Future Determinants: Examining the Level of Influence of Natural

and Human Factors on Human/Nature Relationships

F. Garrett Boudinot1 and Dr. Todd LeVasseur2

1Phone: 804.397.0446 2Phone: 843.953.3095

E-mail: boudinotg@g.cofc.edu

E-mail: levasseurtj@cofc.edu

College of Charleston College of Charleston

Future Determinants: Examining the Level of Influence of Natural

and Human Factors on Human/Nature Relationships

F. Garrett Boudinot

“We walk continually through a terrain manufactured by the human imagination,

dwelling as much in our interpretation of the place as in the place itself.”1

Preface

Modern scholarship of religious studies understands social

organization and cohesion as essential in the social enactment of

religion. Religions which provide strong organizational value by

mediating resource consumption, reducing competition, and

creating a succinct cosmology have been found to maintain

cultures longer than those that do not. Thus religion today is

understood as an evolutionary mode adopted by Homo sapiens to

1 Belden Lane, Landscapes of the Sacred: Geography and Narrative in American Spirituality, 2001, pp.

survive on a dynamic Earth. That very species, however,

contributes to the dynamic geobiological processes through which

it struggles to survive. All life has direct and indirect

influence on the ecosystem in which it exists, and humans are no

exception.2 The level of human impact on the environment varies

from culture to culture, and beginning in 1967 with Lynn White’s

article “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis,” much

examination has been given to the contrast of impacts cross

culturally as well as the determining factors of such impacts.

Given the role of religion in human life, it is clear that it

would be a deciding factor of the impact that a society has on

its ecosystem. But in the words of Evan Berry, “Does nature make

culture or does culture make nature?” 3

Introduction

Our Earth, the ecosystems which constitute it, and all life

that inhabit it, clearly appear to be on a path of destruction.

Human’s use of fossil fuels which emit greenhouse gasses, mining

2 The impact of human societies on their environment can be calculated using I=PAT. Here the population, affluence, and technology of a society each contribute equally to its environmental impact. 3 Berry, Evan. "Nature." Religion and Culture (2012), pp. 157

of the Earth which destroys groundwater and mountain faces, and

expansion of their own population which increases the former, all

have created the sixth fastest rate of species extinction, and

the fastest rate of global warming, the Earth has ever seen. If

it is true that religion plays a deciding role in our

relationship with our ecosystems, then it is necessary that we

understand how, and to what degree. Although humans are heavily

influenced by the physical constraints of their ecosystems, I

argue that it is the actions allowed by their religious beliefs

which are most determinant in the impact of humans on their

ecosystems. As Evan Berry said, “religion sets the context for

everyday practices,” and our everyday practices impact our

environment in innumerable ways. If we are to adapt as a species

to the current ecological crisis, we must adopt and instill a

worldview which encourages acts that “preserve the integrity,

stability, and beauty” of the Earth and which eschews acts that

negatively impact it.4

History

4 Leopold, Aldo, and Charles Walsh Schwartz. A Sand County Almanac. London, Etc.: Oxford UP, 1949, pp. 224

There’s no doubt that the physical natural world plays an

influential role in human life; it constitutes the entire world,

literally. Kirkpatrick Sale presents a captivating argument that

20,000 years ago during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), an event

referred to as “packing” occurred in which all humans were forced

to migrate to the few remaining European grasslands in order to

cope with the growing glacial cover.5 This “packing” led to

increased social complexity, anthropocentrism, and ultimately the

destructive lifestyles which humans lead today. In this view,

anthropocentrism and destruction are central aspects of human

life which cannot be eradicated. This is an example of

Environmental Determinism in that it provides geologic phenomenon

as an explanation for human behavior and belief.6 But perhaps

this is too far in the past to be projected onto contemporary

society. What occurred 20,000 years ago should be seen as an

evolutionary phenomenon in geologic time. The social constructs

and worldviews which Sale posits as stemming from this time were 5 Sale, Kirkpatrick. "Intensification and Agriculture." After Eden: The Evolution of Human Domination. Durham: Duke UP, 20066 This is much better than Benavides’ explanation of witch hunts and pederastyas products of environmental determinism, which I find an exemplar of possibleproblematic conclusions stemming from an environmental determinist lens.Benavides, Gustavo. "Ecology and Religion." The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature 1 (2008), pp. 551

products of natural selection; those who became anthropocentric

were able to find enough food, reproduce, and survive. Evolution

is an ongoing process, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

as taught by “indigenous” or “tribal” religions shows that the

environmental factors of the LGM, though influential, were not

the end-all. Many cultures in antiquity and today have

reconstructed the human role in the environment in ways that do

not reflect Sale’s imposition of destructive worldviews on all

humans.

