Man in a Self-Sustaining World
Summer 2021
We know very little about the pre-Curse world beyond the Garden of Eden. Since Adam and Eve were to “dress” and “keep” the Garden (Genesis 2:15) it appears logical that the rest of the world would be able to exist without human intervention. Thanks to a few Scripture descriptions and a fossil record, the antediluvian world is a bit less obscure. But it seems safe to assume that it was also able to maintain itself without human intervention.
Our increasingly detailed observations of the present world present a variety of biomes. A biome is a large area of similar environmental conditions in which plants and animals co-exist. Examples include deserts, grasslands, tropical forests, pine forests, savannas, chaparrals, tundras, etc. Some ecologists include aquatic biomes like swamps, estuaries, lakes, rivers, coral reefs, and the like. Some scientists recognize eight biomes, others list dozens. While all biomes have plant and animal interactions with the environment, a primary commonality is that they do just fine without human intervention.
God made the world “very good” (Genesis 1:31). After Adam’s sin, God “cursed” the ground (Genesis 3:17). It still works—just not as well. Although sin results in today’s environmental “groaning” and “travailing” (Romans 8:22), natural biomes are still self-sustaining. The intricate inner workings of a self-sustaining biome is sometimes called the “balance of nature.” But, as one theologian put it, “The balance of nature we observe today is but a shadow of the perfection God originally created.”
The interactions between living and non-living things in an environment are not static. Biomes quickly deal with an overly wet year, a late cold spell, a mid-winter thaw. The occasional significant upset, like volcanic eruptions, major floods, and fires may appear to destroy the biome, but given time the area’s naturally occurring biome will return. After a major fire, for example, it may take decades and have several intermediary phases, but the forest will regrow and the animals will return. The process of a natural biome reestablishing itself is called ecological succession. Although it can be helped along, even major disruptions of a biome do not mandate human intervention. Ecological succession appears to be a natural process.
Kinds of Living Things
Ecologists generally group living things into two occupational groups: producers and consumers. Producers take non-living materials and “make food.” Plants and plant-like microorganisms use water, air, and light to carry on photosynthesis which provides their sustenance. They are producers. Consumers, like animals, fungi, and similar microorganisms “eat food.” All living things in a biome are either producers or consumers (with the exception of some microorganisms that can be both).
There is, however, another occupation an organism may have in an environment: a manager. A manager changes the environment to suit its needs. While a bird’s nest or a mole’s hole could be considered managerial changes, they are insignificant. No ecological succession needed. Beavers, however, are an example of a more significant ecological manager. They build dams. The trees and other vegetation in the flooded area die; land animals move out and aquatic organisms move in. Beavers maintain and extend their dams for generations, significantly changing the area for decades. In time, however, their work is abandoned. The dam falls apart, the stream returns, and ecological succession begins. This appears true of all ecological managers, with one possible exception: man.
The Ultimate Manager: Man
Since humans do not carry on photosynthesis, ecologically we are consumers. There are people who believe that man should only consume what the unmanaged world supplies. Plant no crops. Domesticate no animals. Humans should be what can be termed “ecological nibblers,” not managers. There have been groups that lived without managing the environment. Today there are people who hold that ecological nibbling should be the extent of human use of the environment. Generally these people have a pantheistic worldview (See Current, vol. 10, no. 2, Spring 2021).
There are Christians who hold that since Adam and Eve were “ecological nibblers,”
today we can help “usher in the Kingdom” and “do our part to reverse the curse” by becoming vegetarians, or better yet, vegans. Some assume that since this was man’s original diet, it must be the appropriate human diet.
Two considerations for these-well meaning Christians. First, attempting to be like Adam and Eve does not erase original sin nor an individual’s sins. Cleansing from sin is only available through Christ’s blood. Only the risen Savior can reverse sin’s curse of spiritual death. By creating a new heaven and a new earth and giving Christian’s new physical bodies, Christ will also remove the physical effects of the Curse. Just as only the sinless Christ could die to save our souls, only God can reverse the physical effects of the Curse. Changing one’s diet does neither.
