he says that this becomes obvious when one looks at the debate over global warming. during this 90 minute event hosted by the independent institute, he is joined by steven hayward at the american enterprise institute and max stackhouse of the princeton theological seminary. >> hello, everybody. i am the director of research for the independent institute. for those of you who don't know us and it is a nonpartisan public research organization. every year we published many books. we publish a quarterly journal, the independent review. and we host forums like this one, both here and at our offices in oakland, california. our goal is to enlighten the public can better improve public debate and understanding of social and economic issues.

before we get our main event, i did just want to make it know. i wanted to congratulate mario vargas llosa of winning the nobel prize for literature. [applause] aside from the obvious merits of this pic, the the war of the end of the world is what my fear this is important to the astute for two reasons. first of all, mario has a deep understanding of the foundations of a free society. he is a classical liberal and a true scholar of what makes civil society possible. in addition, mario is the father of alvaro vargas llosa, who works here at the independent institute. he is the author of many independent institute books, including this one, liberty for latin america. he is generally an all around great guy.

he is busy fielding telephone calls on his own today, but he'll be back in the office tomorrow, so we're really very excited about this award. okay, today's form. today's forum is about an unusual topic. a number of people have made the argument that the environmental movement has aspects of a religion to it. michael crick then, the novelist once said that the environmental movement has been lost even come a state of grace when we have unity with nature, then as they fall from grace into a state of both literal and figurative pollution. of course this pollution was caused a result of the eating from the tree of knowledge. and of course, the environmental movement had a judgment day, which is coming for all of us. now, often critiques like this

are made from the perspective of economics, which is a seemingly rationalistic and secular alternative to environmentalism. but our first speaker today, robert nelson challenges the conventional perspective. economics argues nelson also makes -- also has theological oppositions about the nature of the good are now being an economist myself, i don't always agree with bob's argument, but they do sometimes make me a little bit uncomfortable. for example, for somebody who thinks of himself as i do, as a secular thinker, it can be a little disconcerting to find that i am often preaching the power of the invisible hand. so bob may ask me to write on that. that's right. that's right. there is certainly some connection there.

bob is a professor at the university of maryland. he is the author of the new holy wars, environmental religion versus environmental religion in contemporary america. this really is a superb book. it challenges both sides of the debate. and i'm also very pleased to note that the holy wars was recently awarded the 2010 eric hoffer grand prize award. hoffer, for those of you who don't know what the longshoreman philosopher, who spoke to true believers remains a classic in the study of religion and mass movements. we are joined -- bob is joined here today with two scholars who have thought deeply and critically about the nature of economics and religion. steven hayward is a fellow at the american enterprise institute, where he writes regularly about economics and environment. he is also an accomplished

historian. and i would venture in particular his magnificent two volume history, the age of reagan. we're also fortunate to have max stackhouse with us. max is professor emeritus at the princeton theological seminary and he is the general editor of the four volume god and globalization theories. in particular, he is the author of the fourth volume, which lays out what has been called a moral infrastructure for a worldwide civil society. so we're going to begin tonight with bob nelson followed by steve hayward and max stackhouse and then there will be an opportunity both for questions and debate among our panel and also for questions and debate and answers from our audience as well. bob. >> okay, while thank you very much. so far you are hearing my model, which is that when i tell an

economist that environmentalism is a religion, they all say well he got, it's kind of a no-brainer. they recognize there is some truth, but they are also a notice of the idea. it works the other way. if i tell an environmentalist that economics is a religion, it's a no-brainer. i mean, any number of environmentalists that it's out with said, obvious. but then at some of them they didn't realize i was saying the same thing about environmentalism. so they came in for a shock may be a few months later after they had endorsed my book. [laughter] and then discovered all the nasty things i hate that about -- will they weren't necessarily nasty. i talk about religion. some people use it in a perjured afford. it's my pejorative word for me. in fact, actually believe it's

sometimes hard for me to figure out. so, it's really a question, unlike most people and the social scientist, actually, you know, believe we can not have to have holy wars all the time, although we do things we somehow end up with this disconcertingly. the other thing i'll say is that this project -- and it is a project. i mean, i've been engaged in now for 20 years, looking at both economics and environmentalism as religion. it started out and it continues to have a very practical purpose, which is to understand the world. and i find that i can't understand the world and what is happening unless i incorporate a large religious element. i want to give a little example. you know, i see hundreds of

these every year -- maybe not every year, but doesn't every year. maybe even hundreds. this is from "the new york times," just the last few days. it's an article called green but still feeling guilty. and it's about a colorado couple and so, i'm going to read from the article briefly. it's about their. it goes on the renovated stairways made from reclaimed barn wood, the furniture is also made from recycled wood and steel. in fact, the coffee table is what that was reclaimed twice, having been salvaged from reclaimed wood that was being made into flooring. they use only natural cleaning products and are constantly drinking out of their protector, so there is no need for disposable water bottles. all their personal care products

are organic. and mr. dorfman's clothes are made from organic cotton and recycled materials. but then they confessed that they like disposable diapers and haven't been able to get over this. and this though has provoked the feeling, as they put it, not only do i feel guilt, i feel hypocritical. now i submit there is no way -- and this is not practically -- a set of practical measures to protect her preserve the environment in any way that anyone would reasonably understand. and this is a set of religious rituals. to me anyway, it seems transparently obvious. i think anyone else. now, it raises the question, what is the volition? and so come you have a lot of articles like this, but you don't have very many people who save what's the religion and where do these religion -- you

know, where did these rituals derived? what are the implicit kind of faith beliefs that lead you to feel that doing all this recycling and other things make you a morally better person and make you feel righteous or make you feel hypocritical when you violate one of these? and so, that's kind of what the project is about on the environmental side. i think economists don't have as many rituals, but they have other care with sticks and can't be explained by normal conventional, rational analysis. and now, i will say again, this severity been mentioned. it is a somewhat unusual book or maybe very unusual book. in fact, it doesn't seem to have any followers, which is a problem that i have. and because there's always somebody somebody who is nervous because most people are either