Like Sale, Sociologist John Snarey supports the

environmental determinist view. In his research, he found that

“in societies in which water was abundant, the Supreme Deity

typically was not concerned with the morality of human

behavior.”7 This again supports that religion is an adaptive tool

which dictates human interactions with their ecosystems. Snarey’s

study indicates that when resources such as fresh water become

scarce, usually due to overconsumption, religions shift from

either no view of a high god or a view of a high god with no 7 Snarey, John. "The Natural Environment's Impact upon Religious Ethics: A Cross Cultural Study." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35.2 (1996), pp. 85

moral agenda to a view of a high god who cares intimately about

the moral choices of humans. In doing so, religions are able to

mitigate resource depletion and strengthen the survival of the

society.8 Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” finds four possible routes

for a society to take upon resource depletion or ecological

collapse: a) they fail to anticipate the problem, b) the problem

arrives, and they fail to perceive it, c) they perceive the

problem, but fail to solve it, or d) they realize the problem and

attempt to solve it.9 Given this theory, it appears that human

civilizations have only one in four chances of trying to solve

the problem, let alone actually succeeding. However, upon

adopting a high moral god, many societies have been able to do

just that. Thus although Snarey presents a seemingly

environmental determinist model, the implications of his findings

instead show that the ecological status, though determinant in

human religion, can be drastically improved (in that its

resources are better managed) through human religion. The use of

8 The article “Did Pulses of Climate Change Drive the Rise and Fall of the Maya?” in the November 9-12, 2012 edition of Science Magazine (AAAS) is an excellent examination of this very concept in regards to the survival of the Maya. 9 Diamond, Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking, 2005

“Seva” along the Yamuna River is an exciting contemporary

example; through the adaptation of new religious interpretation,

devotees are now glorifying Yamuna Ma in their service to her

health and beauty.10

One scholar who finds the opposite effect of religion on the

environment is Lynn White, Jr. In his 1967 article, White posits

Western Christianity as “the most anthropocentric religion” (thus

the most ecologically destructive) and presents a convincing

argument to back this up.11 As he and Vine Deloria12 note, the

record of Western Christianity is that it allows morally

irresponsible actions on all levels, from the degradation of the

native peoples upon colonization to the degradation of the Earth

since the middle ages. Statistical analysis of modernity backs

this up: America, whose culture is steeped in Christian “values,”

has only five percent of the world’s population and contributes

twenty percent of the world’s overall carbon dioxide pollution.13

10 Haberman, David L. River of Love in an Age of Pollution: The Yamuna River of Northern India. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 200611 White, Lynn. The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis: American Association of Science, 1967, pp. 512 Deloria, Vine. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 197313 http://www.cepnet.org/interactive-map_CO2-emissions-per-capita.php

White’s analysis of Christian actions towards their environment,

and not the beliefs themselves, is a crucial aspect to White’s

argument. He accepts that there are indeed ecologically positive

hermeneutics of the Christian religion, and presents St. Francis

as the “patron saint” for Christians to look to for an

ecologically sensitive worldview, but he correctly notes that

this hermeneutic is not mainstream. Scholar Yi-Fu Tuan refutes

this argument, theorizing in line with Sale that instead all

cultures negatively impact their environments, regardless of

their religious beliefs.14 Tuan, however, misses a key point in

the analysis of religions. His thesis is based on the idea that

humans will ignore their religious teachings in order to continue

their destructive actions. This presents a problem, because if

this is the case, then the beliefs are not truly held by the

participants. As David Wilson writes, “actual participation in

organized religion…is more important than religious beliefs per

se.”15 To categorize their actions as against their religion

14 Tuan, Yi-Fu. "Our Treatment of the Environment in Ideal and Actuality." American Scientist 58.May-June (1970)15 Wilson, David Sloan "Evolutionary Biology, Religion, and Stewardship"  The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature / Editors, Bron R. Taylor, Jeffrey Kaplan,pp. 3

misses this crucial insight. The destruction of the environment

that Tuan sees as contrasting with traditional Chinese religion

is instead a product of what David Loy calls the “Religion of the

Market,” which has at this point penetrated the majority of the

world’s cultural values.16 This important insight provided by Loy

must be taken into account, as the religion he describes seems to

have stemmed from the Western hermeneutic of the Christian Bible,

as theorized by White. Hermeneutics then is key, which Tuan

misses. The idea that Chinese farmers would view nature in the

same way that the elite religious leaders would is a fallacy.

