It is generally agreed that environmental and sustainability concerns are among the most pressing issues faced by current and future generations of living beings on our planet. As ecosystem engineers, humans have modified all biotic and abiotic systems across the globe, for good or for ill. This is so pervasive that some have taken to calling our epoch the "anthropocene." Religion, being a key framework around which peoples spin and weave tales of life's meaning, is poised to inform the human relationship with the non-human world. The relationship between religions and regard for the non-human world is a vast and complex territory, but here I'd like us to consider one paradigm presented by Bron Taylor:
I hope you don't mind, but I chose to go with the format of the quote as found in the book (and add a bit too it, as starting somewhat earlier gets you the beginning of the chapter with only a few more lines)
"Since the publication of Rachael Carson’s
Silent Spring in 1962, environmental alarm has intensified and become increasingly apocalyptic. Meanwhile, nature-related religion has been rekindled, invented, spread, and ecologized. A great deal of this religious creativity has been
dark green, flowing from a deep sense of belonging to and connectedness in nature, while perceiving the earth and its living systems to be sacred and interconnected. Dark green religion is generally deep ecological, biocentric, or ecocentric, considering all species to be intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable apart from their usefulness to human beings. This value system is generally (1) based on a felt kinship with the rest of life, often derived from a Darwinian understanding that all forms of life have evolved from a common ancestor and are therefore related; (2) accompanied by feelings of humility and a corresponding critique of human moral superiority, often inspired or reinforced by a science- based cosmology that reveals how tiny human beings are in the universe; and (3) reinforced by metaphysics of interconnection and the idea of interdependence (mutual influence and reciprocal dependence) found in the sciences, especially in ecology and physics."
The first issue I had with this was the reference to Carson's book, but that's another story. I confess to being mystified by the part "Darwinian understanding that all forms of life have evolved from a common ancestor and are therefore related" given that
1) The Darwinian perspective (not to be confused with or conflated with evolutionary theory, which posits a wider-range of mechanisms) is "survival of the fittest", fundamentally competitive, and doesn't hold all life to have derived from a common ancestor (if memory serves, Darwin's conception was of a primordial soup, and in current fields from evolutionary biology to astrobiology that are concerned with abiogenesis, there remains no identified common ancestor).
2) Darwinian understanding is anthropocentric. It is a conceptualization of the relationship humans have with life that either serves as a justification for minimalizing or ignoring our environmental responsibilities or (in this case) is oddly used to promote a view of life as "interconnected" in a manner rather at odds with the whole of Darwinian understanding.
It is important to understand that Taylor doesn't necessarily mean for "dark green religion" to be taken as a religion in of itself
"It is important to distinguish between green religion (which posits that environmentally friendly behavior is a religious obligation) and dark green religion (in which nature is sacred, has intrinsic value, and is therefore due reverent care). These two forms are often in tension and sometimes in direct conflict. Exploring their similarities and differences further sets the stage before turning in the following chapters to the diverse examples of four types of dark green religion [Animism, Gaian Earth Religion, Naturalism, Supernaturalism; he includes subtypes such as Naturalistic Animism and Gaian Spirituality]."
I'll give his book a second read, but it seems to be that he has in mind not only that it is a religion, but that (like most religions) has subtypes and close competitors (e.g., green religion). It's true that one could see these as "flavors" as you do and perhaps I am biased here as I tend to think of religion as it has been understood historically rather than the doctrinal, orthodoxies of Western Christianities and Islam (among others). Also, I've spent a lot of time around (and studying) various Wiccan, Goddess, Druid, Neopagan, and other spiritualties, traditions, practices, covens, orders, etc. So to me it seems very much a "religion in of itself".
but mainly I wanted to forward some discussion on this concept of "dark green religion."