economists or environmentalists. and if they're little bit concerned that if they get in on the take care, the fire might be returned to them. and then how are they going to deal with it? but anyway, i was at the interior department actually, so this whole project actually came out of a very practical experience. i worked in the interior department 18 years from 1975 to 1993 and i observed the policymaking process. it was a very interesting experience. one of the things i noticed that it didn't fit any of the models produced what it taught me at graduate school or i was reading about in books that were derived from social science. i wasn't maximizing economic and essay. it wasn't even a conflict of interest. actually, it was of value, you know, or what the interior department was doing was taking actions that were symbolically

defining what american values were. cannot have more to do with a lot of the policymaking, especially things like wilderness or range which were low value than any normal economic or political consideration. and gradually it dawned on me, 30 years ago, that this was really religion. and so i didn't do anything for quite a while. i was a little intimidated to write about it myself. but eventually i got up my courage and wrote the book irritants of uranium. but anyway, the purpose of the whole thing was really in some sense to understand. and i claim, although i'm an expert at the interior department, but i claim the more looked around other areas, the more i felt in these areas as well, you know, we are looking

at fundamental value conflicts that people were comfortable with it. they didn't want to be fighting by religion. so they essentially masked all of their value convictions under a pseudoscientific, superficial presentation. if you actually probe a little bit, you know, the scientific explanation they offered, you basically found religion. but they didn't want to call it a religion, so they had to offer all of these disguises. so the book, "the new holy wars" is kind of like trying to reveal without all the superficial coats. and that's kind of what i've been doing is saying, if you get rid of this, what if they really believe? and so, it is also coming in

now, as i was saying, partly a reflection on the fact that, you know, i basically felt a lot of the models that i was using just weren't -- they weren't able to explain. so this led to the various books and so forth. now, getting to economics, in what sense -- what am i saying if i say economics is the religion? some people say you just need a metaphor and you just like to be provocative and you hope you'll sell more books if you call it a religion. but maybe that's in my concept. i don't know. but that's not what they think. and i mean, i mean that literally that economic is a religion. in one sense -- okay, basically derives from the fact that in economic progress, i would say has been a dominant religion of

the 20th century. and believing that basically economic progress can save the world and make for a vastly better place, leads ultimately to have been on earth. and actually professed economic system. i argue i don't have time to go through the peoples said these things, but if you read the book, you can find a number of these examples that this has been pervasive as the belief throughout at least the last 150 years. and then, if you believe the that economic progress can save the world, what will it be? it will be the people who know how to achieve economic progress. that is to say the priesthood will be economists. and so, what will a economists to? their efforts will be dedicated

to revealing the true workings of the economy and that's the path of maximum economic growth. and if you believe this will save the world, that economic knowledge is your new bicycle so to speak. the place where you go to learn how to perfect beings. when i talk about perfection through progress, its moral perfection as well as material perfection. okay, now what about environmentalism? was not exactly social science, but it's actually in a lot of ways similar to economics. it is a different set of high priests. they are biologists and ecologists. they also claim to scientific status and beneath that lies all these moral pre-suppositions. and so, environmentalism, like economics is also a product of social change. it is a product that will

perfect the earth, has its own moral standards and in many other ways functions like a secular religion. so they are both religions. however, they have very different perceptions of the world. and i think, for example, this is obviously a critical one of the relationship to human in nature and very different terms and with all kinds of policy implications. for economists, nature is quote -- we call it a natural resource. that means something we use to produce more, to increase human welfare, for the benefit of the economy. and it's essentially saying in the utilitarian sense. for environmentalists, maybe not all -- and i need to say that environmentalism is some people

would say the resources for the future, which is an organization dominated by economists is an environmental organization. they are pretty much exempt from every thing. and they are actually believers in the economic religion, but want to move religion shtick that her account. so their people like that, even quite a few. when you get to the distinctive contribution that environmentalism has made to contemporary debates, where they are introducing really new ideas and new values or as i would say a new religion, one of the main areas is this issue of how do we relate to nature? and for environmentalists, nature has what they call intrinsic value. and that is its outside human benefit. so we don't have to establish human benefit in order to value and protect one to do good things for nature.

for nature is seen in the words that creation is used throughout environmental discussions, as a place where we can go to learn. now, environmentalists don't always say god, but what they really mean is learned about the mind of god as it was manifested in the creation. that was not in the creation, but with pantheism, that creation was a product of divine design. so, if you think of things this way, it's going to be an immensely spiritual experience. you go into the wilderness, what you're doing? are actually encountering something creative and designed by god and is a reflection of mind of god, you're learning about that. and this is a very old way of thinking things in christianity goes back more than a thousand years. and so in fact, throughout the history of christianity, they've

talked about two ways of actually directly learning from god that will. one is by reading the book of the bible, direct divine revelation. but the other is by going into nature. and specially and some of the modern era, people believe nature is pretty much the original creation and hadn't been changed much. and so, it was seen as a revelation of god's thinking. now, of course we know now that we have darwin and all these other things, but i claim what environmentalists go to the wilderness, there's still perceiving and experiencing in this classical christian way although they would be confused actually. if u.s. environmentalists, why are you so spiritually affected by the wilderness if you're a

darwinian scientists, they really wouldn't be able to answer your question. so i claim for argue in the book and go to great lengths. i describe something in several chapters, which i call environmental creation. and this is something that's definitely not going to go over well with the environmental community. i argued there that are actually rather surprising affinities and connections between the way environmental see nature and the question sees nature. that is they both see it as essentially and directly aspiring to god's word it so i would argue that a lot of evolutionary biologist and so forth, who also are deeply spiritual environmentalists of suffering from kind of an internal schizophrenia and that they don't know how to exactly resolve. so anyway, this conflict which

manifests in itself and lots of other ways can often become embittered. it's remarkable how much difficulty of economists and environmentalists have talking to each other, how much even hatred they feel for each other at times. and it's like heritage. they are sinners in each other's presence. there's even a departmental philosopher for an article in a quite respect goal, and by rental journal called why environmentalists should hate economists. and that was the title of the article. and this is a professor at georgia tech or one of those two institutions. and so, we get then a whole host

of tensions and conflicts. i might mention that we have, for example, when it comes to send team like what are the symbolic -- what are the cathedrals of the religion? and this is something i read about in the book. and i would say that when people in the 20th century, especially the middle of the earlier first half of the 20th century, visited a. people would go -- i called and economic programs. and they would go and how they perceive it? they would perceive it and really religious terms as a symbol of progress.

the dam was controlling nature for the purpose of creating power, controlling flooding, providing all these benefit, which were all symbols of progress. when i worked at the interior department, they had about a mural set up unit in the 30s as part of the job generation. they were like big symbols that were always -- not always, but often a barred dam. and so, the soviet union actually it's kind of remarkable, they had dam to appear before a space world, we were in a dam world. and none of the dams were that good. they were a waste of money, but for filled with spiritual symbolic on both continents.

they said okay, so what happened to the view of the dam? will david brower, who was for many years the head of the sierra club is one of the leading environmentalists in the last part -- the second half of the 20th century. he said i hate all dams. so why? for him it was that it symbolized the same income as human control over nature. for him that was easy. and for him it was, you know, nature was innocent and definable. we had erased a part of god's creation if you want to put it in a more theological way. and so, it was an evil thing to do. on the other hand, what are the cathedrals of environmentalism? well, basically they are

wilderness. and so, what characterizes the wilderness area? basically is the minimal amount -- at the least amount of human contact. so, you are kind of, you know, your most worship sites are defined by the absence of the human presence. we see this just wilderness, but the international wildlife which is obviously become a huge symbol for the environmental movement. how is the arctic national wildlife characterize? it's one of the last untouched places on the earth. and so, if the absence of human impact, which allows us to go there and see the creation in its original form. release you might imagine it that way. that's probably not true. but you don't have to -- it's easy to get into the view was

thinking of it that way. so that is one of the many differences. so essentially you're seeing and some sons, just to wrap it up, and a lot more here, then condensing it very rapidly. i'm not good at time management, but i do know that i'm getting to the end. but a lot of it -- and mean, as some fundamental level it's kind of a verdict on what you might call the modern project of rationally directed economic progress, organization of society to maximize production. and economic health care, but not just because you like economic welfare. it represents conviction that the real source is evil and sin in the world has been in material scarcity. we see this in extreme form. and no, it's economic

deprivation or desperation. and that is what drives people to do that is. so if you have that type gnosis for the presence in the world, then you have a fairly straight forward word of salvation. a sickly you eliminate economic scarcity, which is again what marks this was all about. capitalism is actually necessary because it would lead to the elimination of scarcity and that would be heaven on earth. so, you move along and economic that you reject other explanations. what are the other explanations of evil in the world? one to beat the fall in the garden of eden. well, that is just an old death. so, you can reject that one. a more tempting one might be a genetic explanation. people are evil because of their

genes. and that one is obviously thought with danger. so people are not really going to go for the. i'm what is left basically that people are shaped by their exterior environments -- the most important part is economics if you want to perfect the road to perfect economic environment. what does environmental -- environmentalism say? is that we were much better off before all of this. and okay, what is modern efficiency got us? well, it got us the holocaust, for example, which was old-fashioned anti-semitism rate to modern economic efficiency. it got us atom bombs in the end. and so, the modern project of progress -- even economists have more doubts, but that basically is the object of environmental criticism. and you can see with rachel

carson and silent spring, which was the seminal book starting the environmental movement -- i mean until that are in the 50s, ddt had been considered a miracle drug of modern chemistry. and rachel carson camelot and said no, it's not true. all these modern chemicals and so forth were actually doing terrible things. we were chirped process, but it blinded us to the negative side in the negative sides are terrible and we have to get off. and so, that is where environmentalism has been coming from. and if you have these different perspectives -- a lot of people mix them together into a practical day to day thinking. but if you go to the previous who actually take a full logic of these things, you get completely clashing views of the

world and about what we should be doing in public policy in places like the interior department. and so the interior department, if it's economic religion we want to maximize progress and natural resources. we want to protect nature from obvious that things they have been doing, which as we know we can't get rid of all civilization, buouldt cry to minimize and restore it. the restoration, since we party went so much, restoration is one of the main parts of the environmental agenda. okay, i went over a little bit. [applause] ..

>> i may, i've got this sort of mess of notes here. i mean, i hate doing that because there's huge risk when that happens. but i do remember reading one of robert's early book bees on this subject -- books on this, almost 20 years ago. i remember reviewing it at the time and thinking, i'm not quite sure he's right about a lot of these things in the book, but, boy, he's on to manager really interesting. -- on to something really interesting. early marx and late marx, well, reaching for heaven on earth is early nelson and this is late nelson. [laughter] let me see if i can bring some order to my chaos like god and

creation in the following way. when i think about the subject of environmentalism as religion, i'm reminded of a time i was in london, oh, 15 years ago or more and flipping around the telly and catching one of those classic british comedy sketches, it's one of their sort of -- the runners they call it in the comedy business. it's the talk show where the guest was the lord jesus christ who had returned ferret second coming. -- for the second coming. the bbc host, tonight our guest is the lord jesus christ, welcome, mr. christ. he says to him, i suppose you'll be back to doing your usual miracles, healing the sick and the lame, turning water into wine and such. and jesus says, oh, yes, i assume so. of course, within the limits of sustainable development. [laughter] now, there's a bit of an ambiguity in that sketch. what exactly is being made fun of there? is it religion?

which is what parish comedy sketches -- british comedy sketches are usually making fun of. or is it environmental limb, or is it both? or is it not there in the way that comedy actually catches better than philosophy or socialism, they're not catching the denigration of religion overall. i think that joke works for both sides of robert's analysis here. because, you know, robert's first book set me back to something i sort of arrested me once 30 years ago now. it was a special issue of the public interest of 1980 where irving crystal wrote, and i'll quote him, theology has practically ceased to be a respectable form of intellectual activity. now, the context for this was this was a special interest of the public interest about the crisis in economic theory. you know, cast your mind back to 1980. everything wasn't working. the doctrine of economic progress had smashed against the wall, keynesianism didn't work.

