The Critique of Christianity (chapter 3): Environmental theory

III. Environmental theory

/ „The Christian Chi-Rho symbol: ☧ might be meant to symbolize a water mill.” /

1. We can find many things about environmental problems in greater libraries, the media, or on the Internet. Those works are generally created by professional environmentalists who know much, so we can usually get to know many facts from them, usually with references. It is important to search for the solutions to those problems. Firstly, we should understand that the solutions should be searched for in society instead of the sciences or technology, as until now, mankind lacked not the power, but the willingness, will, unity and cooperation to solve the environmental problems. The essence can be understood by all healthy people: human activities changed the planet Earth so much that it has become less and less fit for supporting life. If it continues this way, it could cause the extinction of many plant and animal species, and perhaps even of humankind, and the possible survivor people will have to live in an unpleasant environment for a long time. The opinions are different about the degree of danger and the extent of problems, so to understand these things, the works of professional environmentalists are handy.

When we understand what problems are facing us, it is worth solving them together. Science and technology could not and cannot provide solutions for all problems. They only give tools, but the tools in themselves are not sufficient to solve the environmental problems, if the will for it is not present. Could a newer technology save Earth from the usage of the weapons of mass destruction? Could a newer technology itself save us from a mad scientist? Or could technology save the endangered species from extinction in the time of great famines? Something more is needed here. It is necessary that most of the people do what is good for both the living creatures and the whole of humankind. Education about worldview and ethics can help, but the modification of the economic and political system can help even more, as most people care for environmentalism little until other ways seem to be more competitive. The environmental movement is connected to politics closely, and is trying to influence and decision-makers by votes, ideas, facts, and expert help.

There are areas where conservation and the cause of human survival help each other and there are areas where they inhibit each other. If there were no humankind, the world would probably be more natural and predictable than it is now. Humankind, however, might be able to save Earthly life from a threat from space, and they might be able to transport a part of the living world to another planet. Thus we do not know if humankind does good or wrong to the living world in the long term. We know, however, that the natural living world does good to humankind, as it provides food, knowledge and energy. Thus a part of Nature is worth saving anyway. It is sad that the natural living world lost more and more areas in the beginning of the 21st century due to human irresponsibility, and the state of the lifeless environment was also differing more and more from what proved to be sustainable through millions of years. Afterwards, the survival of humankind might be at stake. People should sometimes cooperate with and sometimes compete against one another in order to survive. Environmental agreements are examples of cooperation.

2. Human activity has harmed Nature even in the antiquity, for example, many trees have been cut down and the elephants have disappeared from North Africa. But since the Industrial Revolution, the development of humankind has become so much quicker that it endangers not only Nature, but humankind itself too. In the Cold War, the opposing forces hoarded so many weapons of mass destruction that could (perhaps) have destroyed humankind in case of another world war. Since then, there were more and more countries which were able to create such weapons, so the danger has not ended in the beginning of the 21st century either. Afterwards, as technology advanced, newer sources of danger have appeared, for example, if someone created a virus deadly for humankind with the use of artifical intelligence and gene technology. But not only the extinction of humankind should be feared, but the rise of human suffering too. In the beginning of the 21st century we entered an age when the detrimental effects of global warming appear, the cheaper energy sources of humankind run out, the soil and freshwater run down more and more, the natural life of the oceans and primeval forests is going to lose areas more and more, human population would continue to rise and the rich get even more technological power. In human society, the mentioned problems could cause famines, maybe wars, and an economic crisis bigger than the previous ones. It is possible that the international environmentalist agreements will not be observed in the crisis, and this could make the problems more serious. Thus humankind who have gone far from Nature will probably suffer much, and even cannibalism can happen, but there is a great chance for the survival of the species. If humankind does not go extinct in the short term, small pests could cause problems in agriculture in the long term. What can we do in this situation?

