I read with interest Steve Henson’s December 10 column, "Religion’s environmental activism gets rather ‘deep’". I sympathize with his point of view. In fact, at one time I might have written such a column myself. He says, "we have proven time and again that we can respond to all kinds of problems, including environmental degradation. We have guiding lights that help us along the way—they are called sciences."
When I first graduated from engineering school, my vocabulary consisted of words like "analytical", "scientific", "rational" and "logical". Speculations were called hypotheses; they were either provable (quod erat demonstratum) or not. If provable, then they became theories.
When I looked at the world that way, everything became simple. I knew that every fact was either true or false, and that there was a scientific method for deciding which was which. It was possible, using this method, to understand how everything worked—from the smallest parts of atoms to the largest galaxies. Given sufficient time and rational inquiry, all the truths of the universe would eventually be revealed.
However, I eventually became dissatisfied with this worldview. There were things it didn’t explain, and I had the feeling it never would. Why were trees dying in supposedly healthy forests? Why were 212 more square miles of west Antarctic ice vanishing every year? Why were hundreds of species of plants and animals becoming extinct every day, winking out of existence forever?
In the process of trying to answer questions like these, I learned new words: words like "ecosystem", "symbiosis", "biodiversity", and "sustainability". And I learned about concepts such as carrying capacity, resource depletion and ecological footprint. They were strange at first, and totally foreign to me. They did not fit comfortably into the scientific paradigm.
I realized that I had stumbled into an entirely new field: ecology. But true to form, I looked at it through the lens of science. In the process, I tried to maintain my objectivity, and to subject it to my familiar and comfortable tools of rational analysis. I changed careers, and began working as an environmental engineer.
Eventually, I had to concede that it wasn’t a good fit. Despite the gains made by technological mitigation, overall the biosphere continues to degrade. Pollution gets worse, the average global temperature steadily rises, and more species are lost forever.
As an engineer, I had great faith in my chosen discipline. I deeply believed in its fundamental correctness. And I still do—for simple systems. However, the earth is far from simple. Even if it were possible to analyze it completely, it would take far too long. By the time we finish, it will be too late.
In the current issue (November/December 1999) of Audubon magazine (http://magazine.audubon.org/) there is an article by E.O. Wilson called "The Final Countdown". Wilson "helped establish the concept of biodiversity", and his opinion is widely respected. The article contains a sobering quote. "If we continue at the current rate of deforestation and destruction of major ecosystems like rainforests and coral reefs, where most of the biodiversity is concentrated, we will surely lose more than half of all the species of plants and animals on earth by the end of the 21st century." Humanity is more dependent than it realizes on these other species; its fate is intimately intertwined with theirs.
Oddly, what made the difference for me was the new vocabulary. I had always believed in continuing education, and I thought that I could incorporate any new knowledge into the existing framework. But these words and concepts made me think about the world in a different way. I would never have predicted that they could have such a strong influence on me. There is great power in language.
As I continued to explore and learn, I came across even more radical concepts, such as the deep ecology Mr. Henson decries in his article. And I found many references to religion, which surprised me. I never thought religion was relevant to science, or that scientists cared much about it. It turns out that the most advanced fields of science—quantum chemistry, astrophysics, and planet biology—are increasingly using the words of religion. And the best theologians are starting to sound like scientists; many of them are affiliated with the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Their vocabularies are merging.
I have even begun to investigate some of the "earth based religions" Mr. Henson mentions. In general, I do not find them threatening. On the contrary, they offer valid and unique ways of perceiving the world. Although their rituals are different, their morals are very similar to ours. Zen, for example, is completely focused on the here and now. It avoids the dualism and alienation that occurs when we view ourselves as separate from nature. By studying Zen, I was finally able to see inside and truly appreciate the tenets of my own Christianity.
Mr. Henson asks, "What is ‘interconnectedness’ and ‘biocentric’?" I suggest that if he were deeply acquainted with these topics, it just might readjust his thinking a bit.
But to answer his implied questions: yes, life is indeed interconnected. We do depend on other species. Although it is difficult to be biocentric and "see our lives on the same level as a common housefly", it would behoove us to do so. All of life is sacred, and all beings are justified. The same loving Creator formed us all.