"...Have Dominion..."
From time to time, the apocalyptic impulse arises in human society. Usually, it is confined to certain sectors: the zealous Evangelical Christians with their constant mapping of currenbt events onto End Times prophecies, the New Age fringe of believers in the end of the Mayan calendar (although in fact the Mayan calendar is cyclical). Only occasionally does apocalyptic thinking break out into the wider population. Y2K was the most recent of these; for a little over a year -- late 1998 and all of 1999 -- a wide swath of people jumped into the apocalyptic mindset and began doing all sorts of foolish things. Of course, it was inevitably revealed as the foolishness it was. Yes, there were computer problems, and no, not all were solved in time, but this does not mean civilization was in danger of collapse. But I confess, even I found it hard to avoid being taken in. I confess that, for a few brief weeks in January and February of 1999, I wondered if perhaps I should join in the preparations.
Even so, I did not look to Y2K with the kind of fear and worry I saw in people during that year. Instead, I had hope. Those of you who live in or have visited the Seattle area may know the paintings of Tim Wistrom. For those who do not, I shall describe two. One, entitled Rapid Transit, depicts two people whitewater rafting in a wild, scenic canyon; atop the canyon walls can be seen the abandoned, decaying buildings of what is now downtown Seattle. Another, Urban Renewal, shows a grizzly bear fishing for salmon beneath an abandoned, decaying Seattle monorail. And Wistrom does not just paint Seattle; one of his more recent works, Lost Vegas, envisions a similar future for another famous western city.
I find all of Wistrom's paintings not only beautiful and moving, but deeply inspiring. They remind me of some of the prophecies of Isaiah, such as 34:13-15--prophecies which put arrogant mankind in its place among God's creatures. And so, when I first heard rumors of Y2K, I felt a sense of anticipation and eagerness. It would have been a catharsis, in the old sense, as when people in olden times would take a cathartic medicine to purge themselves of disease. Y2K was to be the earth's way of purging itself of its human disease. There would have been a few survivors, but they would have been scattered to the four winds, unable to do extensive damage for at least a few generations--and meanwhile, wolves, antelope, and all other beasts of the field would have time to reclaim their lost lands. (And, no, I don't harbor any illusions about being one of those survivors, given the paucity of my knowledge of survival under those conditions.)
But, since Y2K did not bring any such purgation, the fate of earth looks just as grim as ever: smoke still rises from the smokestacks of the industrial world, as forests still fall before the saw in the developing world.
With all that is known about the consequences of our actions, why do we allow it to go on? Well, of course there are the usual economic reasons (although we must remember that economics is, after all, purely a human construct), the need to meet our basic biological needs, and the fact that in order to do this in the milieu of a market economy, there is also the need to make money. But that only holds up to a point. If you own the computer on which you are reading this (as I own the one on which I am writing it), then obviously, you have already moved beyond the realm of basic needs, and are in the stage of acquiring wants and amenities. Where does it end? Does it end?
Let us recognize this for what it is. And therefore, let us not resort to some of the underhanded arguments used by some: arguments to the effect that, since God gave man dominoin over the earth, we can and should therefore do with it as we please. A clever ploy, is it not? Make the environmentally-conscious look like backsliders, and yourself like a saint. Never mind that this only feeds the common myth that Christianity is to blame for the world being messed up -- you have made yourself look righteous, and that is all that matters!
This pseudo-religious self-justification is reminiscent of the boast of an ancient Assyrian king. In an arrogant tirade against God's people, Sennacherib bragged:
I have ascended the heights of the mountains,
the utmost heights of Lebanon.
I have cut down its tallest cedars,
the choicest of its pines.
I have reached its remotest parts,
the finest of its forests.
I have dug wells in foreign lands
and drunk the water there.
With the soles of my feet
I have dried up all the streams of Egypt.
--Isaiah 37:24-25, and 2 Kings 19:23-24
Essentially the same boast could be made by any of today's transnational logging companies; although they would more likely spin it into a PR ad on TV that makes them look like the very model of eco-consciousness. But this brings us to a grave misconception: that having dominion over the earth necessarily means forcing it to serve us. It does not. That makes as much sense as saying that only a totalitarian regime is really a government -- obviously untrue. There are other kinds of dominion. For example, when the Untied States government declares that there will again be wolves in Yellowstone, and then proceeds to put them there even though the cattle barons do not like it, are they not exercising their dominion over that part of the earth that is Yellowstone?
With the earth's present population, I agree that the hunter-gatherer life is not an option, so we do need lands under cultivation. (It is a debatable point whether we need grazing lands.) But, we do not need all lands under cultivation. Similarly, I believe our need for wood and wood-derived products can be satisfied without using all forest lands. Even with farming, forestry, a certain amount of mining, and living space, there is room for lands to be left as habitat even for wolves and bears, jaguars and tapirs, lions and leopards, etc. Conservationists need to be aggressive in using their available land for conservation purposes. If a farmer or cattle grower is aggressive in driving away trespassers and threats, then a wildlife preservationist can be as well. If the former are in the right, then so is the latter.
I am not here to debate how much economic development vs. how much wild habitat is the right amount. I will only say this: as one in favor of preserving wildlife, in any dominions I may attain, I will have dominion over the beasts of the field by favoring wild ones at the expense of domestic; and over the herb bearing seed and the tree bearing fruit by favoring the native at the expense of the cultivated; and will favor wild, unfettered waters over canals and dams.
Back to In Search of the Green Man