We can start living more friendly to the environment, we can join to the environmental movement, and we can even be activists in order to reduce the future suffering in some degree. This is just like symptomatic treatment in many cases. However, if we do not only want a temporary solution, then we should find the root of the problems, and we should deactivate them. It is obvious enough that the world has changed much because of humankind's scientific and technological advancements, and problems have become greater because of overpopulation and humandkind's extravagant lifestyle. Humankind should realize sooner or later that population size should be limited, otherwise it will be limited by something worse, which comes with greater suffering. Sooner or later the irresponsible wastage, like the wastage of one-time use packaging material should be lessened to the minimum too, because it is not sustainable. For the sake of environmentalism, it would be better to lessen them sooner, and we too can make smaller steps in order to diminish them. By the way, the most important goal now is survival, and for this purpose it should be made sure that the countries which can create nuclear weapons do not use them, and people do not use other fatal technologies either, if possible. It is not enough to just disarm nuclear weapons, because people could quickly recreate them again in case of a war. Instead, such an educational and political situation should be created where the production and usage of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction becomes difficult and meaningless. Humankind should learn to forget what is worth forgetting, and it should deal with the people of Earth's different nations more and more justly.

The environmental consciousness is present in humankind, but it is a sad experience that both the market economy and the democratic politics served short-term interests, because buyers and voters have chosen the better standard of living instead of sustainability. If it goes on this way, we will probably not be able to prevent the expected crisis, and we have to take care of our own survival. We should understand what dangers are waiting for us, and how we can avoid them in our own lives. There are people who tend to prepare for a sudden, complete collapse, and their movement is called survivalism in English. They learn about emergencies much, store food and learn to use guns. There are also people who tend to prepare for a great economic crisis instead, and learn such a profession that will be needed in the crisis too. There are poorer ones who might better not beget children. There are richer people too, and they have more opportunities to prepare for the crisis. It is worth for a rich person of being surrounded by such allies whom the rich person supported before, they being grateful to the rich person. The rich person might do it well if he/she prepares to be self-sufficient and self-defensive with these people. Besides self-sufficiency, producing means of sustenance might be a way to go too. Concerning this issue, it is interesting that if someone prepares for his/her own survival, by that he/she probably helps the survival of humankind too. Because if someone prepares for the collapse, then he/she would like to reduce his/her dependent situation, and if dependence on trade lessens in the world, then the consumption which harms the environment probably lessens too.

3. We can find many things on Earth with which we are not satisfied. We are not satisfied that we should kill animals for food, and we are not satisfied either that we should take care of removing our defecation. We are not satisfied that society obliges us for many things, and we are not satisfied either if criminals attack us. We are not satisfied with the morality of the people, nor are we satisfied with religions that make the morality of the people better, if those religions are false. But even if we were satisfied with the Earthly world, we would not be satisfied with the consciousness that we have to die. If we are harmed by these and other imperfections of our Earthly life, and we dislike it, that means that we go closer to a life which we wish. If we want to go even closer to the happy life, the place of which may be called Heaven, then it is worth thinking on how probable is its existence, and what can we do for making it more probable to get there.

The first world religions of history tried to answer these questions too, and it may be the cause of their success. These religions were usually built around a person who was considered infallible and possessing supernatural powers, and who taught in a new way, and whose authority has grown with the spread of the religion - and afterwards, the statements attributed to the founder were proven by authority. Such an authoritarian religion was Christianity, for example. By time, it turned out that some of its statements contradict mankind's scientific advancements. Afterwards, many people ceased to be Christian, but did not cease to like the principles which they considered good in Christianity: the humanists still liked ethics, and the deists still had faith in God. In a similar manner, we may believe that wonders are possible and we can go to Heaven. However, we can approach God by understanding, and not by blind faith. The discipline which studies the arguments for the existence of God, God's attributes and God's will, is called Natural Theology. It is called so because the source of its knowledge is Nature which existed before humankind, and not sacred texts which could have been authored by wise men too.

Here we can observe that Natural Theology and environmentalism do good to each other, because the source of the knowledge about God should be protected. We may conjecture that it is also God's will that we should protect the environment, to keep his creation as beautiful as before. If we improve this world, it would be justice for us to get to a better world. Thus protecting the environment can be one aspect of the faith in God or Heaven, and because of this, protecting the true faith in God can be one aspect of environmentalism. Natural Theology is compatible not only with environmentalism, but with other religions and science, too. Other religions can have Natural Theology as a supplementary source of faith, a subject in school, a protocol between religions, or even a spiritual movement. Science is not complete either without the study of God's possible existence. Unlike the sacred texts, the teachings of Natural Theology can grow and become more and more perfect. So Natural Theology is like science, and it can be real science if it uses the methodology of real science - which is not less, but more strict than 20th century science.

