Philosophic Detection: Environmentalism, Religion and the MUP

The MUP (Malevolent Universe Premise) is the often unstated, emotionally held idea that the universe is inimical to man. In this view, the universe is a dangerous place where any joy is fleeting, to be destroyed by the coming disaster--where pain, despair, and death are the common, and pleasure, happiness, and life are the rare.

On the surface, it's obvious how environmentalists relate to the MUP--they routinely see in every scientific/industrial advance the seeds of the destruction of all humanity. Everything men do to try to better themselves results in more alienation, disease, and death. Their solution (when they're consistent) is to leave industrial society and live like Rousseau's "noble savages" in "harmony" with nature.

But the level of acceptance of the MUP by environmentalists is much deeper, and has more significant cognitive consequences than what I've already alluded to. This was made apparent to me when I was talking to J., a friend of mine who is no longer an environmentalist, but used to be a card-carrying member of the Sierra club. We were discussing the dependency of modern industrial society on oil. He sounded the usual worry of "what are we going to do when we run out of oil?"

"We'll use a new resource," I said.

"What about when we run out of that?"

My response was that there is really only one natural resource: man's mind. It is the task of man's mind to discover, produce, and consume the requirements of his life and happiness. If oil becomes scarce, man will put his mind to the task of discovering a new source of energy. (In fact, we already have one that the environmentalists oppose--nuclear energy.) J. was not able to immediately accept this idea--to my knowledge, he still has not; but I think it's just a matter of time until he does--but he was unable to offer any rational argument against it. His response basically amounted to "I disagree."

I thought about this quite a bit--why is it so hard for him to imagine that man could actually produce the long-term requirements of his life and happiness? That's when it hit me--the MUP. He had accepted the idea that man, through accident or malice, could easily destroy the entire human race through any attempt at progress. He could not accept the idea that man is capable of elevating the entire human race through a process of sustained productive thought.

Environmentalists and other anti-science people often exclaim "what arrogance man has to 'rape' the earth of her natural resources, to think that he can play God." I used to think they did this in an attempt to portray man of small stature. That idea is contradicted by the fact that when it comes to man's destructive power, they portray him as a juggernaut. Get it? When considering man's productive capacity, they say he has none; but when considering his destructive power, suddenly man is a super-villain the likes of which Stan Lee never imagined. It's not that they need to portray man as small--it's that they need to portray industry, productivity, and the reasoning scientific mind as destructive. Since these things are man's means of living, this means that man's life is inherently self-destructive! The universe, to them, is a place where every attempt by man to live and be happy will only rain destruction and punishment. His only option, in their view, is that man must renounce his arrogance (industry, science), and prostrate himself before a more powerful authority (Mother Nature, God), hoping that his life will be merely miserable, instead of an exercise in terror and grief.

In most people, this is not an explicitly held viewpoint--but it exists nonetheless as an emotional color on their thinking. It's easier for them to accept tales of man's self-destructive capacity--they regard it as unfortunate, but common. It's nearly impossible for them to imagine tales of man's heroism--they regard it with suspicion, and sometimes a tinge of fear.

This is part of why philosophy is so important. Philsophy can answer the question "What kind of universe do I live in?" Is the MUP rational? Or is the universe the kind of place where man can live, and be happy? My answer to that question should be obvious, but for the record, I believe in a benevolent universe--not in the sense that the universe is out to help me in some way, but in the sense that it is the kind of place that I can understand, live in, and achieve my happiness.