On Seeing Some Fine Burr Oaks Destroyed to Make Room for a Subdivision in Wisconsin

A tree, of all the plants, most resembles man. From this arises, I believe, our love and sympathy for it. The tree has a head and limbs; it stands and labors upon the earth, and is sustained by a root that it places as deeply into its ground as it can. It is an altruist that gives its fruit, its shade, and finally its life, to sustain and beautify ours. It is helpless and silent in the face of its killers. Its lifespan is roughly that of a man, so that the greater trees, planted in a man’s infancy, are mature, at the height of their own beauty, when his own years are told. 

People of normal sensibility intuit a kinship with trees, understand their poetic representation as persons and their identification with the both the greater and lesser gods. They feel sadness, often justifiably intense, when a fine tree is cut down or lost, even when they reasonably understand that all living things must die, and that trees must be sacrificed for human good. It is why they are angered when brutish little men with shrunken souls, intent on gain and blind to beauty, take the lives of trees unnecessarily, or with the same apparent pleasure that the murderer takes in mankilling. 

Let us be clear about these things: Belief in God is manifest in proportional love for his creatures, all of which speak of him. Man is the greatest of our creature loves, for he is made in the image of God, but the tree is the plant made in the image of man, and carries in that image a high measure of his dignity and sanctity. While we must take care not to accord it more than its due, or forget that it is made not only for our admiration, but our use, neither must we give it less, or fail to see in it the glory which belongs to it as the greatest of its kind. 

Comments

[Daniel C.]

"People of normal sensibility intuit a kinship with trees, understand their poetic representation as persons and their identification with the both the greater and lesser gods. They feel sadness, often justifiably intense, when a fine tree is cut down or lost, even when they reasonably understand that all living things must die, and that trees must be sacrificed for human good. It is why they are angered when brutish little men with shrunken souls, intent on gain and blind to beauty, take the lives of trees unnecessarily, or with the same apparent pleasure that the murderer takes in mankilling."

Very poetic, very articulate - and exactly what I would expect from Greenpeace or Earth First environmental terrorists who feels justified killing loggers and burning down these developments. "Brutish little men with shrunken souls, intent on gain and blind to beauty"?!? Taking the same kind of pleasure "that the murderer takes in mankilling"?!?

Are we suffering from just a little bit of NIMBY-ism here? "Don't you dare cut down the trees around me. Go build your accursed development somewhere else, but leave my beautiful trees alone, you brutish little man."

Some perspective, please.

[Judy Warner]

I love trees and have planted many in my life, including fruit trees, nut trees, dogwoods, maples, and a grove of Leyland cypresses that is now blocking my view of the mountain beyond.

But trees can also be taken with love. If you've ever seen a carpenter who loves the wood he works with, you know what I mean. When I was having my dulcimer made, the craftsman who was building it showed me the woods I could choose from, and knew each one and what it was like. He had a great love of the material in which he worked. We would not treat a human being like this, but it is right to treat trees thusly.

[Daniel C.]

God forbid that Man should be fruitful and multiply and require a home to live in.

[Beth]

Steve, this is a lovely piece; thank you for it. I'm posting the link for my half-dozen Inscapes readers, who will appreciate it greatly.

Beth

[Steve Nicoloso]

Did hobbits cut down trees? Certainly. So did Saruman. Does this therefore make the two practices morally equivalent? No. The hobbits' practice and that of Saruman could not be more mutually antithetical.

[Steve Nicoloso]

God forbid that man should be only marginally fruitful, produce only 1 or 2 children, and yet require 3500 ft^2 of living space and 1.2 acres of green biopavement.

[Stuart Koehl]

Revently I had the interesting experience of sitting in on zoning hearings for our new church. The County Planning Commission gave us grief because we would have to fell about half a dozen mature trees to make room for our new building. In the end, they actually made us move the building to a much less convenient site on our property. Then, driving home from the hearing, I passed by a place where about 200 acres of pristine forest had been stripped bare to make room for several hundred "town homes of special architectural distinction from the low 400's", or as I call it, "fungus housing".

Why no problem about cutting thousands of mature trees for town homes (or, as we called them where I grew up, tenements and row houses), while having kiniptions about the cutting of six trees to make room for a church. Two words, my friends--property taxes. The revenue generated by 400 town homes would come to about $4 million. The revenue generated by a church: $0. One has to keep ecology in its proper perspective.

[Ethan Cordray]

You could have offered to just build the church around the trees. Man, that would be so groovy!

[Bobby Winters]

Burr Oaks! This were prime trees for squirrel hunting when I was a lad. My dad was a dead-eye shot with a 22.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You could have offered to just build the church around the trees. Man, that would be so groovy!<<<

Totally, dude! Like, we could have used the trunks to support the iconostasis.

More interesting facts from the hearing: they objected to the height of our building (two stories, plus cupola, dome and cross), even after we pointed out that the building being erected across the street would be significantly taller. Sorry, they said, but we can't have a cross visible from all over the subdivision. So, we lowered the dome by 6" and made the cross 6" shorter (total one foot reduction). That was OK by them. Apparently, the purpose of the exercise was to jerk our chain.

They also made us put a berm around the walk-in basement of our church, which precludes having a door and full windows for the classrooms under the church. That they created a fire hazard didn't cut any ice with them.

Finally, they tried to keep us from having a drop-off point in front of the church, despite the needs of handicapped parishoners, to say nothing of the need to bring a hearse up to the front doors for funerals. In the end, we drew a line in the sand on that, and they gave us an easement. But basically, we got hosed because the county doesn't like churches. Period.

My own inclination was to say, "See ya in court", because there were plenty of legal foundations willing to take up the case pro bono. But our priest is rather risk averse. I think if he was starting over, he would do things differently.

[Brian John Schuettler]

As a last resort, there is always arbors anonymous.

[Daniel C.]

Maybe I should get hair implants on my feet and run around without shoes. After all, Hobbits didn't need them, so why should I? Please. I'm supposed to sit down and ask myself, "What would Frodo do?" when I want to develop my land? I don't think so.

"God forbid that man should be only marginally fruitful, produce only 1 or 2 children, and yet require 3500 ft^2 of living space and 1.2 acres of green biopavement." So now we're setting ourselves up to decide exactly how much square footage people are going to get when they want a home? "Let's see... You have 1 child - you get 1000 sq.ft. You have 2 children - you get 2000 sq.ft. ... You, who have no children, get the Projects."

