On Tuesday the Georgia Congress proposed changing the Endangered Species Act to allow suspension of federal protection during times of severe drought. This would allow Georgia to temporarily stop pumping water from Lake Lanier to Florida and Alabama, where it helps protect the habitat of endangered mussels and sturgeon. On the surface, this seems like an easy decision--for politicians, it's a no-brainer--but there's more to the question than meets the eye. This goes to the heart of the problem that many people have with any environmentalist movement: Do we value animals or plants more than people?
Some Christians find it easy to answer an unequivocal no. Humanity is the crown of creation, made in the image of God, so of course we're more valuable than animals. But I don't find that conclusion so easy; the question goes deeper than that.
Some secularists also find it easy to value humans above animals. They argue that from a biological perspective, it's impossible for us to value another species more than ourselves. Our survival instinct won't let us: when push comes to shove, we want to survive. We have no choice about it.
But for me, the idea that we do have choices is central to Christian theology. Maybe we are the crown of creation, made in the image of God, but it's the image of a God Who sacrificed Himself for His creation. We are the only creature that can even contemplate such a choice. We are the only species that is capable of caring about the destruction of another species. And in Christian theology, it's our job to care, and to protect the rest of the planet.
And let's not mince words--we are talking about extinction here. It's not definite that stopping the water from Lake Lanier would result in the extinction of these species, but it's a strong possibility. If we are called to be stewards of the earth, then we are sacrificing our stewardship by choosing to let these species die.
But in reality, if I admit the truth to myself, I have to admit that I do care more about people than animals. Especially if I'm one of the people. And I don't want to give that water to mussels. I want to drink it, I want to bathe in it, I want to wash my dishes in it. I want Atlanta to make it through this drought okay, without having to make too many painful lifestyle changes, and I won't even know the difference if a species of mussels goes extinct. I've never even met a mussel.
But is that a Christian attitude I should be proud of, or a selfish biological attitude I should transcend? I don't know the answer, but I'm inclined toward the latter.
In the meantime, I'll keep conserving water, and pray for rain.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ah, water and politics — and, of course, the Army Corps of Engineers.
John Wesley Powell, the conservationist, scientist, and explorer who first rafted the Colorado and later headed the Geological Survey, suggested that the new Western states divide each watershed into a county, rather than using more traditional landmarks for county boundaries. He was ignored, and, I'm told, later looked prophetic as water disputes broke out everywhere a river crossed a political boundary.
The Army Corps of Engineers have quite a history themselves, and, to put it generously, have not always wound up on the right side of every dispute. Some wonderful examples are in the book Rising Tide, about the great Mississippi Flood (of which I had never heard) — have you read it? If not, just try reading the five-page Prologue, and then see whether you can put the book down!
I would not be at all surprised if the Corps were merely asserting their power here; I have not seen them challenge Perdue's claim that they actually have not data showing that the water they are releasing will help the species downstream. On the other hand, you are quite right that we ought to value species, and that Atlantans could use less water with the loss of very little luxury. I wish landscapers would retool and simply use plants that require far less water.
Many Christians today do not believe that species were each created in a separate act of creation by God. Does the question of whether God specifically created each species of mussel, or whether they just emerged randomly when one group of mussels got separated from another for long enough, speak to whether we are really destroying some sort of irreplacable act of God when we cause a species to go extinct?
If only the Native Americans had not devastated the continent before we arrived, we would be talking about saving much more exciting things like the wooly mammoth, sabertooth tiger, and the giant sloth. And those — what were they? — short-faced bears? But, no. They had to go and kill them all. And so we get to protect: mussels.
Annoying.
Interesting question about whether it makes a difference if God specifically created each species of mussel. Personally, I've never seen the point of that whole debate. For me, whether that species is an irreplaceable act of God isn't the point. The point is that we have a calling to protect it. That isn't affected by the details of how it came into existence.
That's funny what you say about the more exciting and inspiring creatures we could be saving! But, er, I'm not so sure I'd want to save sabertooth tigers, especially if they were prowling around Atlanta...!
Post a Comment