Tuan and Sale alike claim that the environment is the deciding

factor in religion, but they fail to recognize that humans are

part of the environment, and that humans are ultimately the

creators of religions. To ignore the variety of religious

interpretation within societies ignores the reality of how

religion plays out in social life. Scholars such as David

Haberman, Calvin Dewitt and Norm Habel show that hermeneutics and

results (i.e. not the beliefs at face value but the beliefs in

light of which actions they allow), are the deciding factors in

16 Loy, David R. "The Religion of the Market." Journal of the American Academy of Religions 65.2 (1997)

environmental relationships. These scholars will be reviewed

later, but their methodologies of reinterpreting religious

beliefs show that the human factor, the human interpretation and

resulting action, is much stronger a determinant than the

environment or the religion itself in the relationship between

humans and nature.

The Future

The method of evaluating religions in an ecological light by

investigating the effects of its beliefs on the environment is

also used by scholars John Grim and Mary Evelyn Tucker in their

pursuit of an “Ecological Reformation.”17 Utilizing the “three

R’s,” Retrieval, Reevaluation, and Reconstruction, these scholars

have built an area of study around the idea that religious

beliefs dictate actions that impact ecosystems. The first step,

retrieval, focuses on the textual and historical aspects of

different religions and what actions they dictate towards the

environment. They key point inherent in this method is that there

is a “gap between values and practice,” and that the values which

17 Source from professor; in dialogue to find official citation.

dictate the practice should be evaluated first and foremost.18

This is what I refer to as a hermeneutical analysis, which will

be discussed later. The second step, reevaluation, extrapolates

the retrieved beliefs onto the contemporary ecological crisis and

asks how these might be beneficial or harmful in practice. The

third step, reconstruction, generates ways in which current

religions can adopt teachings to themselves improve the health of

their ecosystems. In formulating this approach to the study of

religions and ecology, Tucker and Grim have created a plausible

means by which humans today can adopt religious beliefs to

improve the state of our environment. This is the future of human

religion, and it is based on an interpretive analysis of

religion.

The power of a hermeneutical approach in the ecological

analysis of religions is necessary if we are to move forward. It

eliminates the possible fallacy that could be followed from a

misreading of White’s article, the possibility of “finger

pointing” at other religions that they are intrinsically

ecologically negative. Misguided analyses often lead to the

18 Source from professor; in dialogue to find official citation.

conclusion that a religion is “green” or that a religion is

“destructive.” But there are no silver-bullet religions; no

religion creates a perfect human/ nature relationship (if there

even is one), and no religion is set out to destroy the Earth. To

postulate that religions themselves are harmful, to say that a

religion is ecologically bad, is useless. We cannot blame

religious leaders and writers, many of whom did indeed contribute

much good to the human enterprise, for the actions that their

ideas allowed centuries later. White was careful to make this

clear in his distinction between Western and Eastern

Christianity. In acknowledging that interpretation is the key,

there can be a transformation for the future.

Transformations

What would this transformation look like? What are

beneficial human actions, and how do we know? Luisa Maffi

indirectly (but accurately) answers this question in her

examination of “biocultural diversity.”19 Basing her work off of

the assumption that, again, religions are mediators between

humans and their environment, Maffi posits that cultural

diversity and biological diversity “are different manifestations

of a single, complex whole.”20 In other words, there is a direct

correlation between cultural diversity and biological diversity,

both of which are seen as signs of a “healthy” ecosystem. Finding

“causal links between the environment and cultural values,” Maffi

shows that the current global ecological crisis parallels the

depletion of cultural diversity (“50 percent of the world’s

approximately 7000 languages are currently endangered”).21

Conversely, she finds that cultures which have adapted TEK show

“sustainable resource use, environmental conservation, and the

analysis and monitoring of long-term ecological changes.”22 TEK

then provides an interesting case study for understanding human

19 Maffi, Luisa. "What Is Biocultural Diversity?" Earthscan (2010)20 Ibid, pp. 621 Ibid, pp. 9, 1122 Ibid, pp. 9

religious belief which instills responsible and respectful

actions towards its ecosystem.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge is the concept of religious