Oh, toss it all. Let's all start building our homes with mud bricks. But then we'd have to worry about the little creatures who depend on that mud, and the precious wetlands where the mud has resided for years and years. We can't do anything to harm that pristine environmnet. Besides, where would all the ducks and geese go if we strip mined that mud for bricks?

Forget the mud brick idea. Let's just stop reproducing and allow the animals take back the land from the parasite called humanity. Oh, wait... we've done the former. I guess it's just a matter of time before the latter occurs.

How's that for a solution?

Wait, wait, wait. Instead of living in holes like hobbits or mud brick homes, let us adopt the ELF's moto: "If You Build It We Will Burn It." Of course, that won't bring back the trees that get cut down, but it will feed our self-righteous outrage and cost the developers and homeowners even that much more money. BWA HA HA HA.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Very poetic, very articulate - and exactly what I would expect from Greenpeace or Earth First environmental terrorists who feels justified killing loggers and burning down these developments.

Daniel, this reaction exemplifies, in better words that I could give, the trouble we Christians find ourselves in America with the battle lines drawn in our two-party system. Many of us feel morally compelled to vote for conservative candidates do to their opponents' policies on life and marriage - and even religious freedom. But we must be always vigilant, in making a necessary alliance, that we do not allow groupthink or reactionism to cloud our faith.

Take the issue of the war in Iraq. Many people frame the debate in terms of pacifism - war is always wrong and never justifiable. I stand in the Christian just war tradition and completely disagree with this statement. So naturally I hop on the side of the people who respond that war can be just and is indeed necessary. I am following my convictions...and yet I forgot to ask the most important question of all - whether the war in Iraq in fact meets the high Christian standard for a just war (which it may or may not). Polarization has deceived me into thinking that, since I disagree with the right people, I must be right.

So with you and Mr. Hutchens. Because you rightly stand against Greenpeace and environmental terrorists, you assume there are only two ways of coming at the issue.

But is this how scripture deals with the issue of land? We read of creation groaning for the wise and kind rule of the sons of God (when they will clap their hands with joy). We read of God and man's vocation as "gardener". We read of trees symbolizing the blessing of God - and the life of Israel. We hear the Lord forbid his people of cutting down the flora in war - since the poor things can't run away. We read his command to have the land return to its original owners in the year of Jubilee - reinstating that we are caretakers and not owners of the plot we are blessed to reside on. We see our Lord stretched out on the wood of that rugged tree for our redemption. And, finally, we see the fruit of the tree of life promised to the redeemed people of God in the new creation.

I ask you, based on that picture that emerges from scripture, and not simple party-line thinking, how is Mr. Hutchen's sentiment anything but deeply Christian?

[Steve Nicoloso]

Daniel, you are arguing with an absurd parody of my position (and Hutchens' position) here. Needless to say, you knocked the straw right out of it. You need to decide whether you are a conservative or a libertarian. If you think those impulses are mostly sympathetic, then you haven't given them much thought. Perhaps about as much as you've given to the Lord of the Rings.

[Bill R]

Stuart, you sound a bit(ahem)tree-d off...

"I ask you, based on that picture that emerges from scripture, and not simple party-line thinking, how is Mr. Hutchen's sentiment anything but deeply Christian?"

Eloquently put, WFO.

[Nick]

Great article and I totally agree with "Wonder's" and Steve Nicoloso's comments. We are given the picture of Christians as care takers of the world. There's nothing at all wrong with feeling sad for a tree. In fact, its a good feeling to have. You should feel like your sacrificing something when you build a house. We should feel responsible for our impact.

This is not the same as namby-pamby. Namby-pamby would be sitting in front of the tree naked without a house. There is a real and important difference. One leads to idiocy while the other leads to the sort of good stewardship for which we are called.

As an aside, does anyone know of a church that incorporates living trees in the architecture? I'd love to see it. I imagine, if done tastefully, it could be beautiful.

[JackONeill]

We had a fine old Rock Elm in the back yard of the house we moved out of last year. The tree was on the border of our lot and the neighbor's, half in each lot, and the neighbor was enlarging his garage. His contractor said that cutting all the roots he would have to cut would probably kill the tree, so it would be prudent to remove it before starting work on the garage. I had been mildly resisting moving, but after we decided to cut the tree down, I didn't much care.

[Bill R]

"As an aside, does anyone know of a church that incorporates living trees in the architecture? I'd love to see it. I imagine, if done tastefully, it could be beautiful."

Something close. This is Wayfarer's Chapel in the Los Angeles area, located on property belonging to my wife's family, and just a few miles from my house. It was designed by Lloyd Wright, Frank's son: http://www.wayfarerschapel.org/wayfarers/w_photo.html

[Daniel C.]

Everyone seems to be glossing right by Hutchens very uncharitable description of the developers as "brutish little men with shrunken souls" and equating them with murderers for cutting down trees.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Everyone seems to be glossing right by Hutchens very uncharitable description of the developers as "brutish little men with shrunken souls" and equating them with murderers for cutting down trees.<<<

Ever have lunch with a developer?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Stuart,

We may actually have developers reading this blog. Tread carefully - we must not heap upon all their heads the damnation deserved by only some...

[kate]

Hutchens does not even mention developers in his thoughtful comment. It is Daniel C. who has assumed that Hutchens is tarring all developers. Only those who are "brutish little men with shrunken souls" need be offended.

Daniel C.'s touchiness is out of proportion to Hutchens' comment.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We may actually have developers reading this blog. Tread carefully - we must not heap upon all their heads the damnation deserved by only some...<<<

To paraphrase Chrysostom, "I fear that not many developers may be saved".

[Annie]

Yes, I think trees are a peculiarly manlike part of creation, and like man they grow, bloom, and die. When my grandfather built our house in 1951, he planted four ash trees in the front yard. Ash don't live very long, and alas, now in my college years all of my childhood trees have slowly died and been cut down to prevent them from falling onto the house. I have cried steady buckets when I'm in a sentimental mood, thinking of my precious trees, particularly the one that held my tire-swing. We live on the edge of an expanse of forest, and I dearly love those trees as well, but the ash were single trees, well-placed to flank the house and driveway. The last of the ash trees was felled just recently in December, and we are planning on planting more.

