discussion, reading, social justice,

-------------------- Journal Title: A new climate for theology: God, the world, and global warming

Year: 2008

> ;;;;;;;;;;;;; Pages: 43-60... =!!!! QJ - Author: McFague.2: - QJ - 0 - Article Title: Who are we: Ecological +J

;;;;;;;;;;;;;-c:: ;;;;;;;;;;;;; AnthropologyQJ E

;;;;;;;;;;;;;

~ ;;;;;;;;;;;;; U =!!!! Imprint: primo.exlibrisgroup.com-ALMA-BC0 -0 - QJ

This material may be protected by00 ~ "0 N Copyright Law (Title: 17 U.S. Code)01u 0 c 'O::t 0 lO +J 01 III .. 0 zco f-

11/1/20188:58:23 PM

BRllS .GS8 M34 2008 O'Neill Course Reserves 2 hours

Jaisy Joseph (JOSEPHJG) 234 Corey Rd Apt.1 Brighton, MA 02135

ANEW

CLIMATE FOR THEOLOGY

God, the World, and Global Warming

SALLIE McFAGUE

FORTRESS PRESS Minneapolis

A NEW CLIMATE FORTHEOLOGY God, the World, and Global Warming

Copyright © 2008 Fortress Press, an imprint of Augsburg Fortress. All rights re- served. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Visit http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/ or write to Permis- sions, Augsburg Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis,MN 55440.

Scripture quotations, unless otherwise marked, arefrom the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Cover images: copyright © Photodisc I Getty Images Cover design; Paul Boenke, Eileen Engebretson, andJohn Goodman Book design: Jessica A. Puckett

Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data ISBN 978--D--8006-6271-4 .l\.1cFague, Sallie. A new climate for theology; God, the world, and global warming I Sallie

McFague. p.cm.

ISBN-13: 97S-o-S006-6271-4 Calk. paper) 1. Global warming-Religious aspects-Christianity. I. Title. BR115.G58M34200S 261.S'S-dc22 2007047973

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329.4S-1984.

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

11 10 09 OS OS 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10

3

WHOAREWE? ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY'

U'e are not our own. Nothing is itself taken alone. 1hings are because of interrelations and interconnections. -Wallace Stevens'

Some Reflections on Individualistic Anthropology

In terms of how we act, probably nothing is more important than who. we think we are. OUf unconscious or subconscious assumptions con- cerning our place in the scheme of things lie at the heart of our behav- ior.Most people are not consciously mean, selfish, or evil; rather,we do what others in our society do and assume that this is "the way things are."In Western democratic, capitalist, individualistic societies, the rights to personal pleasure and gain are taken for granted. While care for the poor is also a responsibility, such cultures seldom see their role as justly distributing basic resources so all might live decently. Rather,

43

44 A New Climate forTheology

the assumption is that individual human beings must take responsibil- ity for themselves, while governments help those who are having dif- ficulty making the grade.

Most people in Western democracies think they are, basically and centrally, "individuals."They do not, first of all, think of themselves as members of a community, not of a human community and even less of a natural or planetary community. This individualistic outlook encour- ages people to work hard and to compete for scarce resources, and thus to tend to see others-both humans andother life-forms-as resources or objects toward one's goal of self-sufficiency. This model of human life is deeply engrained in our sensibility and functions at every level: in our families, at school, at the office, in sports, and in politics. People

, are rewarded for individual achievement, without regard to its impli- cations for other people or for nature.OUf most basic stance involves standing on our own two feet and viewing others and the world from that vantage point.

But what if this view is false? What if it should turn out that "we are not our own" but belong body and soul to others-other people and other life-forms? What if we discover that individualistic anthro- pology is a lie, that ecological anthr~ok>ws truer to the way things are? What if the consequences of climate change are telling us that we are living in ways that our planet will not allow? What if we begin to realize that the community model-the model in which human indi- viduals must fit into a just, sustainable planet-is a necessity? What if we wake up from our dream of individualistic glory, regardless of the consequences to others, and realize that either we will all make it together, or none of us will make it? What if a very different view of who we think we are should become common, become conventional, become "natural"?

This concept is emerging as a possibility from many places, and its growth worldwide may be central to our ability to respond to the crisis of our time-global warming. Global warming is not just another important issue that human beings need to deal with; rather,it is the demand that we live differently. We cannot solve it, deal with it, given our current anthropology. It is not simply an issue of management;

• rather, it demands a paradigm shift in who we think we are.This is certainly not the only thing that is needed, but it is a central one, for without it we cannot expect ourselves or others to undertake the radi- cal behavioral change that is necessary to address our planetary crisis. Hence, what follows is a primer in ecological anthropology.

Who Are We? Ecological Anthropology 45

Why Ecological Anthropology?

When I was a theology student in the 1950s, describing anthropology as "ecological" would have made no sense. Anthropology was about human beings, period. Indeed, the focus of the Christian study of hu- manity was radically anthropocentric, centered on human beings (not in relation to nature or creation), and more specifically, on human be- ings as individuals before God. Isn't Christian theology about people being saved? What does it have to do with the environment? Since the Protestant Reformation, the focus of Christian theology had narrowed from its original scope, including all of creation, to a pinpoint: the self with God. The turn to the subject, to the individual human being, which began with Protestantism's concern with individuals and their relationship with God, reached its culmination in twentieth-century existentialism. With science taking over nature, theology retreated to the inner life of individuals in their alienation from God and struggle to believe in God. It was a narrowfield of operation, and one in which "ecological anthropology" would make no sense. Christian faith was proudly claimed to be a historical, not a nature, religion: concerned with man's (sic) "spirit," not his body. Nature religions were implicitly considered inferior to those focused on human beings and their eternal fate. Implicit also in this picture is the conventional assumption that human beings are superior to other creatures: the Genesis command to subdue and dominate, while not necessarily encouraged, was seldom refuted. Theology simply didn'tpay much attention to nature, creation, or other life-forms, nor to human beings in their relationships with these realities. Human beings were understood to be individuals in re- lation to God, either properly or improperly related. The contemporary heirs of existentialist individualism-c-bom-again Christians as well as some New Age adherents-carryon the focus on individual human beings with concern for the salvation and/or therapy of individuals.

This theological focus on the individual meshed well with the an- thropology emerging from two other American institutions-econom- ics and government. The economic man (sic) of market capitalism is the insatiable individual whose desire for endless consumer goods fuels the system and is necessary for this economic model to function. Likewise, since the eighteenth century and the founding documents of American government, the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of individu- als have comprised the signature statement of American anthropology.

46 A New Climate forTheology

When the threemajor societal institutions of religion, economics, and government all agree on a basic anthropology--one that focuses on, supports, and celebrates the needs and wants of individuals-a power- ful statement is being made. These institutions are implicitly forming the unconscious andsemiconscious assumptions of citizens in regardto what they can and should do in their personal, professional, and public lives. These pillarsof society-religion, economics, and government- spread a canopy over"individualism," blessing itwhile at the same time creating a formidable barrier against alternative anthropologies. The

lwitch hunts of the 1950s in the United States to ferret out Communistanthropology (a cornrnunitarian perspective) illustrate the point. The individualistic paradigm of human life pretends to be the truth, the way things arc,rather than an interpretation, a model, a possibility of how we should live.

Are We the Only Ones Who Matter?

Contemporary science suggests a differentpicture of who we arein the scheme of things than is found in the North American consensus. In fact, it is radically different. Rather than starting with human individ- uals-their needsorwants-the scientific view begins with the cosmic story of the evolution of the universe. Some fifteen billion years ago, a tiny bit of matter imploded-the Big Bang-resulting in the billions of galaxies in the universe, as well as our tiny planet Earth, and the life that eventually appeared on it. This story, which is now universally accepted among scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, is the necessary beginning point for any twenty-first-century anthropology. It is a cosmological, evolutionary, ecological story; that is, it includes everything that is; it claims everything has evolved from that tinyex- ploding bit of matter billions of years ago; and it implies, therefore, that all things are interrelated and interdependent in both macro and micro ways. It is a story that begins with radical unity evolving into unimaginable diversity, but diversity that is intrinsically and internally interconnected. It is a story in which we human beings are, at present, the most complex developed creatures on earth, yet we are imbedded in, the products of,the earth and its evolution.We share a common ori- gin with everything else: the same biochemical elements are in bacteria and in us. Most recently, we have learned that we share a good deal of

WhoAre We?Ecological Anthropology 47

our DNA with mice, not to mention the 98 percent we share with our closest relatives, chimpanzees. When viewed in the womb, the early stage development of embryos-frog, chicken, and human being-is very similar. We, as the most complex life-form on earth, could not have arrived any earlier than we did: we needed the billions of years of the evolving universe for us to appear. We are part and parcel of all that has gone before us: they are our ancestors, our kin, our roots.

And yet we are special, as is everything else. Our "specialty" is self-consciousness: we know that we know. All sentient creatures know many things-how to find food, ward off predators, raise off- spring-but human beings appear to be the only ones who can think about what we know <at least in the highly developed way we do). We know that we were born and that we will die: we have created stories, music, dances, paintings, philosophies, and religions, as well as mind- altering substances to help us deal with this awesome knowledge. As the sy~~_~~-makingcreatures par excellence, we have the peculiar, painful, and wonderful distinction of knowing that we know.

We are by no means the only distinctive creatures: all creatures are. Would a dolphin think we could swim? An eagle that we could fly? A deer that we could run? We are certainly not the "measure"of other creatures, as people once thought who graded other life-forms in terms of their closeness to or distance from our peculiar form of "reason." That false anthropocentrism has been left behind as we have come to appreciateour particular role not as the measure of all things, but as the measurer-the ones who can admire, reflect on, take careof all the rest. What our peculiar distinction hasled us to see is that, given our present numbers and power, we have the abiliry to be either for or against the restof nature.We are not the only ones who matter, butwe are the ones who areincreasingly responsible for the others in creation.

We have arrived at this knowledge at the same time that we realize that we are not separate, static individuals who choose to be in relations with other life-forms when we feel like it. Rather, we now know that we belong, from the cells of our bodies to the finest creations of our minds, to the intricate, changing cosmos that gave us birth and sustains us. "We are not our own," as Wallace Stevens puts it. "Nothing is itself taken alone.Things are because of interrelations and interconnections.") It is this combination of responsibility and interdependence that is the key to contemporary,scientific anthropology. We are responsible, we can make choices, we can decide to live one way or another, but we are not just responsible for our individual selves. Rather, we now know that "who we

48 A New Climate forTheology

are"is interconnected with all other living things. We evolved together with the cosmos, and we are entirely dependent on certain conditions on planet Earth (water, food, land, climate, and so on) for our continued existence and well-being. Suddenly we see ourselves differently: not as post- Enlightenment individuals who have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but as part of avast network of interrelation- ships, and specifically as that "part" responsible for the rest, for other human beings and other life-forms. Western societies have spent the last three hundred years internalizing an anthropology of radical indi- vidualism; we now must internalize a profoundly different anthropology if our planet is to survive and flourish. While it is difficult to imagine, let alone internalize-and live-this new anthropology, nowhere is it more evident that we must do so than with the issue of climate change.

Climate is the broadest, deepest, most intricate system on earth. It controls everything else: water, land, the sun, food. It makes some places desirable, other places undesirable; some places habitable, other places inhabitable. The quality of the "space" for humans and other life-forms depends on climate. What global warming is illustrating with brutal realismis how vulnerable living creatures are to even a few degrees' change in the earth's average temperature. Regardless of where one lives on the earth, and regardless of one's status, everyone and ev- erything will be affected, for climate is the quintessential example of interrelationship and interdependence. It may well be that the threat of global warming will be the opening for Westerners to begin to see themselves differently: not as self-sufficient individuals who can bar- ricade themselves safely in gated communities, but as creatures depen- dent on a temperate global climate, as are all living things. It is not easy to change one's picture of who we are in the scheme of things. We need a wake-up call, and it is hard to imagine a more clarion one than global warming. The picture we see before us contains the sickening sight of skinny polar bears balancing on receding ice floes and children dying of thirst in a parched desert.

Ecological Literacy

The study of ecology is the most basic knowledge that we need to help us make the shift to a new way of seeing ourselves. Ecology is, at its

..;.;,simplest, "wordsabout home": oikos (home) and logos (word). Ecology

Who Are We? Ecological Anthropology 49

is not an esoteric subject reserved for experts, but information about planet Earth-its nature and its rules, and hence where we fit into it. Ecology is a study that should begin in infancy and continue through adulthood. If we are to tum away from anthropocentrism-the focus on ourselves as masters of the earth-to cosmocentrism-the focus on the earth and where we belong in it-we need a functi;~~jcreation .story, We need a~about ourselves and our earth that will work: that is, a story that will help all of us live justly and sustainably in our '/ home, planet Earth. The sciences are providing us with such a story, and, interestingly, it fits well with the oldest and deepest Christian creation story.This theological story also asks us to broaden our perspective from "the soul and God" to the whole earth: in Christian faith, the redeemer is also the creator. Hence, ecologicaL theology is not a New Age fad; rather, it returns this tradition to its cO§[.QQlQg,1.f_~txoots. God is God - of all creatures. We are not the only ones who matter: God cares for the sparrow and the lilies. This refocusing of knowledge, both secular and theological, to an ecological context is not sentimental nature wor- ship. Rather, it is a recognition of thethree contexts in which Christian theology has been and should be done.' They are the cosmological, the, political, and"the" p;;ychologic£rhe"earth as a whole, the world of hu- \ ' man oppression, and the inner life of the individual. Each of these con" texts is important and should be included in all Christian theologies. They form a whole, a set of concentric circles, with the cosmological the deepest and widest, serving as the context for the other two-historical oppression and individual fulfillment. Since the Protestant Reforma- tion and the Enlightenment, the focus of Christian theology has moved toward the psychological circle, with increasing marginalization of the political and the cosmological. We have seen a similar movement in secular thought during this period, until the cult of individualism has overtaken our sense of responsibility for the care of creation, as well as our obligations toward other people, especially oppressed or poor people. To widen our perspective, to embrace the earth and all others, is to return to a more fundamental and functional anthropology: one that sees human life embedded in and dependent on the world in which we live.The "turn to the self" of the last few hundred years is an anomaly in human history: prior to that time, and still for many native peoples, we imagined ourselves as within nature, not above or apart from it.

Hence, "ecological literacy" is not some newfangled secret knowl- edge.1t simply reminds us of where we came from and where we belong: from nature and in nature. Both Christian theology and contemporary

50 A New Climate forTheology

science are telling us that we must start with the world in order to un- derstand ourselves: who we are and where we belong. Such a beginning point may help to dampen our astounding egocentrism, evident in our ruthless laying waste of our planet and its other inhabitants, as well as our consigning many of our own species to poverty. A brief rehearsal of our egocentrism against this new creation story tells us that on the universe's time clock, human beings appeared only a fraction of a sec- ond before midnight; that we humans need the other inhabitants of the

i planet much more than they need us-as the creature at the top of the ."food chain, we aredispensable, whereas the plants and microorganisms \ in the ocean areessential; and that since we are at present the planet's .! most dangerous force, all other species would be better off without us. From our former status as the "apex of evolution" and the "darlingsof creation," we have become the rogue elephant, rampaging across our planet in reckless fashion.

So what does ecology have to do with this problem? Ecology is not a hobby; it is not an activity for Sierra Club types; it is not a pastime (some folks like hockey while others enjoy bird-watching). Ecology is the most fundamental study imaginable. It is information about how our house works:it is our "house rules."Ecology is the study of earth's organisms along with everything that affects them; it is the study of organisms in theirhomes and their interactions with one another. Once this basic knowledge is learned, it is difficult to deny. Once we learn, for instance, of the impact of human-generated greenhouse gases on the planet and its creatures, we have difficulty seeing global warming as a myth perpetrated by"eco-radicals."

The most important and simplest house rule is also the most com- plex and difficult to internalize: everything is related to everything else.It is one of those platitudes that says it all but takes a lifetime to under- stand-rather like another one: God is love. For Christians, those three words sum up the entire faith; everything we say about God, the world, ourselves, our hopes and our commitments, ourjoys and our sufferings, is implicit in that statement. All interpretations of the major Christian doctrines arevariations of that phrase. We hear it as children and when we are on our deathbeds: on the journey between these two points, we hope to gain a sense of what it really means, how we can internalize God's love into every moment of our lives, the wonderful and the de- spairing moments, as well as the ordinary ones.

A similar task awaits us with "everything is related to every- thing else."This task is especially challenging for us North American

Who Are We? Ecological Anthropology 51

individualists, whose sensibility has been formed in exactly the oppo- site fashion. We marvel when we hear that pesticides used on roses in Kansas City affect lions in the Mrican veldt, or that deforestation in the Amazon basin influences the survival of algae in alake in Manitoba. We think of these events as separate-like atoms-when in reality, the more accurate analogy is fishes in the ocean or a baby in the womb.

A personal example may help. In the spring of 1986, during the Chernobyl nuclear incident, my son was on a school trip to Moscow. I, on sabbatical leave in England, had flown to the Greek islands for a vacation. Of course, I was anxious about the radiation my son might be exposed to. However, because of the wind pattern, the radiation missed Moscow, went over the Scandinavian countries, and ended up in England-where I would have been, had I not decided to take a trip. There is no "safe place" on earth where pollution, global warming, acid \; rain,and so on can't find us-and the places we think are safe can turn out to be the most dangerous.

Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh has a fine descriprion of our phrase "everything is related to everything else":

When we look at a chair,we see the wood, but we fail to observe the tree, the forest, the carpenter, or our own mind. When we meditate on it, we can see the entire universe in all its interwoven and interdepen- dent relations in the chair. The presence of the wood reveals the presence of the tree. The presence of the leaf reveals the presence of the sun. The presence of the apple blossoms reveals the presence of the apple. Meditators can see the one in the many and the many in the one .... The chair is not separate. It exists only in its interdependent relations with everything in the universe. It is because all other things are.5

Another way to help internalize our phrase---everything is related to everything else-is to recall the classic problem of "the one and the many," or how things can be united into a whole and at the same time be distinct and different. Since the time of Plato, the tendency in the West has been to solve this problem by compromising the many for tbeir unity in the one. An example of this is the metaphor in the United States of the melting pot: people of different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds are "stirred" into the pot and emerge as the prototypical

52 A New Climate forTheology

Americanr>biversity is sacrificed for the sake of conformity to an ideal type. The Canadian metaphor of the mosaic allows for different groups .of people to occupy separate places in the country's self-image, but with a lessened sense of common identity. However, the metaphor of eco- logical unity solves the problem of the one and the many: the whole is nothing but each of the parts doing its own thing, while the particular parts depend for their existence on the whole. For example, a healthy old-growth forest is composed of many different species and millions of different individual plants and animals, all working together to form the whole. The forest does not exist apart from the myriad life-forms that constitute it, while the individuals depend totally on the whole. Here we have a metaphor, ecological unity, that supports radical unity and radical individuality-neither the one nor the many exists without the other-while at the same time underscoring the deepest understanding of both unity and individuality.

It is immediately evident what such a view of the one and the many might do when applied to world peace and planetary flourish- ing. If this understanding became widespread, became the working as- sumption of our political and economic institutions, a quiet revolution might take place. Politicians and economists would acknowledge that the whole-nation or planet-could not flourish apart from the health of the parts, both human beings and other creatures. Unfortunately, we are still often operating with the faulty metaphors of the melting pot and the mosaic, which privilege either the whole or the parts at the expense of the other.

"Everything is related to everything else" begins to take on flesh and substance. We can begin to see why it is a way of thinking about ourselves and our world that is a repudiation of both totalitarianism (the rule of the one) and libertarianism (the rule of individuals). It makes a claim about "reality," about the way things are, and admon- ishes us that if it is the case that all things exist because of their inter- relationships and interdependence with one another, then we had best structure our personal, economic, and political lives on this paradigm. Of course, this is an interpretation of reality, not a description of it (there are no descriptions). But given what contemporary science is telling us about ourselves and our world, ecological unity is closer to the way things are than is the melting pot or the mosaic. Since we only have interpretations, not descriptions, we must make a judgment as to which interpretation, which metaphor, is the one on which we should base our thoughts and our actions.

