Humanists are natural allies of the environmental movement, not believing that we will be bailed out of our follies by a supernatural power. Humanists believe that we must save ourselves and our planet.
Time and again modern humanists have been accused of negative beliefs and held responsible for destructive forces in society, particularly in North America. For example, two days after the tragedy in New York on September 11, 2001, the late Reverend Falwell boldly declared on morning TV, “. . . all [of them] who have tried to secularize America . . . I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen’ . . .” And the Reverend Robertson, on the same program, added, “ . . . Well, I totally concur. . . ” Even though Falwell apologized later that day, his thoughts about all secularists were pretty clear.
It is obvious that these accusations are entirely unfounded and indeed offensive to the tens of millions of citizens in Canada and the U.S. and the hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world, who do not hold supernatural beliefs.
Environmentalists, conservationists and likeminded others have no cause to fear modern Humanism but instead will find common cause with it regarding a commitment to protect and preserve our environment not only for the benefit of ourselves and our descendants but for all life with which we share this Earth.
More recently, serious critiques of modern humanism have arisen from some environmentalists, conservationists and others. They allege that humanism is concerned exclusively with human well-being, human nature and morality to the exclusion of any real concern about the environment. An example is J. Baird Callicott, who in his article The Search For an Environmental Ethics, claims that modern humanists give moral standing only to humans and are interested in protecting the natural environment exclusively to the extent that it serves human needs. Even more critical is David Ehrenfeld. His book, with the telling title The Arrogance of Humanism, alleges the arrogance of humanists in their disregard for the survival and safety of other organisms on earth by their ignorance of the interconnectedness of nature and by their misguided narrow focus on only human development, interests and progress.
Once again these views are at variance with the facts and reveal a total ignorance of the history and meaning of modern humanism, as evidenced by numerous statements and activities by modern Humanists. Following are just a few of many examples.
The American Humanist Association published a Humanist Manifesto III in the May/June 2003 issue of its magazine The Humanist. It states in part:
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond . . . We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
In 2000 the Council for Secular Humanism in the U.S. published its own Humanist Manifesto in its magazine Free Inquiry, asserting that:
Global environmental problems must be dealt with at the planetary level: reducing environmental pollution, including carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, developing alternative fuels, reforesting denuded lands, counteracting the erosion of topsoil in cultivable areas, facilitating environmentally friendly businesses, limiting fishing on the high seas that threatens the extinction of entire fish populations, protecting endangered species . . . Measures to protect the environment thus need high priority for the planetary community.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union and other humanist groups strongly influenced a declaration, made in Brussels on March 25, 2007, as a contribution to the formulation of a European treaty, containing as Point 2:
We recognise our duty of care to all of humanity including future generations, and our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world.
Humanist Perspectives itself has dealt with the environmental issue on a previous occasion, published as Issue # 148 in the spring of 2004 when the title of the magazine was Humanist in Canada and the theme “Environmental Ethics.” In that issue Charles Morgan wrote:
We are too numerous and too concentrated, consuming all available resources at the expense of other organisms, while we exude lethal toxins into the surrounding environment. We have to learn to live more as commensals; otherwise like a malignant tumour or aggressive infection, we will kill our host.
Henry Beissel in that same issue, in his article entitled “Eco-Humanism”, suggested that:
Whatever kind of happiness we seek in life, it must begin with us living in harmony with ourselves and with the natural order of which we are a part . . . we must embrace the boundless biodiversity of our world not only with our hearts but in action. In practical terms it means that we must conduct ourselves in a way that creates and maintains the maximum diversity of life forms on this planet . . . It is evident that the current course of Western civilization is headed in a direction which is diametrically opposed to the harmony with the natural order which alone can enable us to survive.
And, again in that issue of Humanist in Canada, Mark Battersby reminded us that:
We also need to acknowledge our connection with nature. We need to recognize that such acknowledgement is the basis of an appropriate moral stance towards the environment. While such a view also serves the long-term interest of humanity, this is not its justification. Valuing nature for itself is as fundamental a value as concern for other humans . . . A humanist ethic must give due consideration to the value of nature, not simply the needs of humans now and in the future.
In his book The Code for Global Ethics Rodrigue Tremblay from Quebec enunciates various Humanist Commandments, one of which states that:
The Earth’s environment—land, soil, air, water and space—form a unifying whole that sustains human life. Whether we like it or not, humans are a significant part of the Earth’s environment, and this means that they can do something to keep it free of pollution. Humans have to pay attention to the environment and to the global life support system. We need more scientific understanding of the Earth’s complex system and more enlightened international collaboration to face the new challenges that global pollution presents. Earth’s current inhabitants have no right to leave a damaged and depreciated environment to future generations.
Not only do these diverse humanist statements contradict the accusation of a lack of interest in the environment, it could well be argued that those at the opposite end of the spiritual spectrum are the real threats to the environment. For example, in the 1980s the Reagan administration adopted an extraordinarily aggressive policy of issuing leases for oil, gas, and coal development on tens of millions of acres of national lands. In February 1981, James Watt, the Secretary of the Interior and an evangelical fundamentalist, testified before Congress and was asked if he agreed that natural resources should be preserved for future generations. His response was, “I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.”
Indeed, if the Apocalypse is imminent why worry about the environment? The record of the current administration is even worse. Over the course of its first term, the Bush administration led the most thorough and destructive campaign against America’s environmental safeguards in the past 40 years. Even more troubling than the vastness of the onslaught is the fundamental nature of the policy changes, which represent radical alterations to our core environmental laws.
Yet, all these activities took place under the leadership of another avowed evangelical fundamentalist.
In contrast, Edward Osborne Wilson is a prominent modern humanist and a Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism, established by the Council for Secular Humanism to recognize distinguished Humanists worldwide. For his various efforts in regard to the environment Wilson received a number of awards such as the 1984 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, the 1987 ECI Prize from the International Ecology Institute and in 1990 the Crafoord Prize, which is administered by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and is the highest award given in the field of ecology.
Indeed, it is precisely because modern humanists understand that we are all part of the larger and interdependent web of life that they base their ethical principles as well as their appreciation of nature on rational understanding and scientific knowledge. As a result, they are leaders in the effort to preserve biodiversity and protect natural ecosystems through advocating land-use planning, environmental regulations and restrictions and the creation of parks and nature preserves.
Environmentalists, conservationists and likeminded others have no cause to fear modern Humanism but instead will find common cause with it regarding a commitment to protect and preserve our environment not only for the benefit of ourselves and our descendants but for all life with which we share this Earth. 