[Judy Warner]

Who built the houses y'all live in if it wasn't developers?

[Georg]

"Suburbia - Where they cut down trees and name streets after them"
-somebody said that once

[Ethan Cordray]

Bill, I kinda liked it until I saw the plaque for Emmanuel Swedenborg. How come the heretics get the cool buildings?

In honesty, though, I must say I've always found the Prairie School architecture a little uninspiring. Too geometric, like a house built by robots. Artistic robots, sure, but robots nonetheless. Give me a Gothic church or an English country house any day of the week.

[Bill R]

"Bill, I kinda liked it until I saw the plaque for Emmanuel Swedenborg. How come the heretics get the cool buildings?
In honesty, though, I must say I've always found the Prairie School architecture a little uninspiring. Too geometric, like a house built by robots. Artistic robots, sure, but robots nonetheless. Give me a Gothic church or an English country house any day of the week."

Heretics have the bucks, it seems, Ethan. (My wife's aunt, whose home is directly above the Wayfarer's Chapel, considers herself a good Roman Catholic/Swendenborgian. Her husband's family donated the land for the Chapel. Go figure!) Nevertheless it really is a beautiful building and setting, and is well worth a detour if you're here in L.A. I prefer Gothic and English country as well, but I can appreciate this on its own terms. (Dare I admit it? I've even grown appreciate our new Roman Catholic cathedral in downtown Los Angeles (Cardinal Mahoney's Taj Mahal), but I'll never love it. If you visit it, however, you must see the crypt. As to Gothic, there's a wonderful example in the Episcopal Cathedral of Los Angeles.)

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Hi Judy,

I guess presumably the people would. ;-) But I have nothing against men with a vision developing larger pieces of land.

The problem is that I don't really see much of this. What I do see is a lovely field or grove of trees violently torn asunder so that there isn't a blade of grass remaining of what once was. Then the place is packed with all-too-large cookie-cutter houses right next to each other with black asphalt. A row of pathetic saplings are planted out front, sod is plopped down (as the fertile topsoil is long gone), and we're done. On to the next piece of lovely unique country. If this isn't contempt and indifference to the land, I don't know what is.

Would if developers made an attempt to love the land they developed? Would if they spent some time walking on the fields they planned to purchase? Would if they asked questions like this:

- What makes this little piece of land unique and beautiful?
- How can we preserve this for the people who will live in our houses?
- Rather than plopping our stock plan onto this land, what can we create that works here better than anywhere else?

I just finished two months in Leviticus and I'm amazed at how much concern the Lord puts in to how the people of Israel are to treat the land. The people of God now span all nations, and the entire Earth is God's holy land. May it not vomit us out.

[Ethan Cordray]

Well said, Wonders.

And Bill, I like a lot of Frank Lloyd Wright's art design, just not his architecture very much. It seems somehow alien to the landscape, perhaps more so because it is obviously trying not to be.

[holmegm]

>Only those who are "brutish little men with shrunken
>souls" need be offended.

Ah, that tactic. "Oh, did you think I meant you?" A bit cowardly, isn't it?

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

for some organic building see Gaudi
a.o. his Sagrada Familia

[James A. Altena]

I think that I shall never see
A condo lovely as a tree.
Indeed, unless the condos fall,
I'll never see a tree at all.

[kate]

>Only those who are "brutish little men with shrunken
>souls" need be offended.

Holmegm: Ah, that tactic. "Oh, did you think I meant you?" A bit cowardly, isn't it?

Not everyone is a cynic. I was leaving room for the possibility that there are developers who do have an understanding of what stewardly development looks like.

However, if the sides even among 'mere Christians' at this site are as polarized as they appear, it's not likely that Christians are going to be able to articulate for developers what stewardly development looks like.

The idea of a Christian developer shouldn't be an oxymoron.

[Steve Nicoloso]

"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it."

We've all, even the best intentioned, been forced to compromise with the modern materialist zeitgeist just to get along. Conservation/conservatism are at bottom indifferent, if not outright hostile, to ideology. Therefore the conserving impulse is almost by definition reactionary. It would impossible to positively articulate the Christian Developer Manifesto, or the just and godly number of square feet of living space to be alotted per person, or the right home lot size and what the true or mere Christian might justly plant there. Excessive consumption, like pornography, is difficult to define, but we all (more or less) know it when we see it. We should guard against the impulse to codify and inscribe into positive law or compelling formulations what nature, custom, and revealed religion have always (more or less well) inscribed on the hearts of (more or less) all men. "Stewardly development" (a laudable goal) begins, as all human endeavors ought, in the pursuit of what is virtuous, true, and beautiful. Obviously "making money" is important, since the businessman who cannot make a profit cannot long do business. But the endeavor cannot begin with the idea of making money and be authentically Christian.

[Gene Godbold]

I'm on Hutchens side in this debate, but I do have friends who are developers and are in the construction trade. They lament the lack of any real planning for a site other than how to maximize profit and meet whatever ordinances are required (often very few in rural areas).

The guys I know and respect in the building trades are real craftsmen who don't engage in new construction because the desire for speed (= cheap) trumps every other consideration. Like whether the molding is flush or the painting is well done or whether the door swings right or is properly insulated (not to mention whether their subcontractors are actually eligible to work in this country--ascertaining that would take too much time and if those guys weren't around to drive down costs, the contractor's profits would be less).

I've already unleashed a mini-rant. But believe me, I could go on. (I think my wife could go on even longer :-)

[Christopher Hathaway]

Let us remember that Man was created in the Garden. But it is a new City that he will be raised to in the Resurrection. I think much of the concern for use of the land in the OT has to do with just relations between men. It was a function of a just and honest economic system.

[Gene Godbold]

Christopher,
That's a good point. It's always helpful to keep teleology and eschatology in view. But the old ordinances to keep and tend the garden aren't abolished by the fact that our God-King is going to have His capitol in the City (that it looks like He also provides).

Post-resurrection, I think we're going to be involved in some massive terra-forming projects in other solar systems. I speculate that we'll have a mandate to Edenize the universe. (But if not that, something better.)

[John Hetman]

I confess to being a tree lover and mourn the loss of God's great creation when unnecessarily destroyed as if the trees were so much litter on the landscape. Perhaps those of us who love trees suffer from having the hearts of children. For I grew up at a time when my playgrounds were the trees by my house that I could climb even at five and six--something now difficult with the butchered trimming of lower branches.

I have seen too many developers and new home owners vandalize God's work without a qualm. As if destruction was a constitutional right.

It isn't the action itself that is consummately repulsive, it's the attitude. One that would, by extension, produce in our world more of the monstrosities that we call modern cities.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I do think there is glory, life, and beauty to be found in a modern city, John. The parks, squares, trains, bustling shops, and awe-inspiring glass skyscrapers... not to mention the parades and performances. Would that as much thought were put into developing the suburbs as is put into building cities...

[Judy Warner]

But I have nothing against men with a vision developing larger pieces of land.

I'm not sticking up for all developers, I just don't like a blanket condemnation of the people who provide houses to live in. I am fortunate to live in a development made by someone who used the land beautifully, leaving all the stone walls and tree lines. He also put up a big berm along the main road so that you can't see the development from the road. (On the other hand the houses he put up are nice looking but junkily built.) And most of the residents have landscaped their land so that after 28 years the place is just beautiful.

However, my sister the environmentalist hates this development because three-acre lots are the worst use of land, she says. So no matter what you do, someone will object.

Unfortunately, most of the new development around here is just plonking mansions down in fields any which way. It's not a question of cutting down trees, as this is all farmland, but of not thinking about how houses can fit gracefully into the landscape, as our developer did. And if there aren't trees on the lot, I cannot understand how people can pay half a million dollars for a house and not spend a few thousand more to plant some good-size trees.

[Bill R]

"for some organic building see Gaudi
a.o. his Sagrada Familia" - Dirk van Glabeke

I saw it some years back while a student in Europe. It is strange and haunting. I admire the Spaniards for having the courage to build this. I'm not sure it's a building you could love, but I really do want to return to it one day.

[Daniel C.]

"The idea of a Christian developer shouldn't be an oxymoron."

It isn't. But then why should developers or anyone in the consruction or logging industry be at all interested in coming to the Gospel when before they've even got to the door they've been described as "brutish little men with shrunken souls, intent on gain and blind to beauty, [taking] the lives of trees unnecessarily, or with the same apparent pleasure that the murderer takes in mankilling."

I work in the construction industry. Hutchens most despicable description characterizes no one I work with. But that doesn't seem to matter to the many here who have decided that home builders are just not their sort of people.

Have a nice day, people.

[dirk van glabeke]

Gaudi was unique
for those who don't know him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudi

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Daniel,

If we can step past Mr. Hutchen's unflattering characterization of some of the developers in his area, it would be very beneficial Please try to understand that some of what I see happening to the place I live moves me to anger and tears - and I'm sure this is behind Mr. Hutchen's characterization. Forgive us if we are unfair or violent in lashing out - we do so out of pain.

We live in the houses developers build us, and we are voicing some of our concerns as Christians. If you, as a Christian developer, could engage our concerns, I know I would really appreciate it. It would be far more fruitful for both of us than taking your ball and going home.

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Daniel C,
I'm sorry if you had your feelings hurt, but surely you know--from working in the industry--how true Steve Hutchens observations can be (though I suppose that many people don't think about the destruction they bring about any more than the shoddy construction they throw up).

That said, I'm sure that, being a Christian, you aren't like that--letting the only measure of a job be the cash you get out of it and how fast (as opposed to how well) you work. Jesus, after all, was in construction. :-)

[JRM]

"I work in the construction industry. Hutchens most despicable description characterizes no one I work with. But that doesn't seem to matter to the many here who have decided that home builders are just not their sort of people."

We make gross generalizations calling people making an honest living "murderers..."

and then take cheap ass shots at them like this one:

"Ever have lunch with a developer?"

Yes, as matter of fact I have--some even said grace before the meal. Ever had lunch with arrogant beltway bandits slopping at the public trough?

"Forgive us if we are unfair or violent in lashing out - we do so out of pain."

Inexcusable. A simpe apology for a grand sweeping overgeneralization is called for

[Christopher Hathaway]

Could we, please, keep our judgments about right and wrong and moral and immoral to those categories specifically laid out in Scripture and the common Tradition of the Church? I understamd the pain of loss when a loved bucolic view is changed through development. But our pain gives us no excuse to judge others for doing what Scripture does not clearly condemn, just because it wounds our sensibilities.

God cares more about the souls of these "brutish men" than He does for a thousand trees.

Ask yourselves: is it really God's creation you are caring about or your enjoyment of it?

[dirk van glabeke]

if we mess the world up, our children or our childrens children will suffer for it. In this sense it's a moral issue

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>if we mess the world up, our children or our childrens children will suffer for it.<<<

Only someone who doesn't belive in God could believe man has that kind of power.

[anonymous]

Once when our souls so small had shrunk
We could not grasp a love sublime,
We felled a tree and on its trunk
Raised up the Son of Man divine.

[Geoffrey Deacon]

Messing up the world is a relative thing. And God respects the freedom with which he endowed us by allowing us to live with the consequences of our actions, in this world and the next.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Only someone who doesn't belive in God could believe man has that kind of power.

No Stuart - the Bible never says anything about a certain people making themselves a curse to the land they are in, so that their sins visit themselves on their children's children...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>No Stuart - the Bible never says anything about a certain people making themselves a curse to the land they are in, so that their sins visit themselves on their children's children...<<<

I don't believe they were speaking of ecological degradation, but I suppose any text can be twisted to meet any position.

So, moving away from Scripture, I will say something utterly heretical. The environment is in good shape, better than it has been in a century. And it will continue to get better, mainly because as people become wealthier, they have the LUXURY of caring about the environment. Aborigines never do, you know. Too busy scraping out a subsistence existence. Of course, being primitives, the extent of the damage they can do is limited by their lack of technology and transportation, but looking historically at the issue, it wasn't modern man who deforested the North German Plain and most of Great Britain--that was accomplished in the Middle Ages, when people ran out of wood. It wasn't modern man who created the Sahara desert. That was done by camel-riding nomads supposedly more in touch with nature. Central Africa isn't being turned into a dust bowl by modern man, but by people living on a 10th century level, burning everyting on which they can lay their hands so they can cook their food.