Who Are We? Ecological Anthropology 53

If we were to accept ecological unity as the working interpreta- tion for our dealings with each other and with our world, we would have two responses: appreciation and care. We would see ourselves as part of the web of life, an incredibly vast, complex, subtle, beautiful web that would both amaze us and call forth our concern. We would feel awe about and care for our planet. It would be similar to the dif- ference between imagining the world as a hotel and imagining it is a home. The Western practice has certainly been closer to hotel than home. In a hotel, the utilitarian perspective dominates: one uses hot water copiously, orders from the room service menu whatever one wishes, dumps the thick, dirty towels on the floor, and heads down the road to the next night's hotel. The world as hotel is a resource, solely for human use, including excessive use, if one so desires.This attitude toward the world could be called the "Kleenex'" perspective": use and discard. If, however, the earth were to be seen as our home, our one and only home, our response to it is likely to be very different. One appreciates a home and wants to care for it. The very word howe __has deep resonances for most people; it is where one belongs, where one feels "at home." The home metaphor immediately brings to mind the necessity for house rules, the kind one pins on the refrigerator for all occupants to see and obey. They are usually something like the follow- ing: (1) Take only your share. (2) Clean up after yourself. (3) Keep the house in good repair for others. Simple to understand, but immensely difficult to live out when we consider them in relation to the earth as our home, our house.

The oikos base of ecology is also the base for economics and ecume- nicity. In other words, "ecological literacy," words about our house, are at the same time words about economics and about the whole earth. I~ its simplest formulation, ecological literacy is the words (laws) of eco- nomics that we need to learn so that all inhabitants of the house, our earth, can live together justly and sustainably. Ecology and economics are obvious partners, for if ecology is the study of earth's organisms along with everything that affects them, then the just sharing of re- sources is the necessary basis for all to flourish. Ecology is not, then, a pastime for people who enjoy watching birds or identifying different tree species. Rather, it is about life and death, about which animals and plants have the means (air, water, food, habitat, and so on) to flourish- and which do not. Ecological literacy is basic survival knowledge. /

Let us, then, expand on a few of the most important house rules, beyond the first rule that says everything is related to everything else.

54 A New Climate forTheology

How does the earth work? What are its most fundamental laws? All processes, both animate and inanimate, occurthrough energy exchanges. En- ergy is involved whenever work is done, when anything speeds up or slows down, is heated or cooled, moves orchanges, and so on. The rules of how energy works are known as the first and second laws of ther- modynamics, and they are the most basic laws governing OUf home. The first law is relatively benign; it says that while energy can be con- verted from one form to another, it is neither created nor destroyed. For example, fossil fuels can be converted into heat or electricity con- verted into motion. Here only the form has changed, not the quantity. However, the second law presents the problem, for while the quantity remains the same, the quality decreases, tending toward randomness or disorder (entropy). For example, fossil fuels cannot be recycled back into gas or coal but are dissipated into the atmosphere as carbon diox- ~ide. This is the bad news: not only is the new form less usable, but it also ,can be injurious (as in global warming from greenhouse gases).

These laws govern the living and the nonliving. Thus, as living things seem to increase in order, they always do so by causing a de- crease somewhere else, by sucking orderliness from their environment. A good example is the high level of orderliness in cites versus the price paid for this comfort and complexity by"nature"-clear-cutting forests, degrading arable land, lowering diversity in fisheries, draining water from aquifers, and so on. City life is high-energy life: millions, bil- lions, of transformations of energy must occur every hour for us North Americans to live as we wish and as we have become accustomed to living. With everyenergy exchange-from the ones moving ourcarsto those powering our electric toothbrushes-a decrease occurs, qualityis lost, something somewhere "pays."Thereis no free lunch.

The second law says we live on a finite planet, and our energy , sources are running out. In order for the world's population to live the

I comfortable, orderly lives that the top fifth of us enjoy, several more

, planets would be necessary. We are spending down the capital, so to , speak; or in house rule language, if we keep raiding the fridge this way, there will be nothing left to eat.

But what about the sun? Is that not our hope, the endless source of energy beyond our finite planet? It is certainly the source of all energy, both renewable and nonrenewable energy.But there is also a caution- ary note, which we can see when we consider the three types of living things and where we human beings fit into the scheme. The first type are the "producers,"the self-feeders, such as plants that convert the

Who Are We? Ecological AnthropologV 55

sun's energy through photosynthesis into carbohydrates. The plants and the microorganisms in the ocean are the foundation of the food chain, and all the rest of us depend on them. The second type of living things are the "consumers": all of us fit into this category. Every living crea- ture from the microscopic to elephants-including human beings- are consumers. One must consume in order to live. The third type are the "decomposers," the bacteria and fungi that release molecules to be recycled.

