The Sacredness of Nature
There seems to be various attitudes
toward the resources and environment of the world we live on and in.
To reflect on this reality thinking only of resources to describe the
issue, reminds us of those who are of the mind that the world is
given to mankind to use in any way we want, just so we don't ruin it
in our life time. This mentality complains a lot about government
controls that hinder the use of resources for the enhancement of
personal wealth, or as they would say, the economy. For them, oil in
the ground is limitless, and it makes no sense in trying to make it
last indefinitely as the supply is infinite, as far as we know. There
is also little reason to seriously limit air pollution as it just
hinders manufacturing, such as coal burning curbs. Fuel efficient
automobiles also are just more expensive and less affordable. In many
other ways, this is a political issues where the ambitions to prosper
are hindered from pursuing their interests by unnecessary
restrictions of government.
At the other pole are the
environmentalists for whom the earth has to be reserved as if it is
sacred in all aspects and must be left as we received much as
possible. Every specie is precious at all costs. A swamp is as
important as farm land to preserve. There is as much concern to treat
dogs with dignity as human beings. Vast lands must be preserved as
national lands and not touched for usefulness, like the drilling of
oil wells on it. It would be risky and suspicious to genetically
modify crops. Organically grown crops are believed to be healthier
than commercially fertilized crops. Belief in global warming is
adhered to as if it were an obvious fact of reality.
It is not as simple an issue as
blending the two views of the physical world according to our values
of personal wealth and aesthetics or emotional attachment to nature.
It is true that we both need to use the natural resources and
conserve them for posterity. But a higher criteria for the use of
nature ought to guide us in how we use the world. A starting point
ought to be the Creator of the world who certainly had a view point
when he set man in the Garden of Eden, and later gave him
responsibility to live in the world and care for it for his needs
from it.
But there is more to creation than a
practical home for mankind. It is an incredibly complex and large
world. It's aesthetic beauty goes far beyond man's usefulness. God
meant it for his own and man's enjoyment and wonderment, like an
artist or poet who creates something for its own sake and the
creator's enjoyment. No one yet understands the complexity of the
inanimate world as well as the nature of life and the mind of man.
Scientists may claim to map DNA, but they can't explain the
connection of the blueprint and its power to shape living beings in
regular patterns. Color has little utility for life but exists
largely for wonderment. God made all things for his pleasure and
man's challenge to understand and appreciate it. It is still God's
creation. How absurd to destroy or handle nature carelessly. Yet we
are given charge of nature to a large extent to use it for both our
enjoyment and usefulness for our life. As stewards of the earth, we
use it as the creator intended, not for our vanity and hoarding it
for our glory, e.g. to built mansions and millions, but for our
direct enjoyment and use for our needs. The earth then is also not a
value in itself as if were kind of a god or sacred in itself. We care
for it for its perpetual purpose of enjoyment and lively hood. We
assume it should be preserved for posterity in all its richness of
beauty and resources. We don't know how long God want to maintain
this garden of a world, but it is not ours to destroy, whether in
bits or continents. We are co-caretakers of the world, with him
having the greater interest in it as creator. He owns it, we are
renters, with free rent. So we do our part in maintaining it as the
Owner would be pleased to see it.
April 24, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment