The Leading Princeton Publication of Conservative Thought

The Necessary Premises of Leftist Environmentalism

The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.

All ideologies derive from certain principles which others do not accept; otherwise they would not be ideologies, but patently obvious truths, accessible and accepted by all.  Behind the controversy about environmental policy lies an ideological divide which will prevent further discourse if we do not address it. Modern Environmentalism requires that humans fulfill certain moral obligations while also denying the privileged moral position which allows for these moral obligations. This logical inconsistency requires that this environmental ideology either be rejected or rectified.

Bertrand Russell was once confronted at the end of a public debate about the existence of God. A lady objected to his argument, and when prompted for an alternative explanation of the universe, posited that the earth was perched upon the back of a giant turtle.  Russell leaned and asked once more what upon the turtle stood. Her response: “It’s turtles all the way down.” Her response has been immortalized because it is absurd; it is incoherent to require a chain of infinite causal regress in order to give an explanation, since coherence may not proceed from incoherence. Beliefs cannot proceed from an unrealized foundational assumption.

The very employ of reason indicates the employ of assumptions.  In mathematics, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems postulate that there cannot be a closed logical system without certain assumptions; however, there exists not one set of assumptions that can be used to prove all mathematical truths. These assumptions are those upon which other truths can be derived. Though true, these assumptions cannot be proven, and therefore, the system cannot be used to prove its own consistency.  

The import of assumptions is not an innovation of mathematical proofs and in fact extends to the beginning of the formal philosophy.  According to Blake Hestir, Plato’s worldview proceeds upon certain assumptions implicit in his methods and results. In order to seek meaning, it is necessary to ground this with preconceived ideas about what meaning actually is. This creates a logical system dependent on grounding arguments which are those which can then be used to prove that truth relies on certain assumptions.

It is important to note that the assumptions we make are not arbitrary; it is simply important to be aware of what assumptions are integral to the way we think and set the course for its conclusions. Often, we hold more than one set of assumptions that set the stage for our positions.  If we are to have productive conversations, it is important to parse which assumptions underlie which parts of our understanding of the world. Distinctions between philosophy and religion, in particular, are helpful in order to identify in our understanding what is natural, that which relies upon assumptions accessible to all, and what is theological, which relies upon principles unique to the religion.  Without the assumption of a theological understanding, this tradition is incoherent. Christianity becomes meaningless, except theraputically and culurally, without the divinity of Christ, just as Islam becomes meaningless if Prophet’s messages are false. The Buddhist belief system relies on The Four Noble Truths which assert that life is suffering. To those who believe, accordingly with the second of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, these are true even though they cannot be proven. All the teachings of Buddhism thus ascend from these fundamental assumptions, and without the veracity of the assumptions, the other teachings become meaningless.

Importantly, moreover, no believer of a religion may admit that his natural understanding conflicts with his theological understanding;  it is impossible for two understandings to be correct if the veracity of one rejects the other. It is true that between faith and reason seem irreconcilable in certain religions traditions, but attempts to reconcile these contradictions in fact imply that the two are reconcilable, or that one explains the other, which manifests the implicit unity of understanding, given certain assumptions.  Simply that we hold these theological principles is not an issue; our theological assumptions may well be true. If we fail to identify them, however, we conflate what is naturally available to all minds and what we hold as a theological consequence of assent to a non-natural principle. This distinction, if unparsed, will make intractable arguments between individuals of different assumptions.

In order to understand the divisions which create a disagreement, it is a fruitful exercise to investigate what one’s own theological convictions are, rather than simply one’s own theological conclusions.  A helpful way to find them is to constantly ask “Why do I think this?” While this is a rather crude method at arriving at the foundations of our thought, it very necessarily will lead us there, since our understanding is not “turtles all the way down.”  More often than we might like, we may find that the assumptions we hold are principles which are not patently obvious, and in fact our agreeing with our position may require assent to these relatively arbitrary principles.

When we do so in the context of environmentalism, we (I) argue that it often requires assent to certain not-natural principals.  Greenpeace describes itself as an organization committed to “expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.”  While these are indeed admirable goals, we must ask ourselves why we ought to pursue these goals.

The moral obligations which are emphasized in environmentalism are those which rely on the assumptions rooted in ideas inconsistent with the secular ideology it touts. The environmentalist beliefs of the inherent sanctity of nature and the special obligation by humans and humans alone to be caretakers of the earth is in truth dependent on the assumption that humans are different from the animals that also inhabit it; they are obliged to care for that which man has not created but been given. However, these underlying assumptions are scarcely recognized as the true root of moral environmentalist thought. Without them, however, the fundamental moral ideas which attract many supporters of environmentalism break down.

Environmentalism does not cast away assumptions in general; often, it just casts away the assumptions of other religions. This is not to say that religion cannot be incompatible with environmentalism; it just requires a shift in perception of what the assumptions and motivations might be in carrying out certain goals. St. Francis of Assissi’s Canticle of the Sun praises God through His creation: the creatures, the sun, the air, the water, the fruits and flowers, and the fire. It was through these things that St. Francis encouraged all to exalt the splendor of God. A statement issued by the Vatican outlines concerns about climate change. “If the simple fact of being human moves people to care for the environment of which they are a part, Christians in their turn ‘realize that their responsibility within creation, and their duty towards nature and the Creator, are an essential part of their faith.’ It is good for humanity and the world at large when we believers better recognize the ecological commitments which stem from our convictions.” The way that Christians see their role in caring for their environment comes from the convictions, or assumptions, of their faith. This is different from how others might view their relationship with nature or the obligations one feels that he might have to be a caretaker of the environment. The teachings of the Christain faith imply “a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations.”

 

The environmentalist view of the sanctity of nature and consequent human responsibility to protect it is rooted in non-rational assumptions about the role of humans;  this idea, however, is inconsistent with the environmentalist thought that conceives of humans as simply an invasive species. It is for these reasons that environmentalism must rectify the inconsistencies between its ideas and fundamental assumptions. As an alternative, Conservationism is rooted in the ideas of stewardship under the principles that it is important to take care of and persevere for future generations that which humans have been given. Its foundational assumptions are consistent with the ideology and practices: because humans have been given nature for their own use, it is up to them to be stewards of the planet. Analyzing our assumptions can affect how we view our role in protecting and caring for nature, and thus policy will descend from our understanding of ourselves. We must ask ourselves: are we stewards or animals?

 

Allyssa Noone ’23 is an undeclared major. Joaquim Brooks ’20 is an economics major. 

Comments

comments