If we believe in Natural Theology but not in religions, one question may arise in us: if God exists, why did he allow and probably support so many false religions? There can be different answers to this question, for example, that the religions God supported were better than those religions beside them, or that God wanted to teach us how weak we are. It is also possible that exactly those religions lived for a long time which had the support for survival of that specific religion among their inner values, and God did support them not specifically for their ethical values. Therefore we can imagine humankind's knowledge about God as a convergent series, and the successful religions as points on that series, which help us in our personal convergence towards a proper relationship with God. If not, and we do not believe in God, Natural Theology is still good to show the progress from tradition and authority to reason and better foundations.

4. A part of the world's wrongs derives from the immorality of people. In order to make this world better, people should be more ethical and environmentally conscious. However, the ethical and environmentally conscious people may encounter inconveniences as a result of their lifestyle, which does not make it attractive. In order to make the ethical lifestyle more attractive, many solutions have been found during the history of mankind: such are, for example, respect in society, religions, or laws which punish severely. In order to be effective, the religions' moral-forming strength may need faith, or at least deeming it probable or possible that statements of the religion are true. That is why it would probably do good to everyone if those people who do not like religions got ethical tuition.

There is a competition for survival, power and reproduction between creatures, which we could call the mover of evolution. We might think that the race of evolution is such a race which has no rules, so the theory of evolution has a detrimental effect on the morals of the people. However, even evolution is against some harmful deeds to the self: for example, smoking, drugs, or suicide. Here we should not consider smoking as if it were a crime that is not forgiven automatically, but as something which makes a person worsen more and more, and as a consequence, fall behind his/her rivals more and more.

From the beginning of our written history, humankind uses domesticated plants and tamed animals for its own goals. Humankind cares for the defense and reproduction of these plants and animals, so these creatures need not take part in the race of evolution, except for the extent that they need to win the grace of people. Thus domesticated plants and tamed animals drive their energy into the usefulness for people instead of struggle against their rivals, and this way they can survive. Around many domesticated plants, humans weed out, because the domesticated plants are that yield harvest. Many tamed animals are protected from predators by humans because tamed animals give meat, milk or eggs. Humans probably tame not only animals, but also one another, so the evolutionary race between humans is not only about struggle against one another, but about usefulness to one another as well. The community may help the individual who is more useful to it.

Humankind lives in communities, so the evolution of humans is not only about a competition between individuals, but about a competition between communities, too. Inside a community, people are similar to each other, and thus helping a member of the community to reproduction is nearly as important for a human as his/her own reproduction. Evolution is about passing on the genes, the parts of the program which is responsible for the build-up of our bodies. Inside a community, the same genes are found more frequently than outside of it. People may do more for the passing on their own genes by doing something great for their community, than by begetting more children. Thus it becomes understandable that it is evolutionarily sound if a person sacrifices his/her life or his/her reproduction for the community. In the society of ants it works in such an advanced way that there are ants who never reproduce, but help the community in survival. If the community of ants came into being by evolution, then possibly there was a time when every ant could reproduce and during community life the present state evolved gradually, probably because helping the teammates was evolutionary helpful for ants even then.

Apart from the interest of a group of living creatures, there is an interest that life should survive on Earth. This started to be endangered as a result of the presence of humankind's weapons of mass destruction and humankind's extravagant lifestyle, but it has been in danger for a long time as well because of the risk of the hit of a greater asteroid coming from space. The inclination to save the entire living world presupposes intelligence, and its motivation is similar to the motivation for making a human community survive, and therefore humans are almost fit for solving their environmental problems. The desire for survival is an instinct, and intelligence deems it probable that the survival of our genes as a goal depends on the survival of some other parts of Earthly life. That is why it seems to be logical that humans make such decisions that increase the probability of life on Earth persisting longer. We can call it ethical environmentalism if someone chooses to protect the environment by decisions in his/her own power. We can call it political environmentalism if a group makes an environmental agreement which influences the rules of evolutionary struggle. We can call it educational environmentalism if someone offers knowledge that urges to protect the environment better.

5. It is not fair to work hard on environmentalism as a poor person while some unethical rich people enjoy life instead of the poor environmentalists. That's why the poor should connect environmentalism with financial gain, but if they cannot do it easily, maybe it's a better idea for them to take care of environmentalism in a passive way only, without spending any time on it. This could be called white environmentalism. However, white environmentalism can also mean the observance of very strict ethical principles about things we shall not do, for example, not buying anything too harmful to the environment, or not voting for anyone or any party too harmful, not harming the environment in vain, not overpopulating, not spreading harmful technology, and much more specific ideas. These principles can be related to deep philosophy about life.

If we have suffered much in life, we can think about whether God is good? Maybe God is good, but we lived in a wrong way. Perhaps we could even live more wisely, which provides more joy. If we walked on the path towards joy all the time, maybe we could reach it. It seems that there are two highly secure sources of joy, so that we can be happy in at least part of our times by concentrating on them:

- Think about what we like to think about, and do what we like to do

- Gather power and control our lives

The sources of our joy and thinking on environmental problems do not always correspond. It is a question whether we can practice our actual sources of joy and environmentalism and gather power at the same time? White environmentalism, as described here, can be an answer to this question. And if we demand our ethical values to be great, then we should practice white environmentalism in a radical way, and this hopefully opens up the way towards the improvement of our economic situation, so that we can take care of environmentalism in an active way later. This means that we should give up many kinds of luxury in order to make it more probable that other kinds of joy happen in our lives.

Faith: the third way:

For some people, there may be a third way that makes them happy, faith in God and/or in a spiritual reward for working on a noble cause. However, the joy coming from this is not direct, but depends on the strength of the faith and/or beliefs, which may weaken in case of long suffering. Here are some parts of faith which might strenghten environmentalism:

- God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe probably exists.

- God probably loves life.

- God probably wants us to love life.

List of more specific ideas in passive environmentalism:

- Those who are poorer than the average (or poorer than the median) should not beget more than two children.

- Those who want to reduce carbon emissions should probably not eat meat on Mondays or Saturdays, for example (or eat less meat), or milk.

- Environmentalists should not waste electricity and gas, so keep away from TV and gas stoves, for example (instead, cook or fry by mirrored solar power).

- Environmentalists should not publish technological research too harmful to the environment.

- Environmentalists should not vote for parties too harmful to the environment.

- Environmentalists should not buy products or services too harmful to the environment.

- Environmentalists should not borrow money if it is not really needed.

- Deodorant sprays and similar materials are only worth using when needed, it is not worth smoking, etc.

- There is an idea to put our waste in the packaging material of what we have bought.

6. Human society works according to the rules of politics. If these rules are bad, it can cause too much suffering to the people. That is why it is worth of making politics more perfect, in which the role of ethics multiplies. Freedom, justice, prosperity and sustainability should belong to the most important goals of politics. In order to achieve this, the democratically elected will and the wise will should correspond more and more to each other, and that is why the basic knowledge about worldview, ethics and politics should be taught in public education, at least briefly. Environmental problems shall cause changes in politics, too. Meanwhile, the hereby mentioned political values should be taken care of, because it is possible that while the weight and role of one value gets stronger, the weight and role of another weakens.

In hard times, power often gets centralized and falls into the hands of rulers, and it cares about liberal laws less, or at least history shows such examples in wars. In these circumstances, the maintenance of order and the distribution of goods is often done better by intelligent people than by outdated laws. This insight might have been known by the Ancient Roman Republic too, because they allowed official dictators in emergency. Thus, environmental problems mean a theat to the freedom of people, because it is difficult to remove a ruling class once it is not wanted. In many cases, liberal parties are in alliance with green parties, perhaps partly due to the before-mentioned threat, but not only because of that, but also because freedom and sustainability are good concepts, and these people support good concepts. Perhaps that is why these parties used to ally with the socialists, too, as socialism means social justice, which is a good idea. It is another question whether these parties do what is included in their names.