tradition passed on through “traditional” societies which

promotes healthy human/nature relationships. Characteristics

which are common amongst societies which instill TEK are: smaller

populations with a resulting strong sense of community

responsibility and reciprocity, a worldview based on cyclical

space or land and not linear history,23 and transmission of such

knowledge through “repeated practice”.24 When these

characteristics are combined, the product is what Pramod Parajuli

calls a “cosmovision,” a worldview which places humans

respectfully within the relationship between the natural,

supernatural, and human realms.25 When this cosmovision is

ecologically beneficial, the relationship is seen as man living

in Earth as a household.26 What is learned from this 23 Deloria, Vine. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1973.24 Posey, Darrell Addison. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity: A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. London: Intermediate Technology, 199925 Source from professor; in dialogue to find official citation.26 What is not held, contrary to common belief, is the belief in “Mother Earth,” which Sam Gill demonstrates as a product of the imposition of western ideals onto other cultures. Gill, Sam D. Mother Earth: An American Story. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987

investigation is that all cultures have the ability to create an

“ethnoscience,” a cultural understanding of the ecology of its

location and a resulting means of managing its resources.27 What

is profound about this insight to Westerners is that none of this

knowledge comes from traditional Western Science. All a culture

needs is to be able to understand its own ecology, something that

Western Science has been blind to for centuries until very

recently. However, given the global expansion of the West, the

large scale communities, the lack of reciprocity, and the lack of

a healthy cosmovision, it is unlikely that a beneficial

ethnoscience is possible, because all of these characteristics

are in stark contrast with TEK, from which beneficial practices

stem. Again it is seen that religions which instill respectful

actions towards its environment are better aware of the

ecological systems and are better suited to manage and adapt to

their environment. Interestingly, despite common characteristics,

there is no set of beliefs or teachings which are necessary or

intrinsically green – they are all within relation to their own

ecological surroundings. As Gustavo Benavides notes,

27 Burkes, Fikret. Sacred Ecology: TEK and Resource Management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis, 1999

“adaptiveness is not a once - and - for - all affair.”28 It is in

the hands of each culture to determine its own cosmovision, its

own ethnoscience, and its own future. “Traditional” and

“indigenous” societies have proven the efficacy of TEK in

managing ecosystems, but Western colonization seems to have done

everything possible to stymie their continuation. In the face of

crisis, might the West learn something from the past, and from

others?

Given the focus on Christianity from an ecological view

since White’s article, much has in fact been done by Western

traditions to instill a healthy cosmovision. Echoing White’s

argument, Norm Habel presents an analysis of the Christian

creation story which finds an anthropocentric hermeneutic

intrinsic in the rhetoric of the Book of Genesis. He calls this

“The Mandate to Dominate,” which “provides a justification for

de-powering and devaluing of not only Earth creatures but also

Earth itself.”29 Habel concludes that new interpretations of the

texts which shine light on a possible “eco-hermeneutic” are well 28 Benavides, Gustavo. "Ecology and Religion." The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature 1 (2008), pp. 55029 Habel, Norm. "The Mandate to Dominate." An Inconvenient Text, pp. 7

intended, but ultimately a waste of time.30 This conclusion is

brilliantly countered by Calvin Dewitt’s “theocentric”

interpretation of a passage from the Book of Job. As he finds, a

reading of the story from the point of view of the creator (which

is how the bible is technically intended to be read, considering

it is “his word”) inspires “wonder,” “respect,” and

reciprocity.31 He continues by codifying “Distillates from a

Christian Cultural Matrix,” twelve assumptions in his hermeneutic

which he claims would instill a proper relationship between

humans and nature. Despite Dewitt’s convincing demonstration,

Habel’s argument here seems to be most productive – Even though

Dewitt does find ecologically responsible themes in this passage,

his interpretation is not an accurate representation of the

enacted practices and beliefs which stem from the text. Moreover,

the passage which constitutes the focus of Dewitt’s analysis is

minor to say the least. It is hard to believe that changing the

focus and interpretative methods of 2.18 billion Christians to

30 Ibid, pp. 931 Dewitt, Calvin B. "Behemoth and Batrachians in the Eye of God." Christianity andEcology (2000), pp. 293, 296, 302

promote an entirely new worldview and lifestyle is a plausible

means of improving our current ecological state.32

Approaching the task of “greening” Christianity from a

hands-on technique, Mallory McDuff surveys the experience of

Christians and Jews partaking in “an encounter with mountaintop

removal.”33 She finds that when religious teachings and rituals

are incorporated with experiences with nature, a sense of

ecological responsibility and concern is produced. The mechanisms

involved here are personal appeal, inspiration of urgency, and

the use of emotional feelings. In being placed in an area of

environmental destruction, the participants of this “pilgrimage”

are moved by what they feel is a destruction of God’s creation. A

similar worldview is being appropriated using the same means of

urgent and emotional appeal by the Evangelical movement “Creation

Care.” Defended by the Reverend Richard Cizik, this worldview

comes from a realization that the current ecological crisis is a

threat to God’s creation, and instills a sense of “stewardship”