today our economists, we don't have a lot of stock in them right now, do we? we've sort of lost that confidence. but, obviously, the unstated premise of what the comedy sketch or irving crystal's remark is religion is not quite respectable. why not? that's shot a mysterious -- not a mysterious subject. one thing that robert's explained in several of his works, including this one, the rise of economics as the technical deliverer of the idea of progress arises out of the whole project's faith that material forces would replace natural or divine law, that faith in progress replaces faith in providence and be economists replace the priests. and i think he was right to say that economics takes on a form of religion at least insofar as reason requires sort of, you know, reason with a capital r

requires, perhaps, as much of a leap of faith as religion does. i mean, this is something that post-modernists are on to. i sort of dislike post-modernism, but the skepticism about the idea of progress really began to gain traction at exactly the moment economics began to run into trouble in the late 1960s. i think that's roughly right. and robert repeats a lot of great quotes from, among others, keynes. keynes talking about how economic controversies, quote, resemble med evil -- mid evil -- usually when you say environmentalism is a religion, they take it as an insult. what robert's done is taken them seriously or taken the phenomenon seriously. a lot of threologists will

resist what you're saying about it's a religious creed. although a few, of course, will readily admit it, and there have been a lot of environmentalists who have embraced religion and religious analogies. so i guess you might say, by the way, that environmentalism -- like christianity -- has a lot of diversity in it. how many kinds of lutherans do we have? i've lost count. i think, by the way, it's sometimes a mistake to say the environmentalist movement. there are commonalities to all of them just as the commonality of christianity is thedivinity of christ, but then along the way you have all kinds of differences in styles of worship and emphasis in styles of baptism and so forth. environmentalists are like that, too, and i think we make a mistake both of critics of environmentalism and friends and people in between, in not paying attention to the distinctions that are to be made out there.

and one is between environmentalists who would make a wholesale rejection of religious character to environmentalism because they share the premise of sort of that premise that religion is not quite respectable. and then those environmentalists who are open to it, the ones who do talk about places being a sacred space in the fullness of that meaning. well, there's a couple of ways to slice this up, it seems to me, in addition to the way that robert has dope it. done it. you know, another way i sometimes have analyzed environmentalism, and especially i thought this about al gore's famous first book, "earth in the balance." it reminds me on a purely secular level of martin hide hideacre's theory that technology has separated mankind from nature and has alienated us from nature. is sort of the premise of existentialism. if you go back and read -- i'm

not sure it's better in original german, but in translation it's difficult, he talks about how written in the early '50s, you know, we rip coal out of the ground and burn it. throw pollution up into the area. air. and he's suggesting that d he doesn't quite use this word, but it's unnatural in a certain way. you can see a lot of environmental themes that make their reappearance, really quite dramatically, i think, in gore's book and other -- and, of course, he's an atheist. and he's skeptical of reason too. but very late in his life if you know the story of hideacre, a year or two before he died he gave an interview where he said we've reached such a desperate position of man being separated from nature that only a god can save us. so even he was open to a religious answer to this problem. if you can understand him at all which is problematic. but i think there's interesting stuff.

now, bob raised the point that i often talk about about environmentalists' hostility to economics. you mentioned david brower who was often called in that famous biography by fee, a pagan term, right? i don't know if you remember thisbo a full-page ad in "the new york times" in 993. full-page ads are like $50,000. the headline of the ad was, "economics is a form of brain damage." [laughter] qed, right? and be, you know, this thing was going on to say, please, president clinton, don't listen to these maniacs who want you to apply cost benefit tests to regulation. okay. the year before that the real earth summit hazel henderson said, come eco revolution, we're going to round up economists and send them to reeducation camps.

[laughter] so i want to say that i actually think that the real conflict -- i think, by the way, environmentalists have sort of gotten over that to some extent. my observation is very few mainstream environmentalists would say that kind of thing today. they more openly embrace, especially in this climate issue, the importance of thinking through policy choices although i often find their grasp of economics to be at about the kindergarten level. i think at the end of the day there's a much deeper conflict between conventional environmentalism or religious environmentalism and christianity. and bob hinted at a couple of the problems here, and i just want to deepen them a little bit, and then i'll stop. bob pointed at some of the similarities. you can make out similarities between, you know, the creation story, man being thrown out of the garden of eden for its sin which can find its rough parallel, i suppose, to the industrial revolution. there are any number of ways you

can think about it. but just as it's possible to make out marxism as a christian hearsy, it seems to me environmentalism is also a christian hearsy. for one thing bob mentioned this, but it just reemphasizes his point. there is a completely different view from christianity in the place of humankind in the hierarchy of nature. and let me restate that and say environmental religion essentially denies there is a hierarchy of nature. there is nothing distinctive about the human species over the other animals or over -- so they reject the idea of man's dominion over nature and responsibility of stewardship over nature. it may not be former galtarian, but here and there people will point to environmentalists who say things like -- these quotes are famous, right? the person who says if the contest between a bear and a human being, i'm not sure who

i'd root for. or the government biologist who wrote that article in the lang he's times reviewing bill mckibben's book on nature saying mankind is a plague on the planet and, you know, until we change our fundamental nature as a species, we can only hope for the right virus to come along, you know, to thin us out. that comes to the worst expressions of environmentalism and this hostility to humanity or at least a rejection of the idea that human beings have an exalted place below the angels, but above the animals that is explicit in christian theology. that makes the two religious approaches to thinking about our planet and creation fundamentally irreconcilable, i would suggest. it seems to me that's a harder conflict. as i say, i see some progress with environmentalists, baby steps at least in understanding economics is a tool they need to use because what is economics

study? resources, as you were saying. i'll just add this observation. oh, i've gone too long anyway. you mentioned resources for the future, and this is slightly off the topic, but resources for the future was founded by one of the original doomsayers of environmentalism in the 1940s. he wrote a book called our plunder planet which was first of the genre of we're all doomed. so it end up as a bunch of economists very much in the center of the political center resented by the doomsayers. if you talk to environmentalists, they don't resources of the future because they're those grubby economists who tell us things that cost more than they deliver are not worth doing and they hate hearing that. thanks very much. [applause] >> max bachus. >> well, i concur that this is a

magnificent volume, and it's very interesting reading, and i hope you all get copies. i've just done my christmas shopping, and i've got gifts for some of my best friends who are economists and ecologists. and it's this book. but what i want to do is outline the way i read it so the theologian and the thing i like about it is the multiuntil levels that it -- multiple levels that it covers. you could begin saying at one superficial level this book challenges the conflict between the producers and protectors, the producers and protectors. is that better? okay. and the producers, of course, want to transform natural resources and to meet human needs and wants. they want to overcome poverty, and today everyone talk abouts poverty, scarcity, it's the same problem. and they attribute all sorts of

