One of the textbooks I use to teach my junior high students has a section in it titled “Human Impacts on the Environment.” As you may expect from such a title in a modern textbook, the authors treat most of the impacts humans have on the environment as negative. The textbook makes a few concessions that it is necessary to balance human needs with preservation of the natural world. Here is one such example:
Science can identify problems and offer possible solutions, but it is up to individuals, governments, and international organizations to decide how to manage the impacts of a growing population. There are economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits which all must be weighed against one another. For example, humans use a variety of resources to produce electricity, from burning fossil fuels to buildings dams. No single method works in every situation, and there are benefits and costs to each.
The practice of using less of a resource so that it can last longer is called conservation. To ensure that future generations have access to the same resources we enjoy now, we need to use resources in ways that maintain them at a certain quality for a certain period of time. This practice is known as sustainable use of living resources. It gives resources time to recover and replenish themselves.
Addressing human impacts on the environment also requires engineering new solutions to our problems. These might include using desalination to counter water shortages, or advances in solar power, wind power, and other forms of renewable energy. As human populations continue to rise, the need for new ideas and solutions will increase.[1]
It would be tempting to counter these paragraphs by flatly denying every claim.
“There are no problems with current production of electricity: coal-fired plants are cleaner than they have ever been!”
“There is no need to conserve: we are not running out of resources!”
“Increased human population is not putting a strain on the environment!”
These statements may (or may not) be true, and that is why I do not want to approach the textbook by denying its claims. If I were to say that energy production is cleaner than it ever has been, I can be easily countered with, “What is the name of the article published by which authors that demonstrates that electricity production is cleaner now than it has every been?” or with “Perhaps, but is it clean enough? How much pollution should we accept?” The point is, these flat denials do not address the issue raised by the textbook, they instead shift the debate to an argument about facts. The problem with that is, the argument about facts will devolve into a “you-say, we-say” argument, as both sides will claim that their experts are correct on this topic and your experts are biased hacks promoting an agenda.
Besides, as much as I am loath to say this, the textbook has a point. We do have to balance environmental concerns with economic and social costs. We do have to care for the Earth. God created humans to be caretakers of the Earth (Genesis 1:28, 2:15), so the idea of balancing the needs of humanity with the commandment to govern the Earth is legitimate.
Of course, the authors of the textbooks would not take my citation of Genesis seriously. They want a “logical,” scientific approach to caring for the environment. However, that is where the problem lies. Note that the authors say that “it is up to individuals, governments, and international organizations to decide how to manage the impacts of a growing population.” I can easily demonstrate that, even though they mentioned it, the authors do not actually want individuals to decide how to manage the impact humans have on the environment. How? They provide two solutions: conservation and sustainability. The former is using less so resources last longer and the latter is using less so that the environment can recover and regrow what was taken. These are not the only two options. There is a third option, to continue as we are, to innovate as we are, and let that innovation come up with new, unforeseen solutions to our problems.[2] Note the contrast of this solution to conservation and sustainability: rather than using less, we use what we have now. After all, innovation best comes when people are free to do as they want, not when people are restricted in their use of resources. The fact that the authors of the textbook do not consider this option and instead only consider those options that restrict choice indicates that they are not interested in free, individual choice, but instead seek top-down governmental regulation of activity. The authors of the textbook are not seeking all logical solutions, only those solutions that they have determined are best. They have restricted our options, including denying that God and His Word have any part in the discussion, while pretending that individuals have a choice in the matter.
I find it ironic that the authors of the textbook almost stumble into the third solution. They do acknowledge that problems can be solved by engineering new solutions. Apparently, they believe that new solutions can be found while we are, at the same time, restricting the resources we have available, which will, in turn, affect abundance and availability of energy, and abundance and availability of materials. With less materials and energy to use, there are less possible combinations to try, which means we actually restrict our engineering options by enacting conservation and sustainability.
The authors of the textbook actually hit upon a lot of true statements. It is correct that we must balance the use of resources with economic and social needs. It is true that we can engineer new solutions to problems. Where they stray is in the implied assumption that the only way forward is by conservation and sustainability. By not considering a third option, or even possible fourth and fifth options, they restrict the conversation while believing that they are being open-minded.
Thoughts from Steven
[1]Miller, Zipporah; Michael Padilla; and Michael Wysession (2019) Elevate Science, Grade 7, Teacher Edition, Savvas Learning Company, Paramus, New Jersey
[2]Lomborg, Bjørn (2001) The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Cambridge, New York, New York, pg. 348-352
Heart of America Science Resource Center 