Modern lack of reverence for Nature and the development of instruments for large scale killing and exploiting have resulted in environmental crises. These two factors propelled by human greed are causing untold devastation.

Many environmentalists, like Arne Naess, Lynn White, and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, have lamented the role of the Protestant legacy in curbing current disasters.[1] The Christian majority, especially evangelical Protestantism, have been reluctant to endorse solutions to environmental issues that call for deep reverence for Nature. Thinking that veneration or worship of Nature might diminish the role of God, they’ve not been active in environmentalism until recent decades.[2]

In general, modern Christians have come to believe that “stewardship” of Nature does not necessarily mean extraordinary care for, but rather domination of Nature that sadly infers unrestricted exploitation. Thus, during the colonial era when European countries, whose sense of morality was influenced by Christian thinking, were in control of much of the world, the seeds of large-scale exploitation of Nature were sown and cultivated.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, social and political movements responded to greed and injustice within human society. But, in general, these movements, most of them materialistic and based on Marxist thinking, haven’t adequately addressed environmental issues. As a materialist, Marx didn’t accept the idea of soul or a higher power; humans came into existence accidentally like all other life forms, except they were fortunate in possessing the greatest intelligence; thus, humans themselves are gods of the universe.[3]

So, while such materialists, and some religious people, have been busy trying to rectify greed expressed among humans, they’ve been slow or ineffective in curbing greed when it affects Nature.

Ironically, some Christians have become materialists in thinking that their Lord has installed them as independent gods of the world.

Socialists primarily blame Capitalists for mismanagement and overconsumption. They equate Capitalism with greed and tend not to identify it as part of human nature.[4]

Many feminists have a similar perspective. They believe that by getting rid of the patriarchal system, this will improve humanity’s relationship with Nature. This view also fails to address the nature of greed.[5]

A couple of broad arguments may be made regarding the exploitation of Nature.

One such argument says that through techniques or technologies, humans can effectively reap the resources that Nature has to offer. And when a resource is exhausted, it’s possible to move to another, nearly unlimitedly. Or, it may be possible to coax more and more from the universe by clever exploitation, alternate energy sources, space colonization, and so on.

These greedy perspectives are assisted by science and technology, which of themselves don’t provide any moral check on such exploitation. For example, a company can develop a machine to cut down a forest, and nothing in science prevents the company from doing so.

When scientists and technologists invent things like cars and medicine, which have dangerous effects on humans, legislators are quick to enact laws. However, when the effect is to the advantage of humans but abusive toward Nature, the movement is much slower.

Another argument regarding the exploitation of Nature, the one made here and based on the Bhagavad Gita, is that humans must recognize the soul in all beings. It’s the life force, or soul, that animates everything, including even the universe. By seeing that all living beings are equal souls, one may become reluctant to kill or exploit another. This view is essential, but not adequate in itself. Most important is that humans must see that higher powers supply everything, and without acknowledging them, humans are stealing from them.[6]

Science and Technology

James Gustave Speth, Law Professor and Environmental Advocate, said: “I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and climate change. I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address those problems. But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed, and apathy… …and to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”[7]

In fact, it could be argued that science and technology are accomplices, or if not accomplices, they’re accessories, in the crimes against Nature. Of course, a system of knowledge can’t be put on trial for crimes.

However, as an example, the promoters of doctrines like totalitarianism and racism have proven violent and irresponsible. These doctrines have precipitated so much destruction among humans that they’re viewed by most intelligent people with much disfavor.

Why, then, should a system of knowledge like modern science not be viewed with equal distrust when its adherents have been accessories to so much destruction in the world? And still, like an addiction, the followers of so-called science are so foolish as to say that their brand of knowledge will solve the same problems they’ve created.

In 1690, in his “Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” John Locke, one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers, wisely defined science as having three components: (1) the nature of things; (2) human responsibility; and (3) the means for discovering and teaching the first two. It should be emphasized that he says true science includes human responsibility.[8]

Unfortunately, science has evolved into something much different. As an example, followers of modern “pure science” would say that developing an atomic bomb is purely within the realm of science. But the opinion of a scientist like Einstein that the bomb should not be used is not considered pure science. Such an opinion is judged to be in the realm of politics and may be overridden by a politician, in this case, Truman. This is just an example of the fanaticism of the followers of science. They eliminate Locke’s second principle of science, human responsibility, which Krishna calls dharma.

Certainly, there are fields like philosophy of science and science of morality that discuss the issue of human responsibility. However, these are toothless discussions. The world burns, and they talk about the morality of it.

Thus, science, as it’s practiced today, cannot solve the devastation that science and technology have caused. This is because such so-called science has eliminated human responsibility or relegated it to a field that’s not considered “pure” science.