The important feature in this analysis of the types is where we fit: all we do is consume. We neither produce nor decompose (albeit we eventually and reluctantly contribute our bodies for decomposition!). As consumers, only consumers, and increasingly the largest, most in- satiable, and most selfish consumers the planet has ever known, we are becoming a great danger. Our twenry-first-century culture is known as the "consumer culture," and we are identified in our society principally as consumers (rather than as parents, workers, citizens, and so on). Giv- en our highly vulnerable position in this food chain, we would be wise to proceed with caution, but in fact we are doing exactly the opposite. As our numbers increase, so do our "wants" as well as our inability to ,./ distinguish them from "needs."

The second law brings us up short. It reminds us of "limits" (a word so alien to consumer culture): that every transformation decreases available energy; that plants cannot thrive when soil and water are de- graded; that climate change can alter the energy sources available to human beings; that excessive population plus an excessive lifestyle is a formula for disaster. With a shock of recognition, we realize that we have not been obeying the house rules. We do indeed think there is a free lunch. We do not admit that every energy exchange costs. v We do not, for instance, figure in environmental degradation when we price goods: lumber costs do not include the services provided by / a forest that is clear-cut-air conditioning, control of soil erosion, medicinal biodiversity, recreation, and so on. These essential servic- es that nature gives us, ranging from climate control to hikes in the woods, are considered "externalities"by market economics and there- fore "without value." They are not factored into the price of products. This shocking practice is one of the clearest examples of our outrageous behavior as "housernates" -by this practice, we show that we do not deserve to live in this bountiful house.

Would we behave differently if we saw ourselves differently-as genuine housemates? That is the assumption of this book-that we

56 A New Climate forTheology

might. Anthropology is the key doctrine for our own survival and flourishing, as well as those of our planet.

The Consequences of Ecological Illiteracy

But what if we refuse to become ecologically literate? What if we con- tinue to think of ourselves as superior to and independent of the rest of the planet? If we continue to think in this fashion, it is unlikely that our behavior will change. Seeing ourselves differently is the first and perhaps necessary step toward changing behavior. It is certainly no guarantee of behavior change, but it at least gives us a chance, a choice, to behave differently. One of the most important forces behind behav- ior change is the belief that things can be different, that what we do makes a difference. A common motto of many NGOs-'~ different world is possible"-rests on this belief in the human ability to imagine alternative worlds and to work for their realization.

We must begin to see ourselves as interrelated and interdependent with the animate and inanimate elements of our planet and begin to follow earth's house rules of limited use, recycling, and long-term sus- tainability. These house rules now take on new depth.

Take only your share. Since all creatures must have food in order to survive, distributive justice becomes a necessary and central human behavior. The whole, the planet, cannot flourish unless the parts are healthy. Hence, "Take only your share" is not a plea for charity to the disadvantaged; rather, it is a law of planetary well-being.

Clean up afteryourself We live in a home, not a hotel, and this home is the only one we will ever have. We must reuse, not use up, everything on the planet. In a healthy ecosystem, everything is recycled: we need to structure our societies on that model. This will not be easy,for our consumer culturethrives on its exact opposite-throwing away.

Keep the house in good repair for others.The house is not ours; we do not own it. Rather, it is on loan to us for our lifetime, and we must sustain it for others.

These house rules, which are relatively easy to understand at a per- sonallevel, become much more complex when applied regionally, na- tionally, and globally.For instance, what is one's "share," or the "share"

Who Are We? Ecological Anthropology 57

of a developed country versus that of a developing one, or the "share" of human beings versus that of other life-forms (as in the old debate be- tween loggers' salaries and the survival of the spotted owl)? "Take only your share" is a rough guide-initially meaning no more perhaps than its opposite, "Take all you can get." Figuring out what is a fair share of vital resources for all needy creatures, both human and nonhuman, is an enormous task. It is a task that will involve not only the moral will of all of us, but also the expertise of many discrete fields of study, includ- ing economics, agriculture, hydrology, medicine, law, and many others. The reason, however, for optimism in regard to this massive task is that human beings have proven many times, especially in times of war, that they are capable of undertaking enormously complex enterprises, if the: / wi] to do so is strong.

