Is Science Responsible for the Environmental Crisis?

Insofar as technology is the practical application of scientific research and discoveries, science is indeed partly responsible for the present state of the earth. While scientists (as individuals) may sincerely pursue nothing more than a greater understanding of the world around us, by passing their information on to industry they deliberately or inadvertently contribute to the environmental crisis. As scientists discover new resources and share (or sell) them, technologists develop ever-increasing needs for those same resources without regard to their impact on the world as a whole. The capitalists who support the growing industries also pay the scientists to continue their research, resulting in a self-feeding cycle of destruction of the earth in the name of "progress." And renewable resources that do not contribute to the decline of the earth are not regarded as viable alternatives in the mainstream because they do not keep the machinery of industrial capitalism oiled. As Thomas Berry said, "Until technologists learn reverence for the earth, there will be no possibility of bringing a healing or a new creative age to the earth" (p 67).

In order for scientists to continue their research in areas that make honest improvements in our world, they are obligated to accept funding from commercial sources whose main objective is a sizable return on their investments via "new and improved" technological advances that don't necessarily have the greater good of the earth in mind. In addition, those scientists who view the natural world as nothing more than bits of matter with no intrinsic value are more likely to disregard the impact of some remote organism in favor of more immediate human concerns. If the earth and all its inhabitants are essentially "dead," then the extinction of one component is not a concern of such scientists unless its loss in the world decreases the fulfillment of some kind of human experience. According to Berry, however, "the planet Earth will not long endure being despised or ignored in its more integral being, whether by scientists, technologists, or saints" (p 119).

In this sense, there are very few (if any) humans on this planet who are completely blameless for the state of the earth's economy. Even those indigenous peoples who have until recently avoided modern technology are becoming more and more dependent on non-renewable earth resources and the magical disposal rather than re-use of waste products. There is, however, a wide spectrum of responsibility. Those who have made concerted efforts to study the impact of a technologically advanced lifestyle but continue to ravage the earth regardless of their level of knowledge are more to blame than those who misuse the earth due to ignorance. The scientists and technologists Berry referred to have studied the earth; the "saints" have not necessarily achieved the same perspective. If one who plunders the earth because he doesn't know any better is to be held responsible for his actions, then one who exploits the earth with full knowledge of his impact should be even more accountable. In this respect, science - although only partly responsible for the state of the earth - carries a greater burden of guilt than others.

"But while at an early period we were aware of our dependence on the integral functioning of surrounding (complex life) communities," says Berry, "this awareness faded as we learned, through our scientific and technological skills, to manipulate the community functioning to our own advantage. This manipulation has brought about a disruption of the entire complex of life systems" (p 164, emphasis mine).

Science, allied with technology, has therefore exploited not only the earth itself, but also the "saints" who learned about more convenient lifestyles through the advances of science and technology. By making otherwise earth-harmonious people aware of a "better" way of life, scientists and technologists have manipulated the community of humans to function as a consumer society detrimental to the earth rather than living in harmony with it. Not only does this disrupt the traditional lifestyle of the people, it further disrupts the functioning of the earth as a whole. From this perspective, those scientists who contribute to the spread of consumerism are even more to blame for the condition in which we find the earth today.

While it is heartening that science and technology is presently attempting to use their skills to solve the problem of the environmental crisis, for those whose true objectives are described above more often their solutions are more detrimental than helpful because, as Berry says, "The difficulty has come from our subversion of this integral life community, supposedly for our own advantage...Our technologies do not function in harmony with earth technologies" (p 165). No matter what we try to do to improve the state of the earth, most of our methods are tried from the perspective of how they best improve our situation as humans living separate from nature rather than in community with the earth as a whole.

In truth, it is not science and technology's fault, or religion's alone...it's "the human arrogance (manifested) toward the other natural members of the life communities (that remain) only slightly affected by the foreboding concerning the future expressed by professional biologists and by others who have recognized that the imminent peril to the planet is not exactly the nuclear bomb, but the plundering processes that are extinguishing those very life systems on which we depend" (T. Berry, p 170). In other words, science, technology, religion, government, industry, communications and education combine as factors that contribute to the decline of the earth's resources and the overabundance of waste.