The present-day ecological crisis requires us to research the ideological origins of humanity’s ecologically destructive tendencies and behaviors. In his groundbreaking 1967 article The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, Lynn White Jr becomes the focus of heated discussion after accusing the Judeo-Christian tradition of uncontrolled human domination over nature, which is the root cause of environmental problems. The religious scholar J. Patrick Dobel disputes White’s broad accusation opposing that responsible and caring treatment of creation is an essential element of biblical stewardship. A closer look at Genesis and these arguments highlights a more sophisticated analysis. The Judeo-Christian view as a whole hence does not uniquely result in environmental abuse, although some of its problematic aspects can enable such an outcome. This difficulty, nevertheless, entails changing traditional views of human dominance and promoting accountability. To address environmental damage, we must move beyond oversimplification to see diverse historical influences while reframing humanity’s relationship with nature as one of responsibility and care over mastery.
White acknowledges that all cultures influence their environments by design or default. Nevertheless, he asserts that the mid-19th century combination of Western science and technology multiplied the potential of humanity to remake nature at a global scale so that knowledge became equal to power and dominion (White, 1967). White sees the conceptual source of this scientific mindset in the Judeo-Christian cosmology, which he regards as highly anthropocentric in God-given human rule over the entire created world directed only to human benefit. We assumed to be here fostering a skepticism regarding the sanctity of non-animal nature. White gives examples of the Medieval Revolution in heavy cultivator technology, which brought above a more exploitative agricultural ethos, representations of hunting and foraging in calendars, and the take from pagan animism, which regarded spirits to be in all objects (White, 1967). On the contrary, he maintains Christianity stripped the inherent value of nature.
To this objection, White makes a mistake in conceptualizing the uniqueness of human dominion in Genesis as the antithesis and thus alienation from the natural world (Dobel, 1977). However, it seems clear that self-regarding views have been implemented and are behind the apparent damage to the ecology. Still, all the cultures did the same thing in the past, throwing everything around, including ignorance, greed, or need for existence. Dobel overlooks areas with the absence of a Judeo-Christian presence, such as India, that still experiences a high level of environmental destruction, implying that it cannot be attributed solely to the supposed Judeo-Christian culture. Judeo-Christian cosmology explains that the earth belongs to God, keeps demands for human stewardship as a gift to all generations, and is declared good in its own right (Dobel, 1977). Humankind is just a transient tenant of resources. Proper care is knowing ecological limits through science and ethics. Thus, Genesis advocates conserving nature and distributing benefits justly rather than licensing unlimited plunder.
Upon reflection, both authors are correct but overstate their cases. White accurately dismisses submissive attitudes that have defined centuries of Western natural resource exploitation, colonization, and industrialization. However, the Old Testament’s logical language of subduing the earth is not altogether free of disturbing traces exaggeratedly translated and amplified through later extensive selective interpretation (White, 1967). Dobel correctly states that non-Christian societies, too, destroy the environment through policies that advance economic development and on creation as God’s possession, challenging human dominion over nature (Dobel, 1977). A context-sensitive understanding of Genesis shows the recognition of the goodness of creation, overarching the motif of the attentive gardener. Careful reading of the early chapters of Genesis reveals that the theological positioning of humankind in creation is quite elaborate. As described in Genesis 1: 26-28, God gives man the mastery of the earth and charges them to subdue it. Nonetheless, as mentioned in Dobel’s article analysis, it comes within the context of bearing God’s image. The envoy points out that humans occupy the earth and oversee its operations carefully. It then establishes humans as stewards placed in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it, and after the fall, the toil of laboring the curst landmarks and the human dependence on the land (Gen 3:17–19). While displaying problematic dominant tones, Genesis also describes a caretaker role that requires honorable guardianship of assets; this theology contests concepts of unregulated oppression.
Finally, Genesis only indirectly fathered modern greedy ideologies that set aside ecological thresholds. Political, economic, and intellectual developments equally shape what is commonly taken as technological progress for human benefit. However, selective understanding and practice of the creational mandate remain residues of divine authorization for unrestrained anthropocentrism, which have multiplied recently. Although Judeo-Christian values do not determine environmental destruction, some of their stretched interpretations could permit that damage. It matches with examples of Christians defending nature’s essential value against existing political and economic forces throughout history. Upon closer inspection of the arguments, I believe Dobel’s take is more in line with the implied Christian beliefs about Genesis. Whereas White rightly criticizes the inclinations toward exploitation born out of wrong understandings, Dobel instead accounts for the Scripture’s command to take care of the creation being God’s present to humankind for mutual purpose. As custodial ethics, the person is far from being a master of nature to whom its governance is granted, and it requires careful tending for ecological soundness.
Theologically grounded alternatives remain relevant for secular ecologists skeptical of the Scriptural authority. Proposing that all beings reflect divinity and exist in fragile balance, St. Francis of Assisi anticipated centuries of modern ecological thought in his teaching. A humble worldview sees humans as interdependent with other aspects of nature rather than isolated by nature (White, 1967). He, too, expressed wonder at nature’s magnificence but never sentimentalized or sanctified it. Such a harmonized coexistence of science, ethics, and spirituality can influence religious or secular environmentalism, exhibiting highly enlightened anthropomorphism that ascribes humanity’s essential worth as the crowning creation of God without infringing on the liberty of creation.
In short, identifying the roots of contemporary environmental problems requires us to deny both simplified histories and theologies. Nevertheless, universal beliefs implicit in Western thinking have made it possible to understand nature as a mere brute material meant for human use. By revising these erroneous suppositions of human supremacy and assuming responsibility, people of faith or conviction can set up ethics that integrate economic necessity and ecological concern. For religions and state systems alike, creating collective values that purge unbecoming character attributes and enhance honesty is commanding, bringing nature to stay for eternity.
References
Dobel, J. P. (1977, October 12). The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Attitude to Nature. The Christian Century.
White, L. (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207. https://www.jstor.org/stable/172012
write