NRO echoes NYRB. And, of course, it can be a religion. But I don’t see why it has to. Finding pragmatic solutions to pressing problems is not a religious crusade. But if the problems can be overcome by human adaptation but remain fatal for other species, is there not another dimension here? Here’s the latest on what is happening to our planet:
The Living Planet Index monitors more than 1,400 species. From 1970 to 2005 the report shows an overall fall in population trends of 27%.
The declines are due to human activity such as habitat destruction, pollution, overexploitation such as fishing, the spread of invasive species and climate change.
Obviously, these changes have happened for ever – but there is little doubt we are accelerating them. And this does reach deeper, moral questions. Do we humans have a moral obligation to the planet we live on, to the species with whom we share this world? I’d say a firm yes. I don’t believe that our world is merely to be used with no respect for its conservation. Does this spring from a religious viewpoint? In my case, yes. But it isn’t necessary to view this moral obligation from a religious viewpoint in order to see it as a powerful principle to defend. (And if you haven’t read Matt Scully’s book, Dominion, do yourself a favor.)
The Dish 