On the other hand, once you reach a certain level of technology, usually marked by widespread electrification, the standard of living rises to a level where starvation is not a high probability, and in which one has a certain amount of disposable income, so that one can indulge in things like high efficiency appliances, hybrid cars, sewage treatment and the like.

I heartily recommend Danish ecologist and statistician Bjorn Lonborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist", which shoots a lot of people's sacred cows.

As to my original point, that man can do very little permanent damage to the planet, I suggest you check out the power of one hurricane, one decent sized volcano, one good tsunami or earthquake, and then look at what man can and has done. All of the truly monumental catastrophes that have afflicted this planet have been of natural origin. Man's efforts in comparison are puny indeed, of limited scope and short duration.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Christopher and Stuart, for goodness sake - "cursed is the ground because of you"! It is crystal clear that the fate of creation is bound up with the fate of God's image bearing signature on it. We have a calling of caring and tending God's land - do you seriously not see this in scripture? What on Earth do you make of the following passages:

I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword after you, and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste. Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths as long as it lies desolate, while you are in your enemies' land; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its Sabbaths. As long as it lies desolate it shall have rest, the rest that it did not have on your Sabbaths when you were dwelling in it.

When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you?

For you shall go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and the hills before you
shall break forth into singing,
and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress;
instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle;
and it shall make a name for the Lord,
an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

Do you seriously think God doesn't care how we treat our...excuse me...his land and animals? That he is too "spiritual" for that?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Christopher and Stuart, for goodness sake - "cursed is the ground because of you"! It is crystal clear that the fate of creation is bound up with the fate of God's image bearing signature on it. We have a calling of caring and tending God's land - do you seriously not see this in scripture? What on Earth do you make of the following passages:<<<

We are called upon to be wise stewards of creation. That's not the same thing as mindless tree-hugging. Man is part of creation, an integral part of the econsystem, yet it is common among environmentalists to act as though man were either something outside of creation, or a plague upon it. Nature is exalted above man, yet man was created to rule over nature.

I merely point out that "living close to the land" isn't necessarily good either for man or for the land. Once you cut through the romantic, neo-Rousseaunian blather, it becomes clear that absent human ingenuity and technology, and given the mandate to be fruitful and multiply, Malthusian catastrophe is unavoidable. The cyclical rise and decline of primitive cultures living in marginal environments gives ample witness to this. On the other hand, if you think we should be fruitful and multiply, it can only be done by embracing modern technology and all that implies. Also, when it comes to good stewardship of the land, it is also clear that private capital does a much better job than any centrally directed economy or government program. Don't believe me? I'l take you on a tour of Eastern Europe, or perhaps China, so you can see for yourself.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Stuart, I dealt with those objections in my first post. I don't advocate a man-hating environmentalism, as if things would be better if we weren't here. Indeed, I think man can make creation far more glorious than it would ever be without him. I doubt that we are doing this by and large in American Suburbia. Frankly, I don't think treating the land lovingly and with godly creativity and stewardship is on hardly anyone's radar screen - tree hugging environmentalists included. Everyone wants to save the planet, no one wants to treat their little plot of ground with loving sacramental care.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I doubt that we are doing this by and large in American Suburbia.<<<

By and large, suburbia is pretty nice. I find unplanned suburban sprawl preferable to any sort of planned community, especially a "green" one. I believe that thousands of individuals making choices in their own enlightened self-interest do a better job of preserving the environment than any sort committee of experts or bureaucrats. I don't see much going on in the environmental community to disabuse me of that notion, nor do I see anything happening in the world today that causes me to lose sleep over a looming environmental catastrophe, except perhaps efforts on the part of the well-meaning or devious to prevent global warming by limiting carbon emissions.

I don't like developers as a rule, but not for the reasons that others do. I dislike them because they are essentially political animals who play the system to get exceptions to the rules by which the rest of us have to live, and they do so in order to turn a quick buck. I see these developments go up here, there and everywhere (which is why I call it "fungus housing"), but I note that the houses are not well constructed, the communities are not well thought out, and, like all centrally planned activities, they don't really seem to take heed of real human needs. This goes in spades for "planned" "covenanted communities" in which people who were failures as crossing guards and hall monitors get to live out their fantasies of wielding absolute power (albeit on a very small scale, whch means, of course, that they must be all the more vicious). I much prefer an unplanned community with the houses going up helter-skelter according the tastes and inclinations of the owners, even if these run to the tacky (I sometimes fantasize of buying 1000 plastic flamingos and planting them on front lawns all across Reston in the dead of night; I might add some lawn jockeys and garden gnomes for variety). Because such places are organic and show evidence of being lived in by real people.

Urbanization just doesn't do it for me, sorry. I grew up in the big city, and it holds no attractions for me. I especially don't want to live in an enlightened, "smart growth" city like Portland, let alone a cesspit of political correctness like San Francisco (even if it didn't sit on three active fault lines).

The way in which you get good stewardship is by giving people a stake in the land, not by telling them what they must do with the land. Every man a homeowner, and property rights treated as sacred. This avoids both the tragedy of the commons (something else that happened in the ideal communitarian, agrarian society) as well as the tyranny of the busybodies.

[Annie]

>>>(I sometimes fantasize of buying 1000 plastic flamingos and planting them on front lawns all across Reston in the dead of night; I might add some lawn jockeys and garden gnomes for variety)<<<

Reston, VA?

[Stuart Koehl]

None other. My second strike would be Columbia (AKA Clone-numbia), MD.

[Peter Gardner]

I suspect that a lot of problems with new developments would disappear if local governments would charge developers for building roads and utility lines to far-flung exurbs, rather than building them with public funds. If development costs actually reflected real costs, we'd hopefully get more reasonable development patterns.

[James A. Altena]

"I believe that thousands of individuals making choices in their own enlightened self-interest do a better job of preserving the environment. . . ."

Assuming that they make those choices on that basis is quite a stretch. . . .(Not that I think committees of bureaucrats to be any better.)

"So, moving away from Scripture, I will say something utterly heretical. The environment is in good shape, better than it has been in a century."

