The article under scrutiny entitled “A Comparison of Green Chemistry to the Environmental Ethics of the Abrahamic Religions” is written by George D. Bennett. Just a short glimpse of the writer’s background: George Bennett was a graduate from the Wittenberg University where he was conferred the Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in Chemistry (1992). Later, he continued his studies and attained his doctorate (Ph.D.) in organic chemistry (1997) at the Ohio State University. Bennett began his career in the academic arena as an assistant professor of chemistry at Milikin University. In 2003, he was awarded tenure and promoted to the status of associate professor where he specializes in organic lecture and laboratory. He has been a member of the American Scientific Association (ASA) since 1994 and also holds membership of the Decatur Running club where he has completed eight marathons.
Green chemistry is a product of the US nation’s response towards the Pollution Prevention Act (1990) which declared the prevention of pollution by means of source reduction. A research grant was given out to initiate a project which covers the area of Alternative Synthetic Pathways for Pollution Prevention. Barry Trost from Stanford University put forth the concept of atom economy which basically tells the amount of reactants that end up in the intended product. From here on, green chemistry was the number one theme held in the frontiers of research and it is at its pinnacle when it receives the prestigious Nobel Prize in chemistry (2005) and is now in its second decade as a renowned area of research.
It is in its prescriptive yet normative characteristics which are embodied in green chemistry (or also known as environmentally benign chemistry) that makes it stands out in the field of chemistry. Unlike most of chemistry which are descriptive, that is to say in a sequential manner that an event will take place only after an earlier event occurred (If you do A, then B will happen), a prescriptive proposition differs from a normative proposition in that, in a prescriptive one, it does not depend on the final outcome as in the form of, “If you want B to happen, then do A.” Compare this to a normative proposition which relies heavily on the final outcome as in the form of, “You should want B to happen, therefore do A.” Hence, in a nutshell, normative propositions have in its foundation, certain ethical assumptions.
These assumptions are based on twelve (12) principles underlying it, they are: (1) prevention, (2) atom economy, (3) less hazardous chemical synthesis, (4) design of safer chemicals, (5) safer solvents and auxiliaries, (6) design for energy efficiency, (7) use of renewable feedstocks, (8) fewer derivatives, (9) catalysis, (10) design for degradation, (11) real-time analysis for pollution prevention, and (12) inherently safer chemistry for accident prevention. Principle 1 subscribe to the notion that “prevention is better than cure” which is tantamount to saying that the prevention of pollution takes precedence over the treatment of it. Principles 2, 6, 8 and 9 brings about the issues of wastage and efficiency whilst principle 10 states that in the event that pollution is inevitable, a form of pollution that does not persist have precedence over that which persist, that is to say that a ridable pollution is preferred over that which is not ridable by any means. Lastly, principles 3, 4, 5, and 12 mentions that the welfare of individual who handles materials or oversees the processes are of equal importance as the welfare of the environment itself, neither takes precedence over the other.
The ethical assumptions are shared broadly by the citizenry and are highly likely to be parallel with the ethical traditions that are predominant in the U.S. They therefore, do not encounter many objections. The writer compares the green chemistry’s ethical assumptions to that of the environmental ethics of the Abrahamic Religions. He noted the dichotomy between preservationist stewardship, in that the advocates of this philosophy uphold steadfastly in their believe to maintain mother nature with a pre-Fall ideal in mind and on the contrary, the advocates of productivity stewardship firmly believe that human should exploit mother nature’s vast resources for the betterment of the community. The rise of the modern environmentalists was profound due to the writings Lynn White (1967) which blamed Christianity as the source of ecological crisis and concluded that only a religious remedy can overcome the situation. Francis Schaeffer responded (1970) that the only answer was in the form of Christianity that properly emphasized nature.
In general, advocates of preservationist stewardship focuses on the commonness shared by humans and mother nature and that human beings should play an integral, consumptive role in regards towards the sustainability of mother nature. Their thinking is that the current situation is not in the ideal equilibrium state and thus, corrective measures should be undertaken. As for the advocates of productivity stewardship, generally, they stresses the distinctions between humans and mother nature and the fecundity of human beings in regards towards the development of mother nature. Their thinking is that the current situation is part of a forever evolving system.