evil to scarcity. i'm reminded of burn stein's west side story where the officer -- you know the song? krupke says what are you guys doing here, this gang, and what's the matter with you? he says, i'm depraved on account of i'm deprived. [laughter] and that's the account that many people give to the evils of the world. but some of the people who are working in the production side are actually attempt to provide jobs and fun project and create wealth for the commonwealth. and it's not all egoism and selfishness, though that's obviously present also. but that's, the constructive intent is in that school of thought. the other side is, of course, as we've heard to reverse the destruction of nature, to end pollution, stop disruption and

be extinction of species, to slow global warming and to save the earth from tech no mania. i love that word, technomania. it's from the early part of last century. and get rid of the artificial part of civilization as if civilization is not artificial. we can see this all over the place. you can see it in the battles. you remember the spotted owl in the lumber industry, and you remember more recently about the debates on drilling or nuclear power or, now, genetically-modified salmon and whether that should be done or not or whether to protect the wild fish from the genetically-engineered fish if we're going to have them at all. but they're not only causes that people have, these two moral sensitivities that people have,

it also covers their interests. so you've got causes and interests that are in debate between these two. but it's also an ideological problem about the relationship which is mentioned just a few minutes ago about the nature of humanity to the biophysical universe through technology. are we in nature, or are we over nature? we are both, but in what proportion? do we have some balance that needs to be struck or can be struck or if we give in to one side too much, are we -- is it impossible to fulfill the other side? now, this is, this debate, modern debate on this topic is prompted, i think, by a kind of social pack to have. the industrial -- factor. the industrial technological aspect to control nature has been enormously compounded in the last two centuries. and if you can do it, why not do it?

and if you can get some beneficial results, why, that seems to confirm the right to do it. it's also doubly compounded, now, by our recession where there's much less confidence in both the engineering capacities and the economic calculationing of its probabilities. and yet at the same time because of the joblessness, there's the pressure to grow the economy, enormous pressure. jobs, jobs, jobs. you've heard that, i suppose, in the last few months. [laughter] and then one way people say you have to grow jobs is to grow them green. grow green jobs. it's still growth, but that's not what the green advocates want in this case. it's also compounded bay factor that hasn't -- compounded by a factor that hasn't been mentioned, that's the growth of the nation state as the arbiter and promoter of this kind of thing, and that's a political development that means we've

got -- whether we want it or not -- more centralization of the policies of the east, if not the capitalization possibilities to either grow green or grow against green. and that has enormous political implications. i just thought i'd mention that since we're in washington. [laughter] but nelson's argument is, it's not only people's atranscribation of causes, it's not only the interests that they have, it's also political ideology. it's holy wars. and there's a religious factor here. and that's, that's what makes this interesting to someone who's a theologian. the people who hold these views, i think they're just and true, and they're people of conviction. and what is, what is a religioning? here's something that bob and i share among other things,

definition of religion. comprehensive world view held in part because you can't prove a world view. held to be true and just by which we ought to interpret reality and be to do what needs to be done to change reality. so it's interesting, the definition of religion you have both a descriptive reality and enormity of reality. what's going on and what ought to be going on, and how do you give warrant to that ought? and whether it has to have a metaphysical anchor or not o. some kind of a reference point that's tran seven cant to the way things are. now, these two perspectives purport to legitimacy of their holistic views which they say are holistic. in both their definition of reality and in their power, allocation of power to make the

odds effective. now, notice that there's no definition of god in either one of these kinds of religions that's been sketched out by bob. also -- first name? >> steve. >> steve. sorry, steve. first time i've met him, though i've read him. no mention of god. now, it's not necessary to have an idea of god in order to be religious, otherwise you'd be disqualifying parts of orthodox buddhism from this. but you've got to have a sense of transseven dance, and that's what's resistant in these particular religions. they are secular religions, and that's a contribution nelson has made to the vocabulary a secular religion. we thought we had one in marx, but it turned out not to be

religion at all, just false doctrine. [laughter] the truth of these secular religions is not based in revelation or in ancient wisdom as the eastern religion are. but it's, the claim is they are scientifically based as bob sketched out for us about how things work. science, you see, is value free. uh-huh. [laughter] value-free. well, they make normative judgments that are shot value-free. and that's part of the complexity of the two positions. that they talk about. that part of his work, by the way, is already evident in two earlier books, major writings of his. "reaching for heaven on earth" 1991, and a decade later. and now we have this book about to come out in 2010, a decade

later. these, these two previous books trace the development of these world views in the economics profession. but it has presumptions about what policy is and what policy ought to be followed that are not scientific, that are religiously held. these are identified as the dominant secular religion in bob's earlier books. in this one he focuses more on the economic -- environmental religion. and he adds this other kind of point, namely that the nation-state has become the adjudicator of what religion shall dominant and that we're tempted to try to develop an established religion, an established secular religion in these modes. at another level which has

already been hinted at by the previous speakers, secular religions are, in fact, dependent on major mow tiffs of the judeo-christian traditions. they also involve a notion of creation, a fall into sinfulness, a prospect for redemption or salvation, and they all view their own movement as a company of those who can be the agents of redemption. so as the socialists had the idea of the pro he proletariat e capitalists had the idea of industrialists or bourgeois classes, the environmentalists have the idea of naturalists. as this redeeming people. and they are all opposing each other in the economics model and trying to persuade public policy to bend against them. otherwise we're going to have hell on earth.