One doesn't need to be a tree-hugger to find this statement debateable.

[Gene Godbold]

Stuart's right about the environment if you limit it to developed nations, but he alludes to this situation with reference to places where the environment is getting worse--such as Africa, China, Eastern Europe and (though he doesn't mention it, I will) Brazil.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart's right about the environment if you limit it to developed nations, but he alludes to this situation with reference to places where the environment is getting worse--such as Africa, China, Eastern Europe and (though he doesn't mention it, I will) Brazil.<<<

In some of those those places (Africa, Latin America), however, environmental degradation is due entirely to the failure of those societies to modernize and industrialize. In others (China, Eastern Europe) it is due to the failure to modernize due to extended periods of Communist planned economies. In this case, if free market forces are allowed to do their job, the environment will improve as a matter of course. For instance, China has been boosting its economy for the last decade by exploiting cheap labor and linearly expanding its production base. Energy efficiency and environmental effects were not on the top of their priorities. But as China's economy grows, its workers will begin demanding better pay. This will increase the unit labor component of Chinese goods, making them less competitive in the global market. To compensate, the Chinese will have to make capital investments to reduce the raw material and energy components of their products; i.e., they will become more efficient. Efficiency generally correlates to clean, but in any case, wealthier workers don't want to live in a smog invested sewer, so as wealth rises, so too will Chinese environmental awareness. External factors also play a part: China has been investing heavily to clean up the area in and around Peking (please note my perverse aversion to pinyin transliteration) first to win, then to attract tourists to the 2008 Olympics.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>One doesn't need to be a tree-hugger to find this statement debateable.<<<

You can't argue with actuals, so I recommend everyone get Bjorn Lomborg's book and review his statistical abstracts.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I suspect that a lot of problems with new developments would disappear if local governments would charge developers for building roads and utility lines to far-flung exurbs, rather than building them with public funds. If development costs actually reflected real costs, we'd hopefully get more reasonable development patterns.<<<

That is part of what I mean by developers gaming the system.

[Gene Godbold]

One problem China has is that it uses six to eight times as much electricity to do a particular job as we use over here. And they generate the electricity mostly with coal. And they don't have modern scrubbers on the vast majority of their coal plants (though they are working on it). This means that you can do a Dick Van Dyke (in Mary Poppins) on the air in Shanghai.

[Annie]

>>>None other. My second strike would be Columbia (AKA Clone-numbia), MD.<<<

Hello from a half hour away. ;-)
Where did you find an Eastern Catholic Church?

[Rob Grano]

Stuart, do you think you perhaps need a little dose of E.F. Schumacher to moderate your faith in the free market? Why implicitly trust either big government or big business? Both are insatiable accumulators of wealth and power, and thus both tend to corruption. Not sure why modern
'conservatives' don't see this; the older cons certainly did.

[Gene Godbold]

I don't think Stuart trusts big government or big business. (I certainly don't.)

But it is true that innovation in technology along with a recognition that the environment is something worth preserving has driven the improvement in the environmental conditions (reforestation and decreasing pollution) in developed countries.

[Judy Warner]

It's been a constant historical fact that when a country's per capita income reaches about $6,000, the people start wanting to clean up their environment, and then resources are directed toward that. When a country is very poor, and people are scraping just to have enough to eat, there is no surplus to pay for cleanup. Since it's the poor countries who are fouling the environment most, you'd think environmentalists' first priority would be to figure out how to help them become more prosperous. Obviously, that's not the case.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, do you think you perhaps need a little dose of E.F. Schumacher to moderate your faith in the free market? <<<

Schumacher was an ass, and if we had followed his prescriptions, all the prophesies about mass starvation, riots and population migrations would have come true.

"Big" business, by the way, lives symbiotically with big government. That's why large corporations don't really mind excessive regulation--they can absorb the cost, while small, innovative companies that represent the next generation of competition cannot.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Hello from a half hour away. ;-)
Where did you find an Eastern Catholic Church?<<<

There is St. Gregory of Nyssa in Beltsville. It is the mother church of my parish, which split off 30-odd years ago to serve those of us in Northern Virginia. Our parish in turn has founded a mission in Germantown to serve people living in the upper left hand corner of Maryland. Up in Baltimore is Patronage of the Mother of God. They have a mission in Hagerstown.

On my side of the river we have my parish, Epiphany of Our Lord in Annandale. Nearby in McLean is Holy Transfiguration Melkite Church, known fondly as "Fig South" to distinguish it from the other Holy Transfiguration up in Massachussets ("Fig North"). The Ruthenians also have Ascension of Our Lord parish in Williamsburg (right next door to the Hampton Inn, how convenient!), and a smaller parish (Our Lady of Perpetual Help) in Virginia Beach (for the summer crowd, mostly).

There are no Ruthenian parishes in DC, but the Ukrainians have the Holy Family shrine in DC, up the block from the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. They also have a lovely traditional wooden church up on New Hampshire Avenue.

And if you want to be really, really exotic, there is an Ethiopian Ge'ez Catholic mission in the District, too.

[Steve Nicoloso]

God cares more about the souls of these "brutish men" than He does for a thousand trees.

Perhaps so, but it would be a mistake, and a complete miss of Steve Hutchens' point, to see these as competing, or even uncorrelated, concerns. The man who recognizes the sacredness of the land and what may grow on it, has taken one (tho' perhaps only one) step toward Heaven.

[Rob Grano]

"But it is true that innovation in technology along with a recognition that the environment is something worth preserving has driven the improvement in the environmental conditions (reforestation and decreasing pollution) in developed countries."

No doubt. But business has been rather slow in coming to realize that 'the environment is something worth preserving,' don't you think? In fact, I wonder how much of business's efforts in this area would be occurring if not for government prompting? (which isn't to say that over-regulation isn't a bad thing).

[Gene Godbold]

From my narrow perspective in a nonprofit R&D that has a not-insubstantial wing in environmental remediation and a strong presence in the national labs, folks in big government and big business are not at all impeding the improvement in environmental conditions and may in fact be driving it in some cases. (I still don't advise you to "trust" them, though.) But that sort of thing is now "in the water" of the culture. One of the bigger movements in chemistry and chemical engineering is "green" chemistry. This has been the case for at least a decade.

