Lynn White

1016 Words3 Pages

Since Lynn White’s paper “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis” was first published in 1967, it has been faced with a vast body of publications defending and scrutinizing its belief that Religion is a moving force in history and that Christianity caused ecological damage. In particular Elspeth Whitney’s paper “Lynn White, Eco theology, and History” raises several points that disagree and few that agree with White’s Belief. Starting with Whitney’s contention that non-Christian religions also contribute to ecological damage, followed by White’s questionable interpretation of Dominion in Genesis, and concluded with their agreement that religion as a whole is the source of environmental degradation.
Arising within the first few pages of Whitney’s paper is her contention that non-Christian religions can also do ecological damage and that Christianity did bring forth occidental culture characterized by capitalism, commercialism and this has an equal or even greater impact on environmental problems than medieval religion. Whitney’s argument is forward thinking and takes into account the economic boom of the 1990’s, something that White has failed to take into account. As a preamble to her argument she mentions that despite the secularist nature that the world is moving towards, Lynn continues to believe that medieval Christianity is still the main influence of our harsh attitude toward nature. White defends his point by mentioning the cause of Western technological “dynamism” as caused by medieval Christianity, stating that medieval Christianity creates an exploitative attitude toward nature. White uses tilling and its advancements during the medieval times to strengthen his point as follows; in order to increase efficiency of ...

... middle of paper ...

... agrees with White, the broadest extent. Religion acts as a moral compass for all of those who have faith regardless of the type of religion HELP***
“The Historical Roots of Our Ecological crisis” has been the spark of a long standing debate about the impact of religion on environmental degradation. Comparing White and Whitney’s respective essay’s brings together two different perspectives ultimately shaping ones opinion on this subject of matter. Conclusively I can say Whitney’s points are valid and interesting as they identify the crucial flaws that White fails to take into account. Unlike most response papers, Whitney’s agreements with White are superficial in the broadest sense. The points that contend White’s thesis are all points that I agree as they pertain to the generation that I live in and I can see where her ideas stem from in day to day life.

Open Document