Consistent Conservation -- Part 2: Following the Right Vision

 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

Our childhood experiences paralleled much of the history of our culture’s growing environmental awareness and conservation movement.  Both Abby and I grew up on small farms where we had opportunity to work in garden and field.  We learned to enjoy the smell of freshly tilled soil, but also experienced the toil and sweat required to combat bugs and weeds in order to produce a harvest.  

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.

Borlaug’s Better World

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?