Let us now compare and contrast the concept of preservationist stewardship from the view points within Christianity, Jewish and Islamic and the ethics of green chemistry:
The Catholic/Protestant perspectives and the Orthodox perspectives were treated separately due to the difference in the sacramental role nature plays in the Orthodox theology. There are various opinions championed in the Catholic/Protestant perspectives. The Academy of Evangelical Scientists (AESE), champions the act of voicing up against attempts to weaken public policies that protect the common good of all. In accordance to the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), they see the marginalization between the rich and the poor (economic justice) as an important aspect of sustaining the environment in a just fashion. The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) stated that any damage done to God’s world is a direct offence against God himself. The Christian Environmental Studies Centre (CESC) is of the mentality that although humans may have the god-gifted rights of dominions over mother nature for means of survivability, the rate of exploitation shall not exceed beyond the ability of the Earth to regenerate and replenish. Calvin DeWitt, a prominent figure in his own field further elaborates that creation care stresses on the importance of restoration and reconciliation of all things. Sallie McFague is in agreement with the thesis of Lynn White, which criticizes the consumerism in Christendom that tends to exploit nature. Christians need a new worldview that extends Jesus’ ministry to nature and overturns conventional hierarchies (humans over the nonhuman world). The Orthodox theology derives its environmental ethics on the basis of its sacramental theology. They believe that Earth is a platform for the encounterment with Christ and thus, nature is sacramental in disclosing the experience of the divine. Consequently, the human’s utmost obligation is to allow space for the works of the Spirit to act perpetually in this world. To ensure such environment prevails, stillness (ascesis) and inaction are necessary to keep vigil without interfering in the Spirit’s work. Asceticism is a conduct of being respectful to the usage of material goods because we are never alone in this world.
In the Jewish perspectives, the Coalition of the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) highlighted the commandment given to Adam and Eve to serve and preserve the garden of Eden and there is a relationship between economic justice and ecological sustainability. Aloys Hütterman and Tikva Frymer-Kensky were of the same thought, in that dominion of mankind over nature should stick within certain boundaries, and that we should act to oversee that everything is running accordingly. If not exercised appropriately, humanity will lose its supremacy and pollute the Earth directly and indirectly. Arthur Waskow states that the act of consuming and producing are complementary and we are guilty of idolatry in the event of addiction (consumption).
In the Islamic perspective, Seyyed Hossein Nasr foreshadowed Lynn White’s critique in his writing, in that the dominion of mankind over nature desacralized and disharmonious nature. Islamic teachings focused on the concept of khilafa (vice-regency) along with the concept of justice. Hyder Ihsan Mahasneh and Fazlun Khalid agree that the capacity to reason is the main factor that Allah gave such duty to humans. Saadia Khawar Khan Chishti on the contrary argues that the responsibility is intuitive and are innate traits waiting in the human soul to be reawakened. Abdul Aziz Said and Nathan Funk reaffirms humanity’s role as custodians of nature albeit in a rather paradoxical manner. Amongst the barriers that obstruct the implementation of a fully Islamic environmental ethic includes the arguments of Khalid’s “Cartesian” dualism and skepticism and the global banking system which creates the “illusion of economic dynamism”, K. L. Afrasiabi’s Islamic humanism, and Yasin Dutton’s expansion on the global banking system by stating that usury (credit) creates an incentive to use resources exhaustively.
All in all, preservationist stewardship ethics assume that utilization of natural resources is acceptable as long as it is not wasted or depleted in a drastic manner. Of all the Christian denominations, the Orthodox perspective is viewed as the least compatible with the ethics of green chemistry as the Orthodox’s approach of asceticism contradicts the former. Muslims and Islamic commentators viewed the economic incentives and rewards with skepticism and those who hold on a strong view of predestination would not see the need for green chemistry but would not have objected to its implementation either.
Let us now turn our focus towards the perspective of the productivity stewardship from the view points of the Abrahamic religions and compare it to the green chemistry’s ethics:
Unlike the divergence of the Orthodox’s theology in the preservationist stewardship, all the Christian denominations are treated collectively henceforth. The Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship (ICES) states that humans are the most valuable resource as only human are gifted to enrich creation and are thus, the primary producers who add to the abundance of the Earth. The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) holds firmly on the belief that caring for human needs is compatible with caring for the earth, which is in tandem with God’s commandment to humans to exercise stewardship. Pope John Paul II, Patriarch Bartholomew I and Pope Benedict XVI in their public appearances stated in their speeches that human are to be position at the centre of creation and that science and technology should be utilize in a constructive manner to safeguard creation and enhances spiritual and material welfare of the coming generations. As opposed to De Witt’s philosophy, productivity stewardship systematizes knowledge from economics along with knowledge from the natural sciences. Gerald Zandstra, Biesner et al. and Beers et al. were of the same philosophy that economic growth and development contributes to environmental improvement, in that pollution rate declines once a country’s economic growth progress is sufficient to cover the needs of the people. This in turn allows more efficient use of resources and enabling the populace to afford environmental solutions.
In the Jewish perspectives, in accordance to a Jewish Faith Statement, forewarned that love for fellow human beings takes precedence over love of nature. Having said so, wasteful destruction of nature is prohibited once and for all. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson and other authors noted that humanity is the apex of creation and is allowed to use the available resources around them with the assurance that it is for the betterment of society and not vice versa. In the Islamic perspectives, Mahasneh, Said and Funk, and S. Nomanul Haq are of the same philosophy in that humanity is to act as custodians (khalifa) over nature with the emphasis given on preservation, development, and enhancement.
In a nutshell, productivity stewardship ethics mirrors that of the preservationist philosophies in key areas of the green chemistry. Advocates of this philosophy are more unless in line with the green chemistry’s assumptions and would not have much objections to it. They, including the Islamic commentators are optimistic about the idea of humans trying to improve the world for the betterment of the generations to come and that green chemistry adds real value to the final outcome and during the processes involved.
In conclusion, all the Abrahamic religions incorporate in them, a certain anthropocentric concept of stewardship of an intrinsically valuable creation. The use of nature is allowable, so long as the abuse of it is prohibited strictly. Divergence in philosophies and teachings are inevitable, however, in regards towards the noble concept of green chemistry, they could reach to a tolerable, mutual agreement. The point of conflict arose amongst the Islamic environmentalists but not at a detrimental level. With the exception of this, the followers of the other Abrahamic religions can practice green chemistry with good conscience.
In my opinion, all religions even that of which is not of the followers of the Abrahamic religions, preached good values and virtues to its advocates and in a way or two, touches on the issue of environmentalism. One do not necessarily have to side the preservationist or the productivity stewardships in terms of sustainable development but perhaps take the best of both worlds. If one is often in conflict with another, no profound progress can be made. Even if they could, the impact would be minimal due to unnecessary obstructions. The preservationist holds a good philosophy in that we must maintain mother nature as it is, and the other school of thought which holds the good value of human advancement made via the utilization of natural resources, are both commendable concepts. However, one cannot preserve stubbornly whilst the other exploits blindly. A mutual point of agreement is that exploitation can be done but keeping in mind the cost that the world has to bear. The rate of exploitation cannot, and I repeat, cannot exceed that of the ability of the Earth to rejuvenate and repopulate its’ distributions, as these resources are tangible and not renewable. Once it is gone, there is no other way of gaining it back.
Having said so, humans are imperfect. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” We are forever tempted to go beyond our limits and succumb to temptations of greed, avarice and what nots. Here is where the impact of religions comes into play. It is proven statistically that 4/5 of the citizens of the world are religious and only a handful being free-thinkers. Despite in this modern, scientific era, influenced by the philosophy of logical positivism, people still look up for divine interventions as the human capabilities have its limits. With the power of religion, we can touch the hearts of most people in the world in the pursuit of a Utopia, the world of ideals. People should not always stick steadfastly to a certain school of thought but perhaps, be more open-minded and less bigoted in their thinking, and should have incorporated all the good philosophies that are around since the yesteryears. No philosophy is thoroughly right, nor any is completely wrong. Only through combining the best of every available philosophy that we can perhaps reached to an almost perfect life philosophy. We should also study carefully and not take offence towards critiques in philosophies as this would allow room for improvements. Sometimes when an individual is too deep in thought on a certain topic, one would easily overlook the trivial but profound matters. In a game of chess, an outsider at many a times, could point out the easiest of mistakes compared to the player as one is too immerse on the particular region of the board and could not see the whole 64 squares.
As for me, being a Catholic and a science stream student for most of my life, I consider myself to be partial Sophist and partial Platonist. I admit I could not live with only the scientific values nor can I live solely on the religious commandments and teachings, but through both only can I attain the complete fulfillment and understanding of my very existence here on earth. In this scientific-grasp society, there are still many phenomena which the sciences could not really fathom. This article has once again reinforced my verdict that one cannot hold on too dearly to only a certain philosophy. Perhaps the world would have been a better place to live in shall humans learn to put aside their ego and try to live harmoniously with each other. What more in a country like Malaysia where we have multi-religious and multi-races citizens. The concept of 1 Malaysia has been initiated by our beloved Prime Minister and there is just so much a person can do despite being the most authoritative figure, the rest of which, depends on us. It had been initiated and now it depends on our endeavours to propagate it, or risk having it terminated and being thrown back into history where bloodbaths occurred due to differences in ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment