In the blog post of Wednesday, October 21st, the traditional concept of “partnering with God” in the perfection of the world as well as the self is discussed. Reading an essay in the latest Harper’s Magazine (November 2015) entitled, “Rethinking Extinction: Toward a Less Gloomy Environmentalism” by James K Boyce ( http://harpers.org/archive/2015/11/rethinking-extinction/ ) leads me to think about the converse of “partnering with God,” i.e., not protecting the world and its contents which man has been Given. Not only is man charged with “helping” God Perfect the world, but also not to cause the world to become less perfect.

Already in Beraishit 2, man’s responsibilities vis-à-vis his environment are outlined:

15 And the LORD God Took the man, and Put him into the Garden of Eden to work it and to keep it.

The Midrash fleshes out man’s responsibility that is articulated in the above-cited verse in Beraishit:

Kohelet Rabba 7:13

(Kohelet 7:13 “Consider the Work of God; for who can make that straight, which He hath Made crooked?”)

At the time when the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Created the first Man, He Took him and Gave him a tour of all of the trees in the Garden of Eden. And He Said to him: See what I have Made! How beautiful and praiseworthy they are! And all that I Created, I Created it for you. Pay attention that you do not ruin and destroy My World, because if you ruin it, there will not be anyone who will be able to repair it. And not only that, but you will be causing death to that righteous person (i.e., Adam and his descendants, i.e., all of mankind.)

Consequently, despite the fact that man is permitted to dominate and take advantage of his environment:

Beraishit 1:28

And God Blessed them; and God Said unto them: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth,”

the mandate is tempered by Beraishit 2:15 with the need to act responsibly to preserve to the greatest extent as possible the world and its contents that were Created to support man’s existence.

These sources lead directly to Boyce’s essay, which focuses upon the carrier pigeon, a species that until the turn of the 20th century was one of the most plentiful birds in North America, and which was deemed extinct with the death of the last one in 1914. The author describes how man aggressively hunted these birds, and that the idea that human beings could cause the complete obliteration of a type of animal was cause for widespread consternation, even giving rise to the environmentalist movement. The philosophical question that Boyce raises is whether sophisticated, highly costly, technological attempts to restore a species like the carrier pigeon should be undertaken, or whether the money would be better spent on preserving presently-endangered species from becoming extinct in the first place. In effect, what does it mean to be the “caretaker” of God’s world? Boyce contends that more than 99% of species since the beginning of time have become extinct. Man cannot be held responsible for plants and animals that disappeared due to natural cataclysmic events such as powerful storms, significant climate change and giant asteroids colliding with earth; however if a species becomes extinct directly due to man’s actions, does humanity have the responsibility to not only assure that this does not happen again, but if possible, to restore the extinct species to the world?

While Boyce is directly concerned with the elimination of whole species, there have been other situations which raise similar questions with regard to man’s stewardship of the world. When whales have been beached and great efforts and resources are expended to save them (e.g., http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/03/13632807-stranded-whales-rescued-after-dozens-beached-in-scotland?lite ) one wonders whether a better use of the physical and emotional investment that was invested was justified. Several years ago, there was a great controversy regarding the threat to the habitat of the spotted owl that logging interests posed in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/us/18owl.html ), which once again pitted the priority of human economic interests against the preservation of a particular species of animal. And there have been an ongoing series of articles about the threat posed to African elephants due to the world-wide demand for ivory (e.g., http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21030586 ).

Boyce, who ostensibly is not informed by Jewish traditional values, ends his article with the following:

For when the choice before us is framed as humans versus nature, it turns out that most people, with however, much regret, will choose humans.

The question for us is whether this attitude is also in accordance with the spirit of the Tora and Jewish tradition, or whether some higher standard should inform our considerations regarding the natural world in which we reside.