One of the most intriguing and intellectually satisfying philosophies regarding our stewardship responsibilities comes to us from myrmecologist and world renown ecologist and writer E.O. Wilson and social ecologist, Stephen Kellert. Biophilia literally means, affinity for life, or as Wilson puts it, the “innate tendency to focus on life and life-like processes.” Wilson did not coin the term, but he asked important questions, most notably, why do we (humans) exhibit this trait? His answer depends heavily on the premise that we are the products of a long evolutionary process. For the Christian, the answer is much simpler and more satisfying than relying on the speculation that biophilic tendencies could increase the possibility of survival. Christian biophilia or Creational biophilia means that we are designed to have affinity for other living things. This is both logical and beautiful. As Proverbs 25:2 states, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but it is the glory of kings to search out a matter.”

Kellert took Wilson’s strong inference and developed the hypothesis, quite broadly. This idea has since been incorporated most successfully into the field of landscape architecture; the idea being, if we use those aspects of nature that are attractive or nourishing or refreshing to people, we can create outdoor and indoor spaces that will serve multiple benefits, most importantly increasing a sense of well-being. This short vid explains the concept. 

A landscape architect friend of mine turned me on to this publication by Terrapin Bright Green, a company dedicated to incorporating biophilic principles and other sustainable practices into their design work. As they state in this document, ” the intent of this paper is to articulate the relationships between nature, science, and the built environment so that we may experience the human benefits of biophilia in our design applications. The paper presents a framework for biophilic design that is reflective of the nature-health relationships most important in the built environment – those that are known to enhance our lives through a connection with nature.”

So, what does the reformed environmentalist care about landscape architecture and the built environment? It’s part of the grand synthesis, the fully integrated biological and ecological system that we are a part of.  The good Lord designed us. He designed us to be designers. Building with an eye toward His Creation and with an eye to improving quality of life in the workplace is one arena where we can actively pursue the dominion mandate.  The biophilia hypothesis provides a philosophically coherent framework for doing science, for building, for extracting energy, for dealing with our waste. We can and should derive our interactions with the landscape and other species, and ecological processes through a Creational biophilic lens. 

It’s all about design . . . 

Our Lust for Dichotomy

We live in a polar world. Our planet has two poles. Our understanding of electricity and magnetism rely on an understanding of opposing forces. Positive and negative charges allow us to model current and chemical bonds. Polarity is a very helpful concept. When it comes to understanding complex ecological dynamics and policy decisions, however, polarity should be invoked only when it reflects reality.

Polarity is helpful in geography and navigation because we do have a North and a South Pole. It is helpful in understanding the relationships between atoms because we do have particles that attract and repel each other. Even polarity at the chemical level, when studied thoroughly, ends up being more complicated than simply positive protons and negative electrons. 

Merriam Webster defines polarity as: the quality or condition inherent in a body that exhibits opposite properties or powers in opposite parts or directions or that exhibits contrasted properties or powers in contrasted parts or directions : the condition of having poles. This tracks with penguins and polar bears and sub-atomic particles. It does not track well with thoughtful decision making in the midst of myriad variables.

The more commonly discussed societal polarity is defined as, the presence or manifestation of two opposite or contrasting principles or tendencies. Unfortunately, this societal polarity has become the hallmark of the media’s portrayal of any and all discussion of conservation issues. There is a long history here, one that I have been reading a bit about in the book The Wizard and the Prophet. This history of preservationist vs. extractionist philosophies combined with the media’s obsession of discussing all policy from a national perspective (as opposed to state or local) give most of us an oversimplified, cut and dried, perspective on environmental issues. Its option A (kills all of the wildlife) or option B (kills none of the wildlife). Or its option 1 (regulates private industry to its demise) or option 2 (lets big business run amok). 

Ecosystems are far more complicated than water molecules. When land-managers or developers propose dichotomous alternatives or paint their project proposal as black and the only alternative as white, they’ve lost sight of the scale at which they are operating.


As an example, consider the media’s portrayal of wind energy. Its an angel in many outlets and the devil in others. Dams are like this as well. All good or all bad. (Read McGee’s paper on dams here). By pre-determining that a mechanism or type of infrastructure is good or bad ignores the landscape, the water table, the topography, the humidity, the wind patterns, the biodiversity. Basically, it ignores Creation (big C) and states that our creation (little c) is of such quality and forethought that where it goes really does not matter.  

This societal polarity also shows up inappropriately in how natural disasters, especially wildfires, are covered by the media. Wildfires are naturally occurring, ecologically important phenomena. They also cause significant property damage, especially in the state of California, over the last 5-10 years and the most recent bushfire season in Australia. But there is so much more to them. They aren’t simply a completely torched area inside a massive perimeter. When a fire is reported to have burned millions of acres, that is the perimeter. What has happened inside the perimeter is highly variable. Some of it will have benefitted certain species or ecological systems, some of it will have hurt certain species and ecological processes. In other words, there is no room for a presumption of uniformity in ecological considerations. There are rules. There are principles, but there is not uniformity. We need to come to each situation with that operating assumption. 

And so, read popular articles about energy and the environment, about conservation and development with this in mind. Does the author detail the local ecology or paint with much broader brush? Both authors and readers can be guilty of drawing generalizations out of local contexts or ignoring local contexts altogether. Polarity is great for a boxing match or a water molecule. As a strategy for dealing with air, land, and water issues in a thoughtful way it falls short.