[Rob Grano]

'God cares more about the souls of these "brutish men" than He does for a thousand trees.'

One of the desert fathers said that if you don't love trees, you don't love God. Wish I had the quote handy.

'"Big" business, by the way, lives symbiotically with big government. That's why large corporations don't really mind excessive regulation--they can absorb the cost, while small, innovative companies that represent the next generation of competition cannot.'

And government greases the skids for big business in other ways, making it difficult for the smaller businesses to compete.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>No doubt. But business has been rather slow in coming to realize that 'the environment is something worth preserving,' don't you think? <<<

No, actually, I don't think, and for the following reasons:

1. Energy inefficiency and pollution cost money in the long run. Obsolescent plants that churn out smog and sludge, and which burn fuel promiscuously, do not yield as high a return on investment as plants that minimize waste products (which is why it is called "waste"). It took business some time to gear up to make the investment because, prior to the tax reforms of the 1980s, companies did not get much economic benefit from capital investment. Now they do, so they put their profits into making the enterprise ever more efficient, not just in human productivity, but in industrial process efficiency as well.

2. Businesses respond to customer demand. Customers who value the environment will pay a premium to companies that demonstrate their good stewardship of the environment. This leads to more profits, which in turn allow more investment in environmentally sound technology and processes.

Government regulation is probably the least effective way to reduce pollution, since the tendency of all bureaucracies is to prescribe specific remedies, instead of setting out goals. Since bureaucrats are not scientists, engineers or businessmen (basically, they're drones), the remedies they prescribe are not likely to be the most innovative or cost effective. Rather, they are the remedies that meet whatever bureaucratic imperative is implicit in the laws and regulations. Thus, to give just one example, back in the 1970s Honda made what was called a "stratified charge" or CVCC engine, which drastically reduced emissions by careful monitoring of the fuel-air mix in the engine. It worked fine (I owned a 1979 Honda Civic CVCC), got great milage, and was very cheap to make. The EPA, however, had latched onto a technology called the "catalytic converter" to reduce emissions. It was expensive, delicate and actually did not reduce all the emissions covered by the CVCC technology. Though Honda had the superior technology, the government mandated catalytic converters, and since Honda would have to include a catalytic converter despite meeting the emission requirements, it saw no purpose in developing that technology further--and it died on the vine.

I can give myriad examples of how government regulation either proved inferior to private initiatives, or actually proved counterproductive. It is the nature of government that it is incapable of dealing with complex economic issues of this nature, and only has blunt instruments at its disposal.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

But see, this is all part of my point about environmentalism vs Christian stewardship. I don't see the two as diametrically opposed - often Christians should ally with and even be environmentalists on some issues (provided of course, there are not even more pressing issues such as the killing of millions of innocent children).

But I do see environmentalism as concerned about big issues from a more utilitarian viewpoint. We need clean air, or less CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to not trash entire oceans or the great lakes. We need to not kill off endangered species. But what I don't see so much of is the more sacramental concern of how we live in the land and animals we come into contact with on a smaller scale.

[Judy Warner]

Unfortunately the sacramental attitude was taken over by pagan environmentalists who worship Gaia. Their attitude is Earth First and humans be damned. I think that has provoked a negative reaction among many people leading them to discount environmental concerns, or to shy away from looking upon nature with awe.

My observation is that most people who live on land in the country have a great love and respect for it, as it is their own environment. They love their particular land, not necessarily land in general.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But see, this is all part of my point about environmentalism vs Christian stewardship. I don't see the two as diametrically opposed - often Christians should ally with and even be environmentalists on some issues (provided of course, there are not even more pressing issues such as the killing of millions of innocent children).<<<

One can be right for the wrong reason, and sometimes it is worse than being wrong for the right reasons. If you get into bed with the environmentalist dogs, you will wake up with fleas, that is guaranteed. Environmentalists, as a general rule, are also the population control crowd. They think the world is too crowded, and they know how to make it less crowded. They think man is a blight upon the earth, which is entirely antithetical to the Christian worldview. The more radical among them believe that animals and human beings are entirely equivalent, and in their calculation of the ecological balance, a few hundred thousand black Africans count for less than a handful of endangered beetles.

To say that Christians can make common cause with secular environmentalists because we are stewards of the earth makes as much sense as Christians making common cause with radical Muslims because we dislike promiscuity and abortion. The things that we DON'T share are not only more numerous, they are more important.

>>>. We need clean air, or less CO2 in the atmosphere. <<<

The air is cleaner than it has been in generations. As for CO2 levels, who is to say what the optimum level is? It's been fluctuating since long before man arrived on the scene.

>>>We need to not trash entire oceans or the great lakes.<<<

Where are the oceans most polluted? Which countries do the most overfishing? As for the Great Lakes, they probably haven't been this clean since the middle of the 19th century.

>>>We need to not kill off endangered species.<<<

Species come, species go (see any dinosaurs lately?). To think that man is responsible for all this, or that some (maybe most) endangered species would be out the door regardless man, ignores the complex dynamics of the global ecosystem (of which we are a part, not apart).

So while environmentalists are concerned with the big issues, they deal with them mainly through rank emotionalism that takes little account of the facts or of scientific methods. Mainly, they're Luddites.

>>>But what I don't see so much of is the more sacramental concern of how we live in the land and animals we come into contact with on a smaller scale.<<<

I think there is quite a lot of that, but it's a cultural thing related mainly to the Anglo-Saxons. Go away from places like the UK, USA and Australia, and you'd be appalled at how people treat not only the land but also animals.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>They love their particular land, not necessarily land in general.<<<

As it should be. Get too abstract, and disaster ensues. Or, as Lucy van Pelt put it, "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand".

[Rob Grano]

"I can give myriad examples of how government regulation either proved inferior to private initiatives, or actually proved counterproductive. It is the nature of government that it is incapable of dealing with complex economic issues of this nature, and only has blunt instruments at its disposal."

Absolutely agree. I'm not making the case for the
wisdom of all regulation, only that most of the time some is necessary. Having grown up and lived most of my life in or near a particular industrial city, I know that the profit motive in and of itself isn't enough to keep business and industry from taking shortcuts that have a negative effect on the environment.

