Theories of man and nature: a momentous battle?

What are the theories and philosophies that motivate the environmental movement, particularly its more radical fringe? Hugh Morgan, managing director of Western Mining, Australia, gave a few answers in a speech delivered to a conference on “mining and the environment” in Munster, Germany, in September, 1990. According to Morgan, the hard-line environmentalists are mounting an attack on the “foundations of our (the West’s) social order.” Linking these groups to “the socialists of yesterday,” he regards them “primarily as anti-capitalists, opponents of private property and private enterprise, rather than defenders of the environment.”

His argument is supported by quotes such as the following from Dr. Ted Traynor, senior lecturer in education at the University of New South Wales: “For a long time to come, our top national priority in countries like Australia should be to reduce the GNP as fast as possible.” And David Foreman, leader of the American “Earth First” movement, was quoted as saying: “I think gardening is a more violent activity than destroying a bulldozer.”

Morgan traces the guiding philosophy of our western industrialized society back to Hebrew and Greek doctrines concerning the relationship of man to na-ture. Teachings of early philosophers such as Aristotle and Protagoras, to say nothing of the Book of Genesis and later Christian thinkers, are that “man is given dominion over the animal creation and instructed to be fruitful and multiply, to replenish the earth and subdue it.”

Allied with this authority is the duty of care or stewardship which requires that “we look after our property and seek to enhance its value, even in our old age, because we wish to bequeath that property to our children and grandchildren.” Western civilizations and their mainstream environmental thinking are founded on these principles.

By contrast, Morgan attributes to the radical environmental movement beliefs by which “if man is required to worship trees, rocks, rivers, waterfalls, such things become incommensurable and it is sacrilegious to ascribe a financial value to a sacred thing, and improve, buy and sell it.”

Further, “environmentalism is the religion of the chattering classes,” Morgan adds. They are “intellectual elites who find in environmentalism an answer to their religious needs and demands, and it is these elites, in universities and schools, in the media, in government, who shape political agendas and define the language of political discourse.”

Morgan sees the struggle between these philosophies as a “momentous battle” where the mining industry finds itself in the front line, not only in Australia but internationally. He concludes that “the response to the environmentalists must be an international one.”

One might question whether Hugh Morgan’s analysis is universally applicable, but it has an element of truth and provides an interesting and stimulating viewpoint

Here in Canada, the strategy of the mining industry is to pursue sustainable development through improved performance combined with genuine dialogue with regulators and other groups in society, including environmental groups. By exercising the typically Canadian genius for compromise based on mutual respect, all parties to the debate must find a way toward a clean and healthy environment combined with a vigorous economy in which the mining industry has a legitimate and continuing place.