eventually the one-child policy
in China. Increasingly, human life was
devalued. The human population began to
be viewed as a blight on planet Earth that needed to be controlled.
Whereas, professor Ehrlich’s environmentalism focused on population control,
others like American agronomist, Norman Borlaug, viewed the human
population differently. Thanks to his
leadership in the advancement of agriculture and crop genetics in the 1950’s
and 60’s, farmers in nations like Mexico and India realized a doubling and even
tripling of wheat yields. While Ehrlich predicted
mass starvation, Borlaug set about conducting genetic screenings for fungal
rust-resistant varieties to prevent wheat crop losses due to the rust disease.
This required the painstaking work of removing the male stamen from each
bisexual wheat flower to allow only cross-pollination necessary to produce new,
rust-resistant varieties. In less than
one decade, Borlaug’s team accomplished 6,000 crossings of wheat, and by 1956,
Mexico’s wheat production had doubled.
According to Gopi Rajagopal, “Borlaug’s next step
was to speed up the progress by breeding wheat twice in a year. In the summer,
he would breed wheat in the central highlands, then immediately take the seed
north to the Yaqui Valley research station. Because of different altitudes and temperatures,
crops could be planted back-to-back in the two areas. This solved the problem
of photoperiodism. He planted wheat at low elevations in the
north of India while the days were getting warmer and shorter. Then, Borlaug’s team took the harvested seed
from the best plants in the north to the high elevations of the south when
daylength became longer and temperatures and rainfall were higher. According to Borlaug: “Soon we had varieties
that fit the whole range of conditions. That wasn’t supposed to happen by the
books.” The results were “spectacular:” Whereas,
India harvested only 12 million tons of wheat in 1965, by 1974 it had become self-sufficient
in cereal grains!
At the same time community development efforts in sanitation, nutrition, and
education resulted from organizations like the Peace Corps started by President
John F. Kennedy. Like many committed
college graduates, my boyhood friend and neighbor, Bob Baker, left his family
and farm for The Ohio State University and then volunteered for several years
to serve through the Peace Corps in India. Other friends chose paths which allowed them
to apply their faith to serve in Christian missionary efforts overseas or
stateside.
Looking back on the contribution of Paul Ehrlich, we can easily criticize him
and his followers for viewing people and resources as a zero-sum game. After all, if we view “resources” as simply a
finite pile of materials which can be depleted, then more human consumers mean
a more imminent exhaustion of the supply and eventually, human misery. If we accept this claim which is inconsistent
with reality, then it makes sense that a priesthood of wiser humans among us must
be allowed to take charge of the Earth, curb human population, and cut back on
consumption.
In contrast, Borlaug and company viewed each human being as a “human resource.” Each person who is allowed to be born and
nurtured to adulthood is precious and worthy of an opportunity to live a
meaningful life. Borlaug believed that when
human ingenuity is put to work toward advancing plant genetics and agronomic
techniques, limitations on crop growth and yields could be removed.
Like any visionary leader, Borlaug had his critics. They pointed to the environmental consequences
of the heavy use of agrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides). There was also the trend of large
agricultural corporations driving out small farmers. But even these negative aspects can be
addressed through policies and practices based on consistent conservation.
There were also some unexpected benefits to Borlaug’s “Green Revolution.” According to James Wanliss, resultant higher crop
yields per acre curbed the desperate need to increase cropland acreage by
deforestation. At the same time, “population
growth dropped in every developing nation which applied [Borlaug’s] techniques,
and education gained importance relative to muscle capacity.” More
people were fed and could live and contribute meaningfully to the betterment of
both Earth and mankind. Indeed, if Borlaug’s
Green Revolution had not prevented severe food shortages in India in the 1960’s,
some of Ehrlich’s predictions might have come true.
Consistency in
Conservation
What can we learn from the contrasting worldviews of Paul Ehrlich and Norman
Borlaug? Ehrlich’s environmentalism was
based on the notion that mankind can and must take charge of planet Earth’s
finite resources and decide how many and who can be allowed to live and
reproduce. The outlook of Paul Ehrlich and
those who have followed him has fueled the notion that an elite group can “be
as gods” who decide for the rest of the world who can have children, which children and elderly should live, what we ought to eat, what our health
practices should be, and how we can control the climate of the Earth. Clearly such misguided and even unethical goals
are evidence of the need for “consistent conservation.” Otherwise, powerful people with flawed
character will make unethical decisions that only a just God is capable of
making.
In contrast, Borlaug saw both the planet and mankind as expandable resources
that if managed wisely would allow both mankind and the Earth to flourish. To Borlaug, this meant learning to
“serve-with” the created order. Consistent
conservation recognizes the human responsibility and privilege of harnessing
the great genetic potential within plants, animals, and microbes for the use
and flourishing of mankind. However, to
be consistent in conservation, we must also recognize our ethical responsibility
to do our part in sustaining the life-supporting potential of the created order. When we do not recognize our place as
stewards under God, we begin to confuse our role with “being as gods” and
foolishly overstep our role and ability (Romans 1: 18-23).
As we emphasized in Part 1 of this series, “Consistent
Conservation -- Part 1: Following the Right Recipe,” true consistency
is only possible when we submit as stewards in willing servanthood to Christ who
is before all things, and by Him all things consist, or “hold together” (Colossians
1: 17). Leaders can cast vision and
nations can adopt conservation policies, but ultimately it falls to each of us
to make “consistent conservation” a part of our value system and lifestyle. In Part 3 of this series, we will consider
how “consistent conservation” looks, or ought to look, in our individual lives.
What Do You Think?
As
always, we welcome your responses. You
may use the “Comments” link below or e-mail to silviusj@gmail.com. Here are some questions for further
application:
1. Can you name influential leaders or predictors
of our day who represent the same perspective as Paul Ehrlich from the 1960’s?
2. Who among leaders of our day might
oppose Norman Borlaug and his “Green Revolution” approach?
3. What examples of “consistent
conservation” and “inconsistent conservation” can you identify among influential
leaders, policies and practices of our day?