[Judy Warner]

>>>They love their particular land, not necessarily land in general.<<<

As it should be. Get too abstract, and disaster ensues. Or, as Lucy van Pelt put it, "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand".

Indeed. I wasn't criticizing them. This is how land is stewarded best, by the people who love it. It's the environmentalists who love "land" in general who mystify it and make a god out of it.

[Gene Godbold]

And then the god demands (human) sacrifices.
:-)

[Rob Grano]

"This is how land is stewarded best, by the people who love it."

True -- this is why I think that Christians have more in common with agrarian types and traditional conservative "conservationists" than with left-leaning environmentalists (although there is of course some overlap in thought). I'll listen to Wendell Berry long before I'll listen to Al Gore.

[Bill R]

"I'll listen to Wendell Berry long before I'll listen to Al Gore."

Great interview with Berry in a recent issue of "Christianity Today," for any of you that missed it.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Christians have more in common with agrarian types and traditional conservative "conservationists" than with left-leaning environmentalists (although there is of course some overlap in thought)

Perhaps I need a lesson in terminology?

[Douglas]

Stewardship of the earth is, of course, the duty of a Christian and I am glad to see the topic come up. In my experience though, the debate immediately catapults to global warming and pesticides, two areas that are hopelessly muddled by junk science and a lack of critical thinking.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And then the god demands (human) sacrifices.<<<

That's "goddess", you sexist pig!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stewardship of the earth is, of course, the duty of a Christian and I am glad to see the topic come up. In my experience though, the debate immediately catapults to global warming and pesticides, two areas that are hopelessly muddled by junk science and a lack of critical thinking.<<<

Precisely. Only an upper-middle-class American or European can actually afford to eat purely organic foods, or consider reducing his carbon footprint. Only an upper-middle-class American or European would be so narcissistic as to think that this makes a difference one way or the other.

[Rob Grano]

Wonders, the main difference that I see between the agrarian/conservationists and the environmentalists (other than the fact that the latter get more media attention) is that the former don't look towards government as the solution to all the environmental issues, as if new laws and regulations, and redistribution of wealth are the answers. But they also don't see business and unrestrained capitalism as the answer either, and this makes them run afoul of many modern 'conservatives.'

"Only an upper-middle-class American or European can actually afford to eat purely organic foods" -- perhaps not for long; demand for organic foods is bringing the prices down in many areas.

"Only an upper-middle-class American or European would be so narcissistic as to think that this makes a difference one way or the other." -- it'll make a difference if enough people say 'no' to the crummy produce and chemically altered, factory-farmed meat that agribusiness passes off on us. Also, it may not make a difference in the big picture, but it certainly can make a difference in one's health.

[Judy Warner]

But they also don't see business and unrestrained capitalism as the answer either, and this makes them run afoul of many modern 'conservatives.'

The question is, if you don't like unrestrained capitalism, who is to do the restraining?

[Rob Grano]

Ideally, corporations should exercise self-restraint, as should consumers (this is why, like democracy, capitalism works best with a moral people). But that rarely occurs. Hence the necessity for government to step in regulate.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Hence the necessity for government to step in regulate.<<<

Is that putting the foxes in charge of the hen coop, or setting a thief to catch a thief?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Also, it may not make a difference in the big picture, but it certainly can make a difference in one's health.<<<

Actually, no. There is no evidence that organic food is either healthier to eat or better tasting than non-organic food. The only thing that distinguishes organic from non-organic produce is the price. Which gives it cachet.

[Isamashii Yuubi]

What a misleading term "organic" is....I see in the grocery store regular oranges and organic oranges. Besides a slight color difference (and taste, call it whatever you will, but I do think the organic tastes a bit better), both grew on a tree. Every dictionary I have looked the word up in has organic listed as coming from a plant or animal. But I guess it would be a bit of a turnoff to call them "un-chemically altered oranges"

[Judy Warner]

For oranges, it's probably just a question of what they're sprayed with. Modern pesticides degrade quickly, so it's unlikely you'd get any pesticide in your body from an orange, whether it's labeled organic or not. Or it could be what the tree is fertilized with.

My favorite organic product is maple syrup: I can't figure out how you would get un-organic maple syrup, since the sap is not bothered by insects inside the tree, and I never heard of anyone fertilizing maple trees. But you can get a premium price for labeling the syrup so.

[Isamashii Yuubi]

I think with the syrup it's again a misleading name. There are basically two types of maple syrup. There's the regular kind that you find in any store, and pure (which is a bit harder to find). The regular kind is the sap with added sugar, corn syrup, and artificial color. Pure maple syrup is just the boiled sap, and it's bit thinner and not quite as sweet. I definitely prefer the pure kind, probably because when I was growing up my grandmother was allergic to corn and corn products. Do you have any idea just how much of what we eat is made with corn products? It's funny how since I grew up not eating or drinking much with corn products, I have a strong distaste for anything that has corn syrup added to it. For example I drink diet sodas not because they're diet, but because the regular kind has corn syrup. Oh how I wish we could go back to the days when soft drinks were made with cane sugar!

Apologies for going off into my own little world there....

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Besides a slight color difference (and taste, call it whatever you will, but I do think the organic tastes a bit better), both grew on a tree. <<<

A recent comparative study of conventional and "organic, free-range" chicken conducted in the UK found that conventional chicken tasted better and was more nutricious than the organic variety. And it was much cheaper, to boot.

>>> Modern pesticides degrade quickly, so it's unlikely you'd get any pesticide in your body from an orange, whether it's labeled organic or not. Or it could be what the tree is fertilized with.<<<

Organic produce contain more known carcinogens than conventional produce, mainly because of the various molds, funguses and bacteria that adhere to them. These are generally eliminated through the application of chemicals, which indeed do degrade rapidly when properly used. On the other hand, it takes a very, very thorough washing to get the organic residue off of organic produce.

While we're on that subject, most food poisoning could be eliminated by irradiating food, but the "pure food" lobby has so poisoned the well about "radioactive" food that this simple and cost effective health measure has not been applied to our food chain.

I find it interesting that there can be people who concurrently believe that both contraception and industrial agriculture are evil. You can hold one or the other of those positions, but not both at the same time, for it is only through the so-called agricultural revolution (now extending into the bioengineering revolution) that earth is able to sustain its existing population.