Blog author: jballor
Wednesday, March 31, 2010

In this week’s Acton Commentary I examine some of the issues surrounding concern for our planet’s growing human population. In “The Science of Stewardship: Sin, Sustainability, and GM Foods,” I argue that increased food production, augmented by advances in genetic modification, has a key role to play in meeting the needs of future generations. And in this way companies like Monsanto have contributed greatly to our ability to address the need for increased yields.

They have done so in great measure by combining tech with technique, or as the Forbes piece puts it, “marrying conventional breeding with genetic engineering.” Just as important as getting seeds that have the right genetic “tech” is mastering all the variables and skills needed to make plants grow properly, from soil makeup, to cultivation techniques, to timing. On the question of timing, for instance, there’s always more research being done on the best time to plant different kinds of crops.

A recent Popular Science feature, for instance, labeled the “bean counter” one of “The 10 Worst Jobs In Science” for being “most tedious.” So that even “after 10,000 years of intensive agriculture, we still don’t understand key things, like the best moment to plant soybeans.” And that’s why graduate students like Andrew Robinson at Purdue will “spend the next few years hand-counting beans from about 750 plots.”

But the question of increased population isn’t as innocent as might first appear. On the one hand, it’s certainly true that concern about the increase of the world’s human population often masks latent or not-so-latent misanthropy.

And on the other hand, as many have pointed out, it’s not the number of people in itself that largely determines global environmental impact, but rather the lifestyle of those people, their consumption habits, as well as the underlying economic structures, that function as determinative factors.

But even so, increased yields might help alleviate some of the difficulties with realizing large-scale urban farming, for instance. And while “complete self-reliance” of cities on local food sources “is not currently sensible,” and perhaps really shouldn’t be pursued, the prospects of getting significant produce from smaller plots looms large as an economic possibility given advances in both biotech and technique. There is real hope here economically and environmentally for places like Detroit.

As I also note in the piece, there are certainly moral limits that provide us space within which to pursue scientific advances and progress, but beyond which we “run the risk of aggravating our offense against God.” And it is not only up to scientists themselves, no matter how concerned, to recognize and articulate those limits.

On this the Bible has much to say. I made an attempt about 5 years ago to come to grips with these limits within which responsible stewardship occurs in the form of “A Theological Framework for Evaluating Genetically Modified Food.” I followed up that framework, which articulates a view largely affirming the instrumental use of plants, with a series denying a similarly instrumental use of animals.

  • I don’t completely agree with your or Samuel Gregg’s characterizing of the Pope’s “pale” environmentalism. His pro-human, religious perspective on environmental issues I think will prove to be much “greener” than the lunatic fringe of environmentalism that is anti-human (you’d think they would have committed suicide by now). I’ve personally never met any such fringe people; the vast majority of environmentalists I’ve worked with are moms concerned about their children’s future. And as you can see on my blog “Real Catholic Environmentalism” I don’t know any neopagan environmentalists; I would not characterize the 2 neopagans and one pagan I’ve known over the past 30 years as “environmentalists.” It could be that in Europe, where Christianity has greatly reduced (mostly like due to all those religious wars, conflicts, and strife), there could be Europeans attracted to neopaganism, because we all have a need for religion, and other religions will seep into a vacuum. Again, I know a couple of Europeans like that, attracted to Eastern religions, but they are not environmentalists.

    As a lay Carmelite we feel the best way to win souls is for us just to be good, live lives of little deeds of goodness, and we tell each other St. Francis’s dictum: “Go out and preach the Gospel, and if necessary use words.”

    In this same vein, the balanced approach our Pope BXVI uses regarding environmentalism will surely win more people to the cause than the anti-human or “join a weird religion” approaches. So he is very “green” in my estimation. And I give his approach the “green light.”

    BTW, I understand since the Acton Institute is funded by Exxon (and perhaps Koch Industries…I’m looking into that now), I understand your motive to find some climate denialists to trot out, so as to sow seeds of doubt. I’ll pray for your souls, and that you gain courage to stand up for a truth-driven agenda, rather than an agenda-driven “truth.”

    God is Truth. Praise be the Lord.

  • There’s a lot we seemingly agree about, but I fail to see how much of what you write here relates to my argument, either in this blog post or the related commentary.