A good portion of the rest of our lectures was dedicated to reef conservation and management. Most people mistakenly think of climate change solely in human terms. A few degrees difference won’t affect much, right? Sure melting icecaps could have an impact, but worst case scenario, some coastal cities just have to move further inland, right? Besides, the running joke in Michigan is that we could use a few extra degrees! Unfortunately, regardless of what is causing it, rising global temperatures are already taking a heavy toll on reef ecosystems around the world. A staggering 70% of the world’s coral reefs have been significantly damaged. The reason is that corals are much more sensitive to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon levels than are human beings. Most species rely on a symbiotic relationship with microscopic creatures called zooxanthellae. Atmospheric extremes, such as high temperatures and acidity, cause the corals to expel the zooxanthellae, which leads to “bleaching” and often death. This has an impact on fish communities, human tourism economies, and even terrestrial ecosystems through a sort of domino effect.
Since I laid the background for the whole “faith vs. science” discussion last post, I’m going to jump straight the application of it to this situation. The big question when it comes to conservation is this: how much stress can the system take before it collapses? The answer to this question determines the most reasonable course of action. I firmly believe that the scientific method (observation, natural explanation, prediction, experimentation) is the best tool that humanity has to find such an answer. Religious explanations for species diversity (i.e. Young-Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design) may or may not be “true,” but they are definitely not predictive. The theory of evolution is. In following the scientific method, it was observed that limited resources cause competition between species. The theory supposes the wins and losses of such competition add up over long-periods of time such that life adapts to slowly changing conditions. It predicts, among other things, that such adaptations can be observed, that certain species will be associated with certain conditions, and that rapid environmental shifts will be damaging to overall ecosystem health (i.e. more extinctions, less productivity, less life). Most experimentation supports these predictions. I won’t go into great detail here, but if you want specifics, just let me know J
The idea that the universe has a designer is (I believe) a wonderful religious principle, that I unashamedly, fully, 100%, completely agree with. It assures me and many others that life matters, that all people are worth loving, and that certain religious communities are contributing to a transcendent cause. Unfortunately, said principle is not particularly useful scientifically. Creationism gets you to step two, then just makes up its own rules as it goes along. The Bible and other religious texts are (some more than others) amazing resources for answering “why” questions, but they can’t, and frankly don’t need to, be used for “how” questions.
Speaking of “why” questions, how about this one: “Why should we attempt to conserve the natural environment?” First of all, the obvious: how would you like to live in a world without the many economic, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits of well-functioning ecosystems? You don’t have to believe all the doomsday predictions; just think about some of the experiences you have had with nature. Virtually all worldviews contains some sort of moral code related to the “Golden Rule.” Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you have the command to love your neighbor as yourself (as in sacrificially serve, as Christ did and does). Whether or not future generations count for this, I’m honestly not sure, but besides, poor people today are suffering from climate change more than you think. Middle-class white Americans aren’t going to starve to death if native crops stop growing, but peasants in developing countries might. As for the Old Testament command to “rule over every living creature” (Gen. 1:28), how exactly should we carry that out? Shouldn’t it be in the same way that God modeled leadership for us on the cross? What better way to obey God than to sacrifice short-term economic progress for the long-term well-being of the poor, the rest of creation, and future generations! Please understand that I am promoting this as one of many forms of willing obedience in response to God’s love for us, not a way to salvation or an excuse to judge people, Christian or otherwise.
Alright, back to coral (finally). The whole point of that long-winded explanation was to show why I think that science-based, active management of natural environment should be a major priority of people groups everywhere (churches, communities, cities, nations, etc.). Science shows us that the natural world is highly interconnected, and that human expansion and activity are causing it significant distress. Experiencing this wonderful continent has made the issue very real to me. The preservation of the Great Barrier Reef and other natural wonders is likely connected to carbon emissions. Take personal responsibility. Carpool or ride a bike to work/school. Consider environmental issues when voting. Plant some trees. If you have the resources, invest in renewable energy for your own personal use. Talk about these things with your family and friends. Just do something!
Alright, I think that wins “longest post award.” Hope it makes some sense. Please ask questions if you have them, and pass this along to anyone who might be interested. I recently “moved” to Townsville, which is four hours south of Cairns, where I will be completing an independent study project that has to do with coral reef conservation status and policy. I’ll post again in a week or two when I have a better idea of what that will look like. Thanks for reading!
enjoyed Kevin, thoroughly! thanks
ReplyDelete