so they try to establish a theocratic regime without god. that's a good trick. a theocratic regime without god. but it would be bureaucratized, hire around call, a new holy roman empire. bob points out in one place that we had a reformation, maybe we need a new one. while devotees of the environmental religion oppose the economic faith and criticize the false claims of rationality, progress, so forth. another major theme, the roman church model, did not produce this. this is protestantism. it's -- think of max, the protestant spirit of capitalism, and he has some hints in something he's written, which he wrote a long time ago, that we have to protect the natural laws. now, this is, this is engendered

by protestant roots, but these two forms of secular religion borrow from that tradition, but hay do not have -- they do not have characteristic teachings, sovereign god, providence in spite of sin and a calling to do god's will in the world. they have that. they have that, but it's not god's will, it's natural will, i guess. and agency. but protestantism's influence in several stages, it's not only the protestant ethic of capitalism or technology, robert murden, by the way, technological and puritans and study of origins and that. but it also gets traced through the intellectual history, and this is one of the contributions of the volume. the intellectual history from john calvin to john locke to

john muir. [laughter] and that's a terribly intriguing chapter and i think a contribution in itself to understand our o american historical legacy. the this cluster of ideas now begins to string together and the different levels you can begin to see the interaction of the levels. and the book gets especially interesting for a theologian on this. and one of the questions that's been mentioned before but it has to do with creation and the definitions of creation, by the way, the dispute between the fundamentalist creationists and the new atheists, anti-theology, anti-threists, that's a boring discussion. i can't understand why it gets so much press. if i had to write a book on physics or chemistry at the level of understanding that these authors have of theology, i would be laughed out of the court.

it really is not a serious challenge to any serious view. but the idea of creation does have some resonances which are not picked up by either of these secular religions. if you use the word creation, you imply that there's a creator. and that's, that's something rather remarkable because that means there's a source and a norm for creation for the biophysical world that is not part of the natural world itself, but is now supra natural, is transcendent to the natural. and then you begin to look and see both the possibilities from economic behavior and progress and the possibilities of having, reducing the destruction of the environment because nature is a gift. and then you get the idea that it's not only a gift, but it's a

gift to be treasured, and it's an incomplete gift, a faulty gift because humanity is charged with the duties of having dominion. by the way, dominion's a very tricky word in theology. it comes from domi insurance company us -- dominus which means lord, and how you shall have dominion is to treat it the way the lord god would treat it, with loving care. it's not domination in that ordinary sense of it, an imperialist attitude toward it. but we are charged to develop the culture by tilling the fields and naming the beast, naming the beast means that you have a personal relationship to those creatures and that you have a capacity, also, to command them when they're disobedient the way god commands us. of but you've got to command the

beast, and so forth, under the watchful eye of the divine commander. that means you're under norms which you don't make up and don't construct yourself. that's the theological overtones of using the word creator. and humanity is created, too, with certain gifts; reason and will and affection, the capacities for these, of course, all of them can be misplaced and, therefore, we have sin manifest in all sorts of way. you cannot only have rationality, but you can have rationalization. you not only have will, you have willfulness. you not only have caring and love and affection, but you can put your loves in the wrong, undesirable objects, and those can be mixed and compounded in various ways. but they give us the capacity to follow something of what some calvinist theologians call the cultural mandate to create cultures that are caring in the

way that the lord cares for humans. well, the producer the world sees without god, nature as a resource for economic religion as we have heard. and they see technology as made possible essentially by an opposable thumb and a brain that was expanded by additional proteins. and they see progress and efficiency as providential, it's like the hidden hand of the economist and reward for obedience with failure is punishment, fall into poverty. they foresee the innovation that will cure disease, find new sources of energy, bioengineer the whole civilization, geoengineer the globe for, so it'll stop global warming, and that becomes then a manifestation from a three theol

standpoint of arrogance and pride not only giftedness. well, the preservers see nature as good creation with sinful humanity raping its beauty with ecological imperialism bringing apocalyptic possibilities and the end of the world. and we've heard about that a little more from bob. but this is not all that bob has argued. this is a glimpse of it, and what he's done is connect the dots between the levels so that one can see that you are dealing with a hoistic problem even if parties don't have holistic solutions yet. what shall we make of this contribution? well, i'm not sure sometimes. in the second reading, third reading whether to rejoice or lament. i rejoice because he's done this expose of the deep roots of the

conflicts, and that is a contribution to our moral and intellectual history. but i lament there's some unanswered questions, bob, and i'm going to ask you about this. what, when you come to your punchline that you're in favor of libertarian environmentalism, well, what does that mean? what is the role of government in libertarian environmentalism? i presume it means maximum freedom is possible and wise with grassroots care for the habitat. i'm all in favor of that. is that all you mean? that could be just a social adjustment that would try to deepen that. but you may have more in mind, and is it possible that you're wrong about fact that -- about the fact that the judeo-christian traditions are growing increasingly defunct?

they may just be covered up, and it may be possible to exhume them and reconstitute them, state them in contemporary terms in a way that is compelling. do you think they can ever become compelling to a contemporary audience? or is it, is the game up on that point? and is it, is it possible to have economic progress that is environmentally sensitive? is there some combination? it seems to me that it would require a larger religious vision than either one of these two secular religions have, and that would be the theological task, and i'm not sure that the current, present crop of theologians from whom i've just retired -- [laughter] are really up to that task. but the task, theology works over the generations, and it may be possible to nurture another generation. well, finally, this is a global

issue, and many of your examples and many of your treatment are, in fact, national. of course, you're working on national policy all the time and have a good excuse for that, but can your, can your answers begin to address the global issues? because the economic and the ecological don't respect national boundaries anymore, and yet we think still in national boundaries and the power of the nation-state a. the power of the nation-state itself is compromised by the global developments. so where can we go? now, i'm willing to wait another decade for your answer. [laughter] god willing. [laughter] but i want to say, again, congratulations. this is a magnificent contribution to all of our thinking. [applause]

