R: Subdue the Earth

The earth is a complicated, paradoxical place. On the one hand, the vibrant energy that permeates the terrain of our planet creates the order necessary for life to not only grow, but flourish—our cosmological status in a Goldilocks zone encapsulates this idea. On the other hand, that same life-giving vibrancy is also a cause of intense chaos that constantly threatens our existence, from the unfathomable destruction of earthquakes to the yearning desolation of droughts. In Genesis, God recognizes both facets of the earth’s nature when he instructs mankind to “subdue the earth.” While all of God’s creations, including the earth, are inherently good, they must be tempered and cultivated to achieve their fullest potential. To what extent human beings should exert their influence on this process of earthly cultivation, however, is the topic of this evening’s debate. 

The affirmative fears the earth’s chaos more than it respects the earth’s order. Since the Fall, human beings have been defined by their nakedness—that is, vulnerability—and, given the volatility of the earth, we are particularly susceptible to destruction at the hands of the natural world. Because of this, our primary goal should be the elevation of people from places of vulnerability to places of security. No action done to the earth should come at the cost of human betterment, for the rational quality of human beings makes their value greater than any inanimate being. In addition, subduing the earth is good for both humans and the earth itself. Nature craves order just as much as we do, and the process of ordering a field into farmland or ordering a brook into a canal is a way of taming the unruly wilderness into a cohesive, functional environment.

The negative believes that the affirmative uses the pursuit of security as a mask to hide their desire for the pursuit of comfort. While safety is a necessary requirement of human flourishing, modern society places bodily health above spiritual health, with the latter being obviously of greater import. Our current subjugation of the earth stretches beyond the mere provision of protection against the elements, instead providing us with countless indulgences that are not only unnecessary, but counterproductive to human flourishing. God designed humans not to ransack the earth, but to care for it as a king would his kingdom. Morality seeps through all our actions, not just those directed solely at people. This makes our moral responsibility to the earth one of cultivation rather than trampling with concrete, suffocation with smoke, or desecration with refuse.

At what point do environmental concerns become human concerns? Is it possible for us to flourish without any consumption? And is there a difference between a conservative and a conservationist?