“Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Gen. 1:28 is commonly known as "cultural mandate". At the time when the Torah was written, the norm was polytheistic nature worship, every mountain, every river, every forest had a reigning deity. Gen. 1 was a polemic to counter this pagan religion, it teaches that humans, made in God's image, are God's representatives to govern his creation, the earth is made for and to serve human, not the other way around. Celestial bodies and "great sea creatures" were common idols of worship, and they were specifically named as God's creation, subject to human domination. This is a traditional Jewish understanding of Gen. 1:28, an anthropocentric view.
The issue here is the extreme abuses of this verse, taking its literal meaning to justify reckless pillaging of natural environment, destruction of species and their habitats across the world. On one hand, "be fruitful and multiply", coupled with "salvation in childbearing" from 1 Tim. 2:15, is often quoted by natalists and misogynists to suppress women's right by reducing them to mere breeders, their only purpose is to bear as many kids as possible; on the other hand, "fill the earth and subdue it" is interpreted as a command and a prerogative to recklessly pillage the earth, extract as many resources as possible, hunt as many animals as possible, expand human habitats by bulldozing natural habitats, so that the earth can be "filled". This has been the pratice to support the rapid economic growth and population growth ever since the industrialization.
Naturally and logically, this arouses ire from ecologists, environmentalists and other activists who genuinely care about the wellbeing of the environment. They correctly pointed out that such economic model, relying on supposedly perpetual growth of both natural and human resources for exploitation, is simply not sustainable, neither population nor natural resources is infinite. Our job description is to steward the earth as its keeper, not ruining it, destruction of the earth is destruction of ourselves. Tragically, good intention paves the way to hell, environmentalism has been hijacked to the another extreme an anti-human narrative - the pagan religion of climate change, which has practically restored nature worship. And the irony is that Chritian theologies are incorporated, mother earth is god, carbon emission the original sin, "greedy capitalism" the devil, "minimalism" atonement, "green energy" salvation.
Aristote once taught that "virtue is the mean of two extremes, of which each is a vice", so the challenge here is to find a balanced view between these two extremes. I think this is very necessary and relevant. The climate change narrative has benn prevailing for half a century, now the anxiety over economic stagnation and declining birth rate has triggered a counter movement, which unfortunately pivots back to the first "expand and exploit" view.
Gen. 1:28 is commonly known as "cultural mandate". At the time when the Torah was written, the norm was polytheistic nature worship, every mountain, every river, every forest had a reigning deity. Gen. 1 was a polemic to counter this pagan religion, it teaches that humans, made in God's image, are God's representatives to govern his creation, the earth is made for and to serve human, not the other way around. Celestial bodies and "great sea creatures" were common idols of worship, and they were specifically named as God's creation, subject to human domination. This is a traditional Jewish understanding of Gen. 1:28, an anthropocentric view.
The issue here is the extreme abuses of this verse, taking its literal meaning to justify reckless pillaging of natural environment, destruction of species and their habitats across the world. On one hand, "be fruitful and multiply", coupled with "salvation in childbearing" from 1 Tim. 2:15, is often quoted by natalists and misogynists to suppress women's right by reducing them to mere breeders, their only purpose is to bear as many kids as possible; on the other hand, "fill the earth and subdue it" is interpreted as a command and a prerogative to recklessly pillage the earth, extract as many resources as possible, hunt as many animals as possible, expand human habitats by bulldozing natural habitats, so that the earth can be "filled". This has been the pratice to support the rapid economic growth and population growth ever since the industrialization.
Naturally and logically, this arouses ire from ecologists, environmentalists and other activists who genuinely care about the wellbeing of the environment. They correctly pointed out that such economic model, relying on supposedly perpetual growth of both natural and human resources for exploitation, is simply not sustainable, neither population nor natural resources is infinite. Our job description is to steward the earth as its keeper, not ruining it, destruction of the earth is destruction of ourselves. Tragically, good intention paves the way to hell, environmentalism has been hijacked to the another extreme an anti-human narrative - the pagan religion of climate change, which has practically restored nature worship. And the irony is that Chritian theologies are incorporated, mother earth is god, carbon emission the original sin, "greedy capitalism" the devil, "minimalism" atonement, "green energy" salvation.
Aristote once taught that "virtue is the mean of two extremes, of which each is a vice", so the challenge here is to find a balanced view between these two extremes. I think this is very necessary and relevant. The climate change narrative has benn prevailing for half a century, now the anxiety over economic stagnation and declining birth rate has triggered a counter movement, which unfortunately pivots back to the first "expand and exploit" view.