Second, God gave humans instruction to eat meat. While most of us would probably be healthier by eating more fruits and vegetables, eliminating meat and animal products from our diet is not medically prudent, nor is it recommended in Scripture. While a person may choose to eat only certain things because he wants to, such a position is not supported in Scripture for physical or spiritual reasons (Genesis 9:3; 1 Corinthians 8:8).
Natural biomes only support so much “ecological nibbling.” This greatly limits the size of a nibbler’s population. God, however, instructs man to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” and to do this we are to “subdue” the physical world (Genesis 1:28-29). God places animals under man’s dominion (Genesis 9:1-7) and Scripture gives many examples of human use of animals for food and labor. Put in modern terms, these Divine instructions and examples indicate that humans are to be ecological managers to support population growth. The question becomes, “How should we subdue the various biomes of the earth?”
For centuries man was limited to what combined muscular strength and natural building materials (wood, stone, metals) could do. During this time many developed a “macho attitude” toward the environment. “It’s me against the elements. I have to force the land to feed, clothe, and shelter my family. It’s the sweat of my brow against those thorns and thistles.”
During most of human history our ecological managing was like the beaver’s pond. With much effort we could clear the forest, plant a crop, harvest it, and maintain the area as farmland for generations. Once we stopped farming the land, ecological succession would begin. It might take decades, but eventually the area would become forest again.
Succession rates vary. A stone pyramid in a desert may remain for centuries since few environmental factors are involved in ecological succession there. A stone pyramid in a tropical forest will go through ecological succession more rapidly because of what plants and animals can do to stone. The same holds true for the natural materials humans have used to manage in different biomes. But eventually, if man has used only natural materials, once he stops sweating in an area, ecological succession would begin.
Viewing ecological succession as a natural process, some people maintain that man can manage the environment but only in ways that succession can reclaim the area. Since this concept greatly limits what man can do to the environment, it is popular with pantheists and with some who hold an evolutionary worldview. Many of today’s “extreme environmentalists” hold to this, or a similar position. Some Christians buy into this position because they feel it “shows respect” for God’s creation. They claim this allows man to “use, but not abuse” the physical world—it can always go back to the way it was. While this may sound good, Scripture to back such a position appears to be lacking.
Managing Today
Today man can literally move mountains. In an area so significantly changed ecological succession may not reach the original biome. Would this be human ecological management gone too far? Is it wrong because natural ecological succession is hampered?
Fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and other man-made chemicals may increase the productivity of an area while decreasing the effort needed to produce it. Holding the macho attitude toward the environment, many saw victory using these tools, and embraced them as they became available; however, in the past many of these tools had significant harmful side effects on ecological succession. Sometimes the harm unintentionally spread to other biomes. While improved materials and methods have significantly reduced or eliminated many of these side effects, ecological succession may still be affected. Since harm can still happen, does that make using these tools wrong?
Biblical cities and buildings (e.g., Jerusalem and the Temple) were constructed of natural materials and would go through ecological succession if abandoned. Much of the materials used in modern cities and buildings would not go through normal ecological succession. Are modern cities wrong because they hamper ecological succession? In vain I have searched the Scriptures to find a passage that condemns man’s use of the physical world when ecological succession is affected. But does that make such practices acceptable?
Biblical Principles to Apply
The Bible repeatedly teaches that actions have consequences; we reap what we sow. Scripture admonishes us to make wise decisions and to seek wisdom when we don’t have it.
A hundred years ago a man who cleared a Canadian forest and planted banana trees would discover he had made an unwise decision—not because he cleared the forest, but because he planted something which would not bear fruit in Canada. No matter how much he enjoyed bananas, wisdom would dictate a different crop. Wheat would be a better choice. But which variety? Would barley be more productive? Or oats? Is canola a better choice for this field? Today the market value of these commodities could play into making a wise decision. With more knowledge and more choices, a wise decision is often harder to make.
In the past it was easy to understand and apply the macho attitude to ecological management, and with limitations on what one could do to the environment, even poor decisions were not of lasting ecological consequence. Today, however, the macho attitude is often unwise, and even determining what is wise is not always easy. Doing the wise thing may not be easy either.
More about making ecologically wise decisions, Lord willing, in the next article in this series.
William Pinkston