>> okay. i think we have a microphone at the back which will come round. before we get there, though, maybe, bob, do you want to tell us what a libertarian environmentalism would look like? >> well, i'll just say briefly the the last chapter of the book. [laughter] and it's a little divorced from a lot of the other arguments, but i was trying to figure and say, well, okay, i've been doing all this by looking at these economics and environmentalism as religions, and so can i, as a result of all this analysis, can i say anything about how we ought to organize society? and i don't necessarily, wasn't necessarily the greatest solution, but it was the best i could do. and, you know, essentially, i guess one way to think about it was to think that maybe

libertarian environmentalism is like freedom of religion, and it's like this -- like protestantism. i come from a protestant background although you might not know it at times. but, so you could have a lot of different churches, and they could compete with each other, and each church can do its own thing, and it has to be protected from state interference. but if you were to translate that model to, you know, a political world and where states are geographic, it would be kind of, you know, a model where you can do, you can -- i'm not ready to tell people what they should believe. i mean, i'll probably never be ready to tell them. and so i see that in these matters of belief, the only thing -- and they are so fundamental, and people fight about them in that we don't really like, that doesn't work

very well. so we ought to let people give 'em a lot of freedom to believe, but only, you know, within their own community. and so i'm willing to, basically, say that a community -- this is a physical community with even its own government -- can be pretty, have very wide latitude to have it own religion if you want to call it that. but as long as you don't try to coerce other people, that would be, you know, something where we need a higher authority to make sure that doesn't happen. and the other thing is to say that everybody has to be guaranteed the right of exit. so if you have a community, you can't force people to stay. and some outside power won't come in and interfere if you try to do that. but beyond that it's a fairly minimal role. but you could have a, you could have a lot of theocracies, so

i'm not against theocracy. but just small theocracy. i don't want big theocracy. and so that's kind of a vision. but it's probably a little bit rough around the edges. [laughter] and, but it's a start. it bears some resemblance to robert nozic and be his idea of utopia. and he says, well, the idea of utopia there the past, there really is no utopia because we don't know what it is. but we can have multiple utopias. and so, actually, if you went back and read anarchy state and whatever -- what's the last name? liberty. yeah. anyway, yeah, it has some resemblance to that, but i'm sort of getting there from a lot of other analysis which is actually the heart of the book. >> okay, a question right at the back, and just wait for the microphone and then, please, here it comes.

>> lately there's been a lot of buzz in the media about two commercials against global warming. one has, it's a british video of people being executed, school children even, for opposing -- for not reducing their carbon emissions. it's on youtube. and the other one is called no pressure. the other one is a photograph of a girl with a noose around her neck standing on an iceberg that's melting. grievously offensive. so i'd like to know what your perspective is on that from a, from the -- your comments on the perspective that this is growing out of religion or a twisted version of a religion. >> yeah, i mean, obviously there is a certain sense -- well, maybe i'll get up -- in the environmental religion. if you actually pursue some of

the logic, it -- you recognize that in environment oralism what's basically good is natural and bad or evil is unnatural. but in environmentalism, people are unnatural. and so that means that people are evil. and so if you pursue this logic, it actually leads fairly directly, and i'm not by any means or even close to the first person to point this out. william cronin who might even consider himself an environmentalist has made the point 15 years ago that there's a certain perversity to thinking that human beings are unnatural but then defining good as natural and -- but you also find in environmentalism like david brower, he's one of my favorite people to quote but also dave

foreman. they both have said human beings are the cancer of the earth. and tom watson who was the founder of greenpeace, modified it slightly and said human beings are the aids of the earth. and so, now, you might say this is extreme and, of course, it is, and, of course, any sensible environmentalist would know even if people were sensible and they've already retracted it as i understand it. but there is a logic to it that actually you can get to the conclusion that the world -- the new utopia if it's not a people utopia is actually a world without people. and there's actually books now, you know? popular books. the new you toke yang literature -- utopian literature is a world without people. i think that's the title of the book. >> well, there's an organization out of oregon, the voluntary

human extinction movement. i thought their bumper sticker should be you first. [laughter] >> right. yeah. well, no, i mean, the moderates in this movement say that it will be done by just voluntary abstinence from having children. and so in 100 years we'll reach our goal. but anyway, so there is a certain sense. the thing about it is that the assumptions that get you there, you know, are embedded in mainstream environmental thinking. now, of course, they never pursue them to that level, and they wouldn't believe it. they'd be actually somewhat distressed, i'm sure, if they actually came to accept my analysis which is that their implicit assumption leads to that conclusion. if you actually are a philosopher and you rigorously follow the line of, you know, where those assumptions go. but i think most environmentalists i know are, actually, pretty nice people.

[laughter] i don't hate 'em personally. >> my one reservation on that? i've often said the problem with environmentalists and the left generally is they don't have a sense of humor. the no pressure adds proof that the problem is worse than we thought. >> thank you very much. i've pound all the comments very interesting -- found all the comments very interesting. i have not read the book, but this morning i read an article in the "wall street journal," quite interesting, on these 24 new nans they're going to put in the amazon tributaries in brazil. i lived five years in brazil. in the '60s and '70s they built huge dams with a lot of ecological damage and at the same time produced a lot of power. well, it's a very poor country, they need power. environmentalists don't like the other forms of power. i don't know, i mean, except for, i suppose, wind and things like that that don't make too much economic sense.

and the, in this case, the builders made dams that are smaller and have a different type of turbine to get more power out of it. the environmentalists have sort of opposed it but have been almost defeated by the fact that these are not such egregious violations of the environment. so my question to you is, and i could go on and tell you more of the details, maybe i haven't given enough, but does that represent a compromise between the economic religion and the environmental religion, what they are trying to do with these new dams? >> i mean, i'll take this out of cue also to respond to something that steve said which is that environmentalism is changing. and be -- i think my critique is really most appropriately directed at the environmental movement from, let's say, about 1970 to 1995, 2000.

and a lot of environmentalists are, you know -- and partly it's because of climate change. you just can't play in the climate change debate without becoming somewhat pragmatic and looking at energy systems and all these other things. and i actually notice this with my students. i teach environmental policy at the university of maryland, and i think the students that i'm getting right now who are -- they're all, basically, coming off the environmental cause. but they're more pragmatic. they're more as you were just suggesting. and a lot of it does -- they're