The magnificence and bounty of planet Earth are a marvel for our delight and our nourishment; this world is not our possession to be squandered and destroyed. The long-term sustainability of the earth is our goal. This cannot be attained unless we fit our little economy into the planet's big economy. We must live with limits, with justice, with '/ the long view. This need not be a call for asceticism, for anxiety, or for despair.Rather, it is a new vision of the abundant life, not one in which a few live like kings while the rest exist as slaves, and not one in which human desires destroy other life-forms. Rather, it is a vision of just, sustainable abundance.

But we have been living very differently. Our population, and es- pecially the lifestyle that most people desire, is diametrically opposed to this vision. We human beings now control most of the earth's food, v water, and space at the price of other animals and plants diminish- ing and going extinct. Usually, the exponential growth of a species is controlled by limited resources,but our species, and especially the elite 20 percent of us, have figured out how to control and hoard most of the food, water, and space for ourselves. However, unlimited popula- tion growth combined with a high-energy lifestyle pushes the animate and inanimate energy sources of our planet to the limit. U'e cannot five without these "others."They are not just the resources for our desires; .-/ they are the sources of our existence. This is why a functional creation or cosmology is so important, for we need an appropriate understand- ing of who we are in the scheme of things. We need to acknowledge our place as dependent and interrelated with all other life-forms in or- der to attain a just, sustainable planet where we-and the others-can flourish. Even the most anthropocentric anthropology-a view that

58 A New Climate forTheotogy

sees our well-being as all that matters-cannot attain its goal if the planet is not also well and healthy. We cannot go it alone! We cannot do S0, even if we want to.

All theology is contextual: there is no theology "in general." It al- ways presupposes a context, a place, in which one stands to speak about who we human beings are. Thus, our theological anthropologies speak from the contexts of race, class, gender, sexualorientation, physical abil- ity, geographical location, and so on. But there is one context that has been neglected in the last few hundred years: human beings as a species among many others living in a home we all share. Thus, several decades ago, the 'Al0rld Council of Churches enlarged its motto from "Peace and justice"-to"T~~;Justrce,a~d the integrity of creation." Peace and justice depend on a healthy ecosystem, for there can be no peace or jus- tice unless the basics of existence are available to all. Hence, in addition to the many other contexts for interpreting who we are, we also must remember the cosmological one. We must move beyond democracy to .E195racy, beyond loyalty to our own tribe to a view of ourselves as "i\i"?erlsQ[J'!a~n<:!_E~~th:

So why should theology be concerned with "ecological literacy"? Why should it trouble itself with such mundane things as plants, the second law, population, energy use, and so on? If "salvation" means the

! well-being of all God's creatures-and not just etemallife in another world for a few chosen human beings-then issues such as climate change, food, energy, the consumer lifestyle, economics, and forest and water management become theological issues. A theological anthropol- ogy must therefore be rooted in reality, in the way our earth functions, in the details of what makes for earthly flourishing.

We can see now that ~CQ]Qgjc.aL.a.Q!.b~QlQ.gy is neither an eso- teric knowledge for specialists nor a sentimental plea to "love nature." Rather, it is the truth about whlL'IJ).eare-the best truth, at least, that we presently have. It tells us where ·~~fitin the scheme of things. It is a cautionary tale in light of the way we have been living. It claims that our pretension to being the center of the planet, rather than one of its neediest creatures, is false. It tells us that we have been living a lie. It reminds us that instead of being the center of creation, we are from moment to moment dependent on all that is, so to speak, "beneath us" (all of the animate and inanimate energy sources). They are our lifeblood. This new picture of ourselves is especially at odds with those who suppose that "according to Genesis" human beings are to subdue and dominate all others. This picture reminds us that we have been

Who Are We? Ecological Anthropology 59

decentered as God's darlings, and recentered as God's partners, the ones who can help work for ajust and sustainable planet.

We can see now, perhaps, how radically this ecological context changes how we think about ourselves. Instead of the only ones who matter, we have become the caretakers of everything else. Thomas Berry claims that we have been acting like brash adolescents out of control, as seen in Western individualism, consumerism, and milita- rism." Once we realize that we are neither the owners nor the principal tenants of our planet, but rather its "adults"-the species that knows the common creation story-we can become God's helpers to see it continue and prosper.