Letters

946

Conservation Biology, Pages 946–947Volume 17, No. 4, August 2003

Spirituality and Sustainability

The December 2002 issue of

Conser-vation Biology

contains several arti-cles addressing spirituality and sus-

tainability, calling for, as David Orr(2002) puts it, a “spiritual renewal.”I commend the efforts of the con-tributing authors to foster a dialoguebetween scientific and spiritualviewpoints. While recognizing thedifference between spirituality andreligion ( McDaniel 2002 ), I wouldlike to offer a few additional insightson the latter.

In “Spirituality and Sustainability,”McDaniel (2002) asks, “Can theworld’s religions contribute to thisspiritual renewal” as called for by Orr?While McDaniel acknowledges thatpeople of various religious faiths willrecognize the elements of spiritualityOrr recommends, he nonetheless con-cludes that “religions in their funda-mentalist forms cannot help; they arepart of the problem, not part of thesolution.” Similarly, Orr (2002) statesthat the solution does not lie in re-turning to “some simplistic faith of anearlier time.” I suggest, however, thatbehind the various interpretations andreinterpretations of religion, funda-mentalist or otherwise, the ideas atthe heart of every major world reli-gion are the very values Orr suggests

we adopt: “wisdom, love, compassion,understanding, and empathy.” Further-more, it is the earliest, purest teachingsof each religion that contain thesemuch-needed values. Later interpre-tations and misapplications of manyreligions have complicated andskewed the original messages, some-times beyond recognition, as societieshave misused or misconstrued religionto further other cultural or politicalagendas. For example, religious move-ments that have acquired a reputationfor violence have broken with theirown earliest traditions, which at theirinception taught principles of love,peace, and harmony. We do not need

a new kind of religion in our pursuitof spiritual renewal; what we need isa renewed, correct understandingand application of the core ideas al-ready found in existing religions.

We must also bear in mind the dis-tinction between the religions them-selves and the cultures in which theyarise. We should not assume that vio-lent or destructive societies arise outof the teachings of the religions theyespouse. For example, we should notequate the teachings of Christ withWestern expansionist culture or theteachings of Mohammed with themilitancy of the Ottoman Empire, anymore than we equate the findings ofDarwin with oppression rationalizedby Social Darwinism. Religion per sedoes not cause violence, ethnic rivalry,scarcity, or environmental degrada-tion. People cause those problems,though they often wrongly claim re-ligion as an excuse to do so. Part ofthe problem is that even practitionersof religions often fail to distinguishbetween elements of their religion andelements of their culture. Thus, reli-gion becomes either an excuse or ascapegoat for blame for harmful ac-tions arising from cultural or politicalagendas. If the world’s peoples weretruly living according to the coreteachings of their respective religions,they would not perpetrate violencetoward other humans and they wouldrecognize the innate value of otherlife forms. Religion is not part of theproblem; people are the problem.

As an undergraduate, I attended aclass in which we participated in ahelpful exercise. The professor drew aline down the center of the chalk-board and asked the students to liston one side the essential, core beliefsof their religion and on the other sidethe “cultural trappings” often associ-ated with the religion but that werenot truly part of its doctrines. It was aneye-opening exercise to realizewhich elements of my culture had be-come intertwined with my religious

beliefs and which cultural practicesI could give up without violating thecore teachings of my religion. Perhapsit is overly optimistic to assume thatpeople are more willing to changecultural practices than religiousones, but perhaps getting them to rec-ognize the difference is a first step.

Once we recognize what is reli-gion and what is not, we can returnto McDaniel’s question: Can theworld’s religions help in our effortsto achieve the spiritual renewal nec-essary for sustainability? Not onlycan the world’s religions help, butwe cannot expect to make muchprogress toward spiritual renewaland sustainability without them. It ismuch more feasible (not to mentionefficient and cost-effective) to helpreligious peoples recognize in theirown traditions those values that—ifput into practice more fully—wouldlead to sustainability, rather than try-ing to convert everyone to somethingthey may perceive as new.

I challenge readers to find any reli-gion that, at its core and from its earli-est inception, teaches violence, hatred,or misuse of the Earth’s resources. Ifurther challenge adherents of the vari-ous religions to find, in the purest doc-trines and theologies of their owntraditions, principles and values thatwould contribute naturally to sustain-ability. If this is done honestly, layingaside culture or politics, we would beastonished at the positive contribu-tions the world’s religions could maketoward a sustainable future.

Alisse Garner

Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Uni-

versity of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844–1136, U.S.A.,email garn9434@uidaho.edu

Literature Cited

McDaniel, J. 2002. Spirituality and sustainabil-ity. Conservation Biology

16:

1461–1464.Orr, D. 2002. Four challenges of sustainabil-

ity. Conservation Biology

16:

1457–1460.

Letters

947

Conservation BiologyVolume 17, No. 4, August 2003

Alisse Garner is correct to say thatthe “traditional values” of manyworld religions, if practiced morefully, would lead to a more sustain-able world. This is not because thesevalues encourage the kind of respectfor the earth that is required in ourtime, but rather because they oftenpromote simple living, thus discour-aging the spirit of exploitation,rooted in greed, that permeates con-sumer culture. Long ago Paul Ehrlichpointed out that contemporary as-saults on the environment are theproduct of population, affluence,and problematic technologies. Theworld’s religions, at their best, callinto question the excesses of afflu-

ence. Thus, human societies wouldindeed become more sustainable ifthe overconsumers of the world—participants in affluent nations—de-cided to live more simply.

Even in their core teachings, how-ever, many of the classical religioustraditions fail to emphasize a senseof kinship with creation that is alsorequired for sustainable living. Someof these religions—especially thosethat are text-based rather than na-ture-based—overemphasize human-divine and human-human relations,at the expense of simultaneouslyemphasizing human embeddednessin a larger web of life. The goodnews, however, is that religions, likescience, evolve, and their inheritedcores are not the final word. Reli-

gions can embrace more Earth-sensi-tive teachings. The insights of con-servation biology, combined with aspirit of repentance and adventure,can help facilitate growth towardgreater respect for the earth thanthese religions have embodied in thepast. Even the essence of a religionis an essence-in-process, capable offresh adaptation to new situations.The requirements of sustainabilitycall for such adaptation in religionand a host of other human endeav-ors, including medicine, law, busi-ness, and perhaps science as well.

Jay McDaniel

Hendrix College, Conway, AK 72032, U.S.A.,email mcdaniel@mercury.hendrix.edu