. >> is in a transitional stage. and so -- but i do think that criticisms such as the ones that i make in this book have played a modest, maybe more by other

people, have gotten more visibility, but have played at least a modest role. i think more environmentalists, now, are aware -- some of them, the honest ones -- are aware of some of these, you know, difficulties in the fact that some of their thinking leads to these theological dead ends and so forth. and so they're trying to work something out. and i don't know how it's going to play out. >> i'm a big fan of stuart brand's book which is called the ecopragmatist, that's a new book, so it's very good. we've got a question back here. >> are yes. john with competitive enterprise constitute and author of ecofreaks. it's good to see you, bob. your lectures enlightening as always. was wondering if you and other members of the panel could speak on the racism expressed historically by prominent environmental leaders. for instance, paul ehrlich

advocating and never taking back that all indian males be sterilized after their third child is born, charles worster allegedly saying that we don't have to worry about side effects of the ban on ddt because it will only harm, effect harmfully his quote, mexicans and negroes. and going back to john muir when he was calling, you know, american indians native americans ugly and a blight on the land. so with all the focus on the racism supposedly in the tea party, i'm wondering if they're looking for racism in the wrong movement? and it seems to me this could have some real policy effect because if you don't want a new housing development near you that has plaques and latinos, you can't express it openly, but you join an environmental movement that says we can't have this because this is urban sprawl, and we need smart growth, and it has the same effect of blocking housing for

the poor blacks and latinos. so if anyone could speak on that. >> i will say one thing about it. i don't actually think that most or it's a very small number of environmentalists who are overtly racist and, you know, with respect to black -- few, maybe. yeah, some of their solutions like population, you know, ehrlich and population control, hardin and other people, the thought that we had to impose coercive measures on the whole world. there is an element of racism that i've actually written about in the book multiple times. and that has to do with the idea of wilderness and the idea that when we go into wilderness, we're going into an area which is untouched by human hand. and it turns out that most areas in the world have actually been touched by human hand, by native indians, native americans.

they burned and they hunted and they did a lot of things, and they may have even, you know, wiped out the mega fauna. and so this whole vision that environmentalism offers of nature untouched by human hand, actually, it dismisses the whole presence of native people who massively altered many of their environments. and so as a fantasy, i mean, you could say, well, what are they doing? i mean, they either don't know anything about the reality of what happened out there which might be true in some cases, or they're implicitly dismissing the humanity of these native people and saying, well, even if they did change it, they don't count, and they're different, you know? they're not corrupt. or something. but anyway, it's putting them in a whole different category from your peen people -- european people. and so it's really only european people who can actually go out and alter the landscape and

thereby erase god's creation. and there isn't a strong, implicit racist element in that way of looking at things, but as i say, it's not really -- i wouldn't say it's racist against black people. it's racist in the treatment of any native population basically. >> i'll offer a comment. you know, john, i, i think it is mostly -- not wholly, but mostly a mistake to traffic in those dreadful and embarrassing quotes of those guys mostly because they're a bunch of has beens. i know they're all still alive, but i think it's better to talk about the distributional aspects of environmental policy as they play out in the real world which can be raced -- which is race-neutral on the surface, but i'll give you one example. ten years ago when i was still living in california and the state was still growing then, but, you know, california had some of the worst regulatory structures making new housing more expensive which meant it disproportion proportionally

affected the latino minority. so i said one day, you know, smart growth could be made out to stand for send mexicans across the river tomorrow, and they went per sec. you absolutely could not say that, how tear you. well, then, you know, tell me why i'm wrong about the distributional effects of your policy, and then they get incoherent, of course. you know, i've debated ehrlich, he's a has been, i think. i think it's much better when you're talking to him rather than, say, you know, what about this stupid thing you said 40 years ago which, by the way, i've gotten to acknowledge a couple of times he was wrong about, but i'd say how could you defend that today and why do you still think you are right today and just wrong on your timing? i think that works a whole lot better. once in a while those guys may deserve it, but just as we, i cry foul when people wring up something -- bring up something stupid trent lott said 20 or 30 years ago, i think we ought to be a little restrained in how we

retail some of that stuff. >> [inaudible] >> are -- no. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, but, you know, i mean, you know, i, i think thefy's had his come comeuppance. you say he's a has been, i think he's a bit of a laughing stock even among many environmentalists. by the way, do you know the matthew connolly book, "fatal misconception"? from harvard university press, and it's absolutely scathing of planned parenthood international. that's by mainstream academia. came out about two years ago. i mean, there is nothing left of these people at the end of that book, and that's why i say at the end of the day usually, you know, some competent science, the truth wins out on these things. so i just, i didn't say wholly wrong, i just say you want to be careful about that, i think, and judicious about it. that's all. >> go ahead.

>> can i -- am i on? >> yep. >> i think your question reveals something that we need to mention if you're going to talk about religion or especially a theological approach to religious, secular or sacred religious traditions. and that is that the judeo-christian tradition is deeply interested in this scruggs dis-- in justice and ecological and some of the economists are also interested in justice. but it's not constitutional in their we suppositions -- presuppositions whereas the judeo-christian religion may have dispute about what is fair, what is righteous and what -- who's included and so forth. but it's not generally a part of the discussion as i've read it in the ecologists and in the main line economists who adhere

to the religions that welcome back has outlined -- that bob has outlined. >> okay. and with that, if you'll join with me in thanking all of our speakers today. [applause] thank you all for coming. >> this event was hosted by the independent institute where robert nelson is a senior fellow. for more information visit independent.org. >> made for goodness is the name of the book, the well-known author, desmond tutu, along with his daughter who is here at the national press club author night. ms. tutu, what is this book about? >> i think most of what this book about, is about is the

essential quality of human beings is that we are good, our essential quality is our goodness. our behavior does not always bear out that essential quality, but it is my belief and my father's belief that our essential quality is goodness and everything else is an aberration. and we relate stories from both our lives. both of us are clergy, both of us are preachers. my father famously shared the truth -- chaired the truth in reconciliation commission, has been in all kinds of places where he has seen all kinds of grief and horror. i have seen the same kinds of grief and horror but on a more domestic scale if my role as a pastor. so i have a very clear sense of the pain that we can inflict from one another as human beings, but i also know that that is not the essence of our

being and that we respond with horror to what is horrific because horror is not the essence of our being. >> are you also a resident of south africa? >> i'm not. i'm actually a resident of alexandria, virginia. right across the bridge. >> how long have you lived to the states? >> oh, more than 20 years except that i'm only 23. so -- [laughter] >> do you miss, do you miss home? >> yes, i do. i miss home a lot, but in my role as the executive directer of the tutu student for prayer and pilgrimage, i get to go home at least once a year taking groups with me on pilgrimage. >> co-author of "made for goodness and why this makes all the difference." her co-author is the reverend desmond tutu. ..