Academic

Morriss & Cramer on Environmentalism as a Religion

By Lawrence Solum

Andrew P. Morriss and Benjamin D. Cramer (University of Illinois College of Law and Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Center for Business Law and Regulation) have posted Disestablishing Environmentalism on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The debate over environmental policy is increasingly conducted in language with strong religious overtones. Both proponents and opponents of various environmental policies appeal to religious doctrine to support their positions: Those who question human-caused global warming are labeled "heretics," while appeals for environmental "stewardship" echo Biblical texts. Religious groups play an important role in defining environmental policy issues, and both supporters and critics of specific environmental policy views have labeled particular sets of beliefs about the environment a "religion."

In this Article we engage in a thought experiment, arguing that there are valuable lessons to be learned from treating Environmentalism as if it were a religion and therefore subject to the First Amendment's prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion." In particular, the consideration of the economics of the Establishment Clause - perhaps better termed the economics of disestablishment - offers important insights into how to structure environmental policies in a way that can improve environmental quality.

And from the paper:

We propose the following six characteristics of Environmentalism.81 Not all?and perhaps not even many?people who label themselves ?environmentalists? in public opinion polls or casual conversation hold all the beliefs described here precisely as we have stated them, and complete agreement with the entire set is not a prerequisite to fitting our definition of a religious Environmentalist.82 But people who are leaders of environmental causes, including both intellectual and political leaders, often hold some or all of these beliefs83 and these themes run through much modern environmental writing?from the canonical 1960s ?scriptures? of Rachel Carson?s Silent Spring,84 Stewart Udall?s The Quiet Crisis,85 and Paul Ehrlich?s The Population Bomb,86 to more recent additions to the canon like Al Gore?s Earth in the Balance.87 These are:

1. Humanity has lost its spiritual connection to Nature, an alienation that needs to be reversed to allow humans to find their rightful place in the world.88

2. Humans have a responsibility to Nature that entitles nonhuman entities to a moral status comparable to that of humans.89

3. Nature was once undisturbed (Eden) but was ruined by human action (the Fall).90 Remaining ?pure? areas of Nature have a sacred status and altering them is sacrilegious.91

4. Correcting humans? relationship to Nature requires new ways of thinking,92 feeling,93 and acting,94 which must arise out of personal, transforming revelation.95

5. Human history on Earth is part of an apocalyptic narrative that links disaster to the sin or hubris of an ?overweening desire to control nature? and that contrasts with the ?idea of progress with its ascendant narratives of human victory over nature.?96

6. Environmental principles cannot be compromised because they come from a higher authority (Gaia, Nature, or elsewhere).97

Most importantly, these six characteristics meet our definition of a religion. They concern man?s relationship to supernatural forces beyond man?s control.101 They are a set of beliefs not ?limited by logic;? such elements as the apocalyptic narrative that has repeatedly proven wrong in its predictions of imminent doom (e.g., The Population Bomb102 and Limits to Growth103) and the idea of a moral duty owed to Nature are not logically derived postulates but are matters that must be accepted on faith. Indeed, much Environmental thinking today depends on a conception of Nature as a power outside man, which must be appeased by sacrifices of human material welfare (use less energy, emit less carbon, recycle). And it is from such appeals beyond logic that a degree of Environmentalism?s appeal comes: in Encounters with the Archdruid, John McPhee praised David Brower as effective because he was ?a visionary, an emotionalist in an age of dangerous reason.?104 Viewed in this light, Environmentalism looks like a religion.

This very provocative paper is highly recommended. I am not sure I understand how the six characteristics establish the "religious" character of environmentalism.  Morris & Cramer argue that the defining characteristic of religion is belief in the supernatural, but so far as I can tell, none of the characteristics entail such a commitment.  For example, the category of the "spiritual" (characteristic one) could be given a "supernatural" interpretation, but this is not necessarily the case: as "spiritual" can be interpreted as a natural capacity of humans to engage in contemplative activity.  Likewise, the idea that values come from a higher authority is not a supernatural belief, if the higher authority is conceived as a natural entity--and "Nature" would seem to qualify.  Of course, the work is being done by the natural/supernatural distinction, which would seem to require precise explication for the argument of the paper to go through.

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on April 08, 2009 (boomark / email).