But how to protect freedom in a world which is less and less free and advances towards a future which may need strong rule? The answer is not by radical or conceptual liberalism that loses the support of the majority by maintaining controversy. If a liberal party keeps choosing the way it deems good, e.g. it supports the marriage of homosexuals, then it can lose a lot of healthy voters, and it is possible that it will not get the support to govern because of this reason. A liberal party should represent the liberal 80% of the population instead of the liberal 20%, but it is better if it represents the 100% of the population. Thus the parties of wise people in politics should be similar to each other, as the will of the people is similar to itself, and wisdom is similar to wisdom too. Instead, liberalism shall show itself where it helps in life, for example, in general, due punishing taxes or incentives should be set instead of prohibitive or coercive laws. Also, this way the jobless people could find more smaller works, for example.

It is not sure that changing the political system would prove to be detrimental, provided that it corresponds to the afore-mentioned four values more: freedom, justice, prosperity and sustainability. It is possible that ideal political systems differ very much from what people have had so far. For example, it is probable that more equality of chances can be provided to people if real estates and debts - and even shares and the like - were not inheritable, but every person would start his/her adult life with real estates of approximately equal value, and without debts and public debts. Achieving this goal is, however, not easy, and it needs longer studies in the area of political philosophy, so this is outside of the borders of this book. This was only mentioned as an example to show that probably there would be a more just way to divide land than by inheritance. For dividing money and moveables, however, probably there is no better solution than inheritance, because the parents can give these as gifts to their children, and it might not even be possible to create a good law which restricts the inheritance of these things. As far as there is equality of chances in the area of real estates, it is not very bad that there are wealthier people, because this way people feel motivation for success, and part of them can be happy enough, and the rich can even improve this Earth in some ways a community would not.

7. Politics could change the world much, but accordingly, politics is not without risks. Many interests collide there and people are competing there with all their talents, which is not always ethical. Politicians can make people believe that other politicians are worse than they are in reality, so the people would hate politicians more, which would make things worse. Politicians can also mislead or trick people to win support, which would make the way of a righteous politician harder. Generally, politicians are just as good as human nature is, that is why it is not advantegous for an enlightened person to compete with them. If an enlightened person wants to change politics, it may be enough for him/her to share thoughts and ideas, and if those thoughts and ideas are proper, probably there will be people who use them anyway. It is better for a politician to consider a philosopher's idea than to make a biased decision, and it is better for philosophers, too, if their ideas are double-filtered by politicians.

In a democracy, political power is just for 4-5 years, which is not as secure as the power of a wealthy person. That's why it seems to be more noble to seek economic power instead of political one. A wealthy person can hide more easily than either a politician or a celebrity, which may be important in the age of technology. The life of the wealthy is desired, because they do not have to work if they do not want to, and they can satisfy their desires easily. The life of politicians, on the other hand, is many times about struggle and danger, at least in those ages when mankind is not meek enough.

If a politician makes an error, then many people will hate him for it, but if a wealthy person makes an error, he/she usually loses only money. To be unsuccessful, however, is not always the same as to make errors, so it is possible that the people will hate a politician even if that politician is good, e.g. if it is a necessity that the living standards fall, and politicians cannot do anything to prevent it from falling.

A politician usually has to follow the philosophy of a party, but a rich person can choose his/her own philosophy. This, however, does not need to be the case in an ideal political system where it would be a civil right to enter into and remain in any party, and the elections inside parties would be democratic. However, we do not live in such an ideal political system, so it is probably better for a free mind to be rich than to be a politician.

Politicians should usually make an oath, and the text of the oath may be imperfect or it may demand too much from a righteous person. This, however, does not need to be the case in an ideal political system, where no oath should be made, only obligations shall be formulated. However, we do not live in such an ideal political system, so it is probably better for a righteous person to be rich than to be a politician.

In a small country, the power of the politicians is bounded by international agreements just like the power of the rich is bounded by laws. If people have to act according to fix rules anyway, then it is more worth in a small country being rich than being a politician, because a rich person can affect not only one country, but other countries, too.

The rich can decide freely whether to invest their capital into environmentalism. Countries, however, are obligated to do what is the will of the people anyway, and they cannot differ from it much.