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 moveth upon the earth.
You say that we should not exploit the earth because of greed, but how much exploitation is that? How much oil, or coal or gas is too much? If all extraction of minerals is wrong we could have no solar cells and no windmills; won’t we be like the Amish? I’d rather live in the Shire too, so perhaps a good thing, but shivering in the cold is not a future I’d relish, and I don’t think it would make me holier.
The second question is about the intrinsic value of work. I’m a medical doctor in the UK, and medicine here used to define a doctor’s life. Doctors would work extra hours, or get up at night and not infrequently work on past usual retirement age. That attitude has largely vanished in favour of “work/ life balance”; this is a major contributory cause of our NHS crisis. One reason for this (and I’m being very controversial) is that a majority of doctors are now women, and they have competing claims on their time, particularly if they have children. In your view how should a mother portion out her time in terms of “mothering” and work outside the home?
As to your first question, "How much may we exploit the Earth's resources?" I come back to God's original command to us to have dominion over the Earth. When he put us in charge of the animals and of the Garden of Eden, he implicitly allowed us to help in his process of creation and make the world. My benchmark, then, is that all of our care for the world should make the world a better place. I use the Shire as an example of positive development - it's nicer than the Wilderness. Compare a pretty Dutch town to a mud flat - the mud is dug out and heaped to prevent flooding, this allows plants and animals to grow, the mud is baked using the wood from the grown trees, and houses and churches are built for the people who live off the plants and animals. No exploitation, just development. If you'll excuse the fact that it's a ridiculously simplistic example of subsistence farming (it gets too complicated when we move into trade), I think my point is clear - our call is to sustainable development, NOT to exploitation. We may use the resources to create more, we may not use them up.
As to resources that do get used up (like oil, metals for solar panels), I don't know exactly where the limits are. I suspect it doesn't require going full Amish, but I do suspect it's a huge pullback from our industrialisation. Shivering in the cold or living without medical care are also not things I'd relish, but I don't think either heating or medicine requires making the world a worse place. A well-managed forest can provide a lot of wood for heating. Similarly, a farmer who works efficiently is able to support many doctors' food needs, even without using chemicals and other practices that, in the long term, worsen the soil. Happy to hear your thoughts on this.
As to the second question: The intrinsic value of work. I am lucky that you are in a job where the social benefit is clear. Our work is a real part of the way we exercise dominion and contribute to a better society, and so we can't simply push it aside to focus on our lives - no, our work is part (and an important part!) of our lives. "Work-life balance" is nonsensical. That said, our first responsibility must of course be to our families. If we are unable to fulfil our duties to our families because of our work, then our families must come first.
This plays into the ordo amoris, about which I have just written an article: https://open.substack.com/pub/dominicoption/p/ordo-amoris-and-ethno-nationalism . My article is more about politics than about family vs society, but I'd love to hear your thoughts after it goes out this weekend! The ordo amoris says that, until you have fulfilled your responsibilities to God, you cannot focus on yourself. Until you have fulfilled your responsibilities to yourself, you cannot focus on your family. Until you have fulfilled your responsibilities to your family, you cannot focus on your neighbours. Until you have fulfilled your responsibilities to your neighbours, you cannot focus on your work. "Put your own gas mask on before attending to others," so to speak. That's important to keep in mind - take care of your duties to your own kids before you go and treat other people's kids at work. At the same time, we can't pretend we have no duties to help other people's kids. It's hard to balance.
I think the question of how to balance "mothering" (or "parenting" more broadly, though mothers obviously have essential contributions to make at home, of which fathers are not capable) and work outside the home is a really good question, and likely up to each individual family. Have you got any thoughts on this yourself? Or principles you think are important to keep in mind? It's indeed hard to write about without being controversial. But I think often topics like that, if approached with charity, can be all the more meaningful. My first blog post that got any meaningful engagement was actually about housework: https://dominicoption.substack.com/p/home-economics
That was real food for thought. Thank you.