32 Pew Forum http://www.pewforum.org/christian/global-christianity-exec.aspx33 McDuff, Mallory D. Natural Saints: How People of Faith Are Working to save God's Earth. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010, pp. 126

towards the Earth instead of dominion.34 Cizik believes that if

we “bring scientists and evangelicals together,” we can use the

strong Evangelical political influence to create the necessary

changes needed to transform our society into one which maintains

a better relationship with the Earth.35 The idea of using

scientific data of environmental degradation to influence

influential religions is examined likewise by David Haberman.36

The devotees of the Yamuna were so moved by the undeniable

degradation of her waters, they partook in a social movement

which has improved the river’s health. Although Cizik rightly

assumes this would be applicable to Evangelical Christianity, he

failed to anticipate the power of those against him. His

resignation from the National Association of Evangelicals is a

harbinger of the inevitable problems with fundamentalism and

ecological change. Had he not been involved in a fundamentalist

group, perhaps his message would have stuck. But Evangelicals are

fundamentalist, by definition against change, and thus to not

34 Cizik, Richard. "What If?" Love God, Heal Earth. Ed. Sally G. Bingham. Pittsburgh, PA: St. Lynns, 200935 Ibid, pp. 936 Haberman, David L. River of Love in an Age of Pollution: The Yamuna River of Northern India. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2006

deny climate change would be against the premise of their

beliefs. Given the extent of the scholarship on Christianity and

ecology, it is clear that there are indeed possible futures for

an ecologically sensitive cosmovision. The problem is that

“possible” and “probable” are two very different predictions, and

if history is any indication of the future, the prediction does

not look hopeful.

There are, however, alternatives to approaching change by

addressing preexisting religions. The natural rise in awareness

of environmental issues over time has prompted what Bron Taylor

calls “Dark Green Religion.” This worldview perceives nature as

intrinsically valuable and sacred, recognizes the interdependence

of all aspects of ecosystems, and inspires “deep feelings of

belonging to nature.”37 Although this religion has penetrated

some preexisting religions (The Clergy Letters Project, Earth

Charter Initiative, etc.),38 Taylor argues that Dark Green

Religion in fact constitutes its own religious entity. Moreover,

he presents strong evidence that this worldview is growing with

37 Taylor, Bron. "Gaian Earth Religion and the Modern God of Nature." Phi Kappa Phi Forum Summer 2011, pp. 1338 Ibid, pp. 15

speed and strength globally and within Western culture. This

“religious environmentalism” held by so many in the West is often

coupled with romanticization of non-Western cultures. Finding

this problematic, Emma Tomalin examines the differences between

perceived “nature religions” and “religious environmentalism.”39

What she concludes is that “nature religions” are not always

ecologically responsible, and that the Western fetish for other

cultures is in fact problematic in appropriating new beliefs.

There is an important difference between nature worship and

nature service which she illuminates, as well as “full belly” and

“empty belly” environmentalism.40 This critique is necessary for

the development of religious environmentalism, but is not meant

to belittle the validity of such worldviews. By finding the two

nature-based religious teachings incongruous, she helps to show

that each culture must create its own unique relationship with

its own ecosystem in order to be most productive.

39 Tomalin, Emma. "The Limitations of Religious Environmentalism for India." Worldviews 30th ser. 6.12 (2002)40 Tomalin, Emma. "The Limitations of Religious Environmentalism for India." Worldviews 30th ser. 6.12 (2002), pp.19

A prophet of religious environmentalism far before his time,

Aldo Leopold presented a possible cosmovision and ethnoscience

for his society. In 1949 he wrote his book “A Sand County

Almanac,” which submits what he calls “The Land Ethic,” an ethic

which he believed must be adopted by the West in order to better

manage its natural resources.41 As a forester, he spent much time

observing and interacting with his ecological surroundings. He

recognized the commodification of the Earth (which we now

recognize as connected to the “Religion of the Market”) as a

moral dilemma; just as the ancient Greeks treated women as

objects to exploit, the West today views the Earth in the same

manner. Leopold considered this connection reason to expand our

ethical boundaries to “include soils, waters, plants, and

animals, or collectively: the land.”42 In doing so, a worldview

follows which respects the interdependency and rights of all

members within ecosystems. Profound in Leopold’s presentation is

an understanding of the function of worldviews on actions, that

worldviews themselves are worthless unless they direct action.