I see some good and some not so good; more good than in Lovelock and Carson (both of whom are featured somewhat prominently in Bron's book). This is mainly because the Gaia hypothesis attempts (as the name suggests) to establish itself as a scientific position. Part of it is very much in accord with current views in systems sciences and work in complex systems/nonlinear dynamics. However, it goes beyond even the highly speculative. The planet is certainly a dynamical system, and in fact is composed of numerous highly connected complex systems (from ecosystems to oceanic dynamics to the effect of cosmic rays on cloud coverage). It does not respond dynamically as an organism does. So I have deep problems with this view
as a scientific proposal, but can understand it as a religious perspective.
Activism is more problematic. I recall talking with scientists and doing my own research on the debate over DDT that has basically gone on since before Carson's
Silent Spring. One thing I have found interesting is an apparent difference between those with the luxury to weigh potential, if largely unsupported, risks with actual fatalities:
"Bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT) has been shown, over the past 60 years, to be one of the few affordable and effective tools against malarial vector mosquitoes, which account for more than 300 million cases of disease and more than 1 million deaths every year. However, the Review by Walter Rogan and Aimin Chen (Aug 27, p 763),1 which aims to balance the risks and benefits of DDT, consists mainly of hypothetical concerns while the reality of human suffering gets short shrift...
they point to no evidence that DDT, used as a malaria preventive, causes actual harm to human beings. For each category of illness or dysfunction offered as support for their precautionary approach, there is either no or at best weak data to support a connection to DDT...
They call for data from trials. But what sort of trials would suit them when 5000 die every day, and the weapon to prevent these needless deaths has been known to be effective since the 1940s?"
Ross, G. (2005). Risks and benefits of DDT.
The Lancet,
366(9499), 1771-1772.
"The insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was arguably the most successful chemical ever synthesized to control malaria and other insect-borne diseases. However,
Silent Spring led to a US ban on DDT use in 1972.
Carson branded DDT as dangerous because of its effects at high doses on experimental rodents and birds. But it was already known that humans experienced no ill effects after consuming 35 milligrams of DDT daily for two years — a dose 1,000 times higher than that received from agricultural exposure. Thousands of pesticides occur naturally in fruit and vegetables and are consumed daily. Around half of these also cause cancer at high doses in rodent tests (B. N. Ames and L. S. Gold Mutat. Res. 447, 3–13; 2000)...
Carson claimed that insect resistance would quickly reduce DDT's effectiveness. But DDT is largely a mosquito repellent, not a toxicant. Repellent resistance has not yet emerged, whereas toxicant resistance is widespread.
Contrary to Dunn's claims and Carson's predictions, the bald eagle had become rare long before DDT, and American robins increased during the 1960s.
At the time of the DDT ban in 1972, 1 billion people were almost malaria-free. Within a few years, malaria cases had risen 10–100-fold. Over 40 years, estimates suggest that there have been 60 million to 80 million premature and unnecessary deaths, mainly children, as a result of misguided fears based on poorly understood evidence."
Trewavas, T. (2012). Environment: Carson no'beacon of reason'on DDT.
Nature,
486(7404), 473-473.
I am wary of strong ideological beliefs (a prejudice I admit, and naturally am not proud of), and to me many activists already display a religious like fervor that can be dangerous. Most of those I've known, met, or talked with whose religions concerned some form of nature worship or something similar are environmentalists in the typical sense of the term and this is sort of an aspect of their spiritual/religious tradition, beliefs, practices, etc. Dark green religion, it seems, makes this aspect more central. While I agree with there is an imminent and dire need for environmental action, I tend not to agree on the solutions proposed or the certainty expressed with respect to our knowledge of the problems. I tend to believe the most important actions needed are increased research in viable alternative energies and both modernizing and building additional nuclear power plants, our best chance at actually dramatically reducing emissions while minimizing environmental impact (nuclear waste is awful, but the volume of waste is nothing compared to what we currently spew into the environment, can be fairly well contained, and can possibly be used for energy; its viable NOW).
What does your religion (or equivalent non-religious worldview) teach you about how to regard the non-human world?
That it is something we should treasure and be wary of our impact of, but also that logically the fact that we are the only species doing this or capable of doing this necessitates adopting a "privileged" position, albeit one natural to all species and life.
