Religion is a very powerful motivator of human behavior, especially in the relationships that humans develop with nature. (Kaufman and Franz, 1993, 527). Religion is the foundation on which people form their worldviews. These worldviews determine how people deal with issues that they face, and how they treat and manage natural resources and life. One worldview that is greatly influenced by a person’s religion is the anthropocentric worldview. This worldview sees humans as the center of the natural world, as they are the supreme mortal being. (528) This particular worldview is common of western religions like Christianity, which has spread to many developing countries through missionary charities. People with this kind of religious worldview may delay taking action to solve ecological problems believing that God will take care of everything in the end. This delay in action may lead to irreparable ecological damage. On the other hand, a person with this worldview might interpret the religious meaning of this worldview slightly different and see their position as supreme being on the earth as a position of responsibility, and because of that they will take on the role as protector of the natural world. This particular worldview has also influenced people to have many children, seeing it as their divine duty to multiply and spread across the land, harvesting what they need from the animals and plants that God has provided. This religious philosophy has led to the world’s gross overpopulation.
The biocentric worldview is the reciprocal of an anthropocentric worldview. Here the distribution of importance is given equally to all organisms in the world. It does not see humans as anything more or less than any other species on the planet. A person with this worldview would try to find harmony in nature and take efforts to not take more from the earth then they need. (Kaufman and Franz, 1993, 528).
While religious beliefs may direct more profound and institutionalized approaches to conservation efforts and concerns about ecology, ethics are specific codes of conduct that direct individual people’s actions. One such code of ethics is the frontier ethic. This code of ethics is based on the driving need to explore, discover, and conquer the wilderness. Everything within the wilderness is considered unlimited and fair game for exploitation. As resources are depleted, people with this code of ethics simply move on to the next treasure, ore deposit, or frontier. (Kaufman and Franz, 1993, 534).
This particular code of ethics was a common one for those people who developed the United States. Gold miners, trappers, and explorers traveled from one discovery to the next, staying only long enough to exhaust the resource and then moving on. This code of ethics is very destructive and is only beneficial to human kind in the short term. Without proper management of resources, supplies run out and more energy needs to be expended in locating, extracting and learning to utilize new resources. This frontier ethic was also seen during the colonization period of human history during the 17th-19th century. (Kaufman and Franz, 1993, 534).
During this time period the continents of Africa and Asia were also hit particularly hard. European colonialists enslaved natives of these continents and then exploited the natural resources of these locations. (Kaufman and Franz, 1993, 534-40). Europe was in its industrial age and needed cash crops and raw materials. So instead of planting agricultural staples to feed the peoples of the European colonies, the natives were forced to plant, grow, and harvest cash crops. This led to famines, disease, and finally rebellion. The problems that the frontier ethic created during this period is still felt today in parts of Africa, whose ecosystems and peoples are still trying to recover.
Another code of ethics that a person can have is an environmental code of ethics. This code of ethics is one that creates a position within the natural world for humans to occupy. Their activity is limited in order to prevent negative impacts on the environment. (Kaufman and Franz, 1993, 534). The stewardship code of ethics takes this philosophy one step further making human’s not only a part of the natural world, but also its protector and nurturer.
The impact that a code of ethics has on the environment derives from the role humans take as a result of each code of ethics. The application of ethical codes that are aggressive and anthropocentric in nature, the environment suffers from abuse, over-harvesting, and ravaging by unhealthy mining and abstraction methods. On the other hand, earth friendly codes of ethics focus human energy on reducing the impact they have on the environment, as well as using humans to implement protective actions to save wilderness areas and natural resources.
Religion and codes of ethics are both systems of actions and beliefs, whereas morals are individual actions and beliefs that a person holds. Morals can impact the environment in a negative or positive manner, depending on the person and how they apply it. People can apply their personal morals to champion conservation efforts, or then can utilize morals to encourage land development and commercialization of a wilderness area. People can foster positive environmental morals, and protect the earth’s ecosystems by deciding to take personal actions to slow the rate of growth that the human population has. To do this they may decide to only have one child, or to adopt. They can also decide to help reduce the strain of the environment by reducing their consumption of energy and resource by recycling, buying energy efficient appliance, and by walking or riding a bike to work.�
References
Kaufman, Donald G. and Franz, Cecilia M. (1993). Biosphere 2000…Protecting our Global Environment. Dubuque, IA: Kendal/Hunt Publishing