41 Leopold, Aldo, and Charles Walsh Schwartz. A Sand County Almanac. London, Etc.:Oxford UP, 194942 Ibid, pp. 204

This he claims can be enacted upon: “social approbation for right

actions: social disapproval for wrong actions.”43 Given the

responsibility of community, the view of Earth as not a commodity

but as a home, and the understanding of ecology to create an

enthoscience, Leopold shows that the West is indeed capable of

formulating its own cosmovision and instilling a respectful

relationship with the Earth.

Conclusion

I invite the reader to refer back to the opening quote. Our

interpretations of place, our worldviews, constitute what it

means to be human, to live our lives with purpose, with answers,

with structure. But more than provide comfort, our worldviews

give us the ability to survive, to adapt. We can no longer

imagine that our Earth is a comfortable place. The actions of

humans long before us have created a need for reevaluation of our

worldviews, a critique of our religions, if we are to mitigate

our ecological impact and improve the health of the environment.

Sale reminds us that our species succeeded in adaptation to a

changing climate only 20,000 years ago, a blink of an eye in 43 Ibid, pp. 225

geologic time. In that case, it was beneficial to us to exploit

the Earth – we were hungry, we were cold, and we were struggling

for survival. But today it is beyond beneficial, it is

imperative, that we adopt a worldview that interprets the real

place in which we must survive. We are the determinants of the

future.

Works Cited

Benavides, Gustavo. "Ecology and Religion." The Encyclopedia of Religion

and Nature 1 (2008): 548-53

Berry, Evan. "Nature." Religion and Culture (2012): 155-71

Burkes, Fikret. Sacred Ecology: TEK and Resource Management. Philadelphia, PA:

Taylor and Francis, 1999

Cizik, Richard. "What If?" Love God, Heal Earth. Ed. Sally G.

Bingham. Pittsburgh, PA: St. Lynns, 2009. 1-10

Diamond, Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New

York: Viking, 2005

Deloria, Vine. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. New York: Grosset &

Dunlap, 1973.

Dewitt, Calvin B. "Behemoth and Batrachians in the Eye of God."

Christianity and Ecology (2000): 290-311

Habel, Norm. "The Mandate to Dominate." An Inconvenient Text : 1-10

Haberman, David L. River of Love in an Age of Pollution: The Yamuna River of

Northern India. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2006.

Lane, Belden C. Landscapes of the Sacred: Geography and Narrative in American

Spirituality. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 2001.

Leopold, Aldo, and Charles Walsh Schwartz. A Sand County Almanac.

London, Etc.: Oxford UP, 1949.

Loy, David R. "The Religion of the Market." Journal of the American

Academy of Religions 65.2 (1997)

Maffi, Luisa. "What Is Biocultural Diversity?" Earthscan (2010):

1-11

McDuff, Mallory D. Natural Saints: How People of Faith Are Working to save God's

Earth. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010.

Posey, Darrell Addison. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity: A

Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. London:

Intermediate Technology, 1999

Sale, Kirkpatrick. "Intensification and Agriculture." After Eden:

The Evolution of Human Domination. Durham: Duke UP, 2006: 71-102.

Snarey, John. "The Natural Environment's Impact upon Religious

Ethics: A Cross Cultural Study." Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion 35.2 (1996): 85-96.

Taylor, Bron. "Gaian Earth Religion and the Modern God of

Nature." Phi Kappa Phi Forum Summer 2011: 13-15

Tomalin, Emma. "The Limitations of Religious Environmentalism for

India." Worldviews 30th ser. 6.12 (202): 12-30.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. "Our Treatment of the Environment in Ideal and

Actuality." American Scientist 58.May-June (1970)

White, Lynn. The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis: American

Association of Science, 1967

Wilson, David Sloan "Evolutionary Biology, Religion, and

Stewardship" The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature / Editors,

Bron R. Taylor, Jeffrey Kaplan