Krishna says that those who abandon dharma—that is, human responsibility—have no power of discrimination and their work is unbeneficial; it ends in destruction.[9]

Unfortunately, the interpretation of human responsibility is left to politicians and businesspeople. And both groups are proven to be predominantly motivated by power and money—that is, greed.

What Are the Solutions

The most attention-getting solutions to environmental problems are based on modern science. These remedies feed into economic and political considerations.

Internationally, there are nearly one hundred treaties that countries around the world have signed, some with global impact and some local, that concern the environment. They cover many practical areas—climate change, pollution, fishing constraints, biodiversity, animal conservation, waste treatment, and so on.[10]

These constraints tend to be science-based and organized by economists, lawyers, environmentalists, politicians, and others. And such agreements are essential for addressing the issues. They are the solutions that carry the most weight at present.

However, scientists, economists, and politicians can’t truly address the issue of greed, which is the infection that causes humanity’s feverish consumption of Nature’s resources.

Krishna teaches that the gifts we have taken from Nature are offered to us by the higher powers. To enjoy them selfishly outside of a relationship with the higher powers amounts to stealing from them. He endorses sacrifice, which is the timeless method of maintaining such a relationship. One becomes free from the suffering caused by greed through sacrifice and by accepting Nature’s resources as they were intended—gifts to supply the simple necessities of life.[11]

The way to check greed then, is to counter it with a force that is equal to or greater than the one it exerts. That force is based on active veneration of Nature. The force of such veneration can’t be developed solely through education. It requires implementation in action.

Religions and political ideologies tend to preach that one shouldn’t be greedy. However, they fail to properly analyze the mechanics of greed—that is, what causes it and how it acts. Then, from that analysis, a practical plan for overcoming it may be implemented. Krishna explains that we are slaves to the body. Our bodily desires are the cause of greed, and the method for overcoming it is sacrifice, described below.

Limiting greed through preaching or by legislation, for example, by the environmental treaties mentioned above, is not sufficient. Intense desire and greed can’t be overcome by restriction alone. There must be incentive.

Surprisingly, the incentive—the force—that can stop greed is enjoyment. Greed is fueled by the wrong kind of enjoyment. Thus, the goal is to take away the wrong enjoyment, and in its place, unleash a non-exploitative, unselfish enjoyment that is more powerful than greed.

That enjoyment comes from the power of love in the relationship with those who supply Nature’s resources. Humans are addicted to the gifts they get from the gods, but their greed for them causes suffering and destruction. This is because they’re abusing the relationship offered by the gods. Affection and relationship are the most substantial and important things in life, so to abuse them understandably causes suffering.

For example, if a friend, relative, or lover offers a gift, such an offering represents the relationship and it requires reciprocation. In fact, mature reciprocation is characterized by genuine affection.

Only childish and selfish behavior considers that gifts are for individual enjoyment and nothing more.

Krishna teaches that sacrifice is the vehicle in which one acknowledges that the gods are the providers of everything. Sacrifice is the exchange humans make with those who supply Nature’s gifts. Through that exchange, affection and gratitude may be reciprocated. It’s enjoyable. And there is no greater power than such affection. It has the ability to counter greed.[12]

Click to download a pamphlet on Cultural Change

[1] History of Christianity and the environment: https://goo.gl/ByZYWB / https://goo.gl/D6a9kx (Many environmentalists like Arne Naess, Lynn White, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, and have lamented the role of the Protestant legacy; Faith in Conservation, Palmer– https://goo.gl/QpqgTk

[2] “An analysis of resolutions and campaigns by evangelicals over the past 40 years shows that anti-environmentalism within conservative Christianity stems from fears that ‘stewardship’ of God’s creation is drifting toward neo-pagan nature worship, and from apocalyptic beliefs about ‘end times’” https://goo.gl/GQvFbS

[3] Marx on religion: https://goo.gl/n3QTcu

[4] “Capitalism, Nature, Socialism: A Theoretical Introduction” by James O’Connor: https://goo.gl/1sB51u

[5] On Ecofeminism: https://goo.gl/tq1KN2

[6] BG: 7.5, 5.18, 3.12

[7] Speth: https://goo.gl/WTJkn6

[8] Locke: Essay, Book 4, Chapter One, 1823/1963, p. 174: https://goo.gl/uF3V3Y

[9] BG 16.7-9

[10] Environmental Treaties: https://goo.gl/Jpi6Pq

[11] BG 9-12; Sri Isopanishad, Mantra 1

[12] BG 3.9-17, 9.2; 18.54; Sri Sri Siksastakam 1: https://goo.gl/zFsGdC