I have two questions.
You say that we should not exploit the earth because of greed, but how much exploitation is that? How much oil, or coal or gas is too much? If all extraction of minerals is wrong we could have no solar cells and no windmills; won’t we be like the Amish? I’d rather live in the Shire too, so perhaps a good thing, but shivering in the cold is not a future I’d relish, and I don’t think it would make me holier.
The second question is about the intrinsic value of work. I’m a medical doctor in the UK, and medicine here used to define a doctor’s life. Doctors would work extra hours, or get up at night and not infrequently work on past usual retirement age. That attitude has largely vanished in favour of “work/ life balance”; this is a major contributory cause of our NHS crisis. One reason for this (and I’m being very controversial) is that a majority of doctors are now women, and they have competing claims on their time, particularly if they have children. In your view how should a mother portion out her time in terms of “mothering” and work outside the home?
Thanks.
Hi Francis, thanks for your thoughts!
As to your first question, "How much may we exploit the Earth's resources?" I come back to God's original command to us to have dominion over the Earth. When he put us in charge of the animals and of the Garden of Eden, he implicitly allowed us to help in his process of creation and make the world. My benchmark, then, is that all of our care for the world should make the world a better place. I use the Shire as an example of positive development - it's nicer than the Wilderness. Compare a pretty Dutch town to a mud flat - the mud is dug out and heaped to prevent flooding, this allows plants and animals to grow, the mud is baked using the wood from the grown trees, and houses and churches are built for the people who live off the plants and animals. No exploitation, just development. If you'll excuse the fact that it's a ridiculously simplistic example of subsistence farming (it gets too complicated when we move into trade), I think my point is clear - our call is to sustainable development, NOT to exploitation. We may use the resources to create more, we may not use them up.
As to resources that do get used up (like oil, metals for solar panels), I don't know exactly where the limits are. I suspect it doesn't require going full Amish, but I do suspect it's a huge pullback from our industrialisation. Shivering in the cold or living without medical care are also not things I'd relish, but I don't think either heating or medicine requires making the world a worse place. A well-managed forest can provide a lot of wood for heating. Similarly, a farmer who works efficiently is able to support many doctors' food needs, even without using chemicals and other practices that, in the long term, worsen the soil. Happy to hear your thoughts on this.
As to the second question: The intrinsic value of work. I am lucky that you are in a job where the social benefit is clear. Our work is a real part of the way we exercise dominion and contribute to a better society, and so we can't simply push it aside to focus on our lives - no, our work is part (and an important part!) of our lives. "Work-life balance" is nonsensical. That said, our first responsibility must of course be to our families. If we are unable to fulfil our duties to our families because of our work, then our families must come first.
This plays into the ordo amoris, about which I have just written an article: https://open.substack.com/pub/dominicoption/p/ordo-amoris-and-ethno-nationalism . My article is more about politics than about family vs society, but I'd love to hear your thoughts after it goes out this weekend! The ordo amoris says that, until you have fulfilled your responsibilities to God, you cannot focus on yourself. Until you have fulfilled your responsibilities to yourself, you cannot focus on your family. Until you have fulfilled your responsibilities to your family, you cannot focus on your neighbours. Until you have fulfilled your responsibilities to your neighbours, you cannot focus on your work. "Put your own gas mask on before attending to others," so to speak. That's important to keep in mind - take care of your duties to your own kids before you go and treat other people's kids at work. At the same time, we can't pretend we have no duties to help other people's kids. It's hard to balance.
I think the question of how to balance "mothering" (or "parenting" more broadly, though mothers obviously have essential contributions to make at home, of which fathers are not capable) and work outside the home is a really good question, and likely up to each individual family. Have you got any thoughts on this yourself? Or principles you think are important to keep in mind? It's indeed hard to write about without being controversial. But I think often topics like that, if approached with charity, can be all the more meaningful. My first blog post that got any meaningful engagement was actually about housework: https://dominicoption.substack.com/p/home-economics