See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/332423025
The Tragedy of the Commons and Its Synthesis: A Consequence of the
Anthropocene and Secularism 1
Preprint · April 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 34
1 author:
Rijal Ramdani
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
7 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Peat fires policy in Indonesia View project
its both article View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rijal Ramdani on 15 April 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
The Tragedy of the Commons and Its Synthesis: A Consequence of the
Anthropocene and Secularism1
Rijal Ramdani
[email protected]
Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland
Department of Government Affairs and Administration, Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Science through its invention of the machine and technology has impressively contributed to
the development of human civilization. However, in the last five decades, we have been
turning into the situation when many environmental degradations are occurring, for example,
deforestation, air pollution, flooding, landslide, and climate change. A question has been
coming to my mind since the beginning of my university study whether science indeed
promotes a harmony relation between human and nature in a civilized world or science is the
main driving force of environmental tragedies. Does science have a fundamental ethic to
minimize its destructions or is science value-free in which every humankind can use it
excluding any ethical considerations? This essay discusses this question and argues that the
Anthropocene and Secularism are the answer to why science has loosed its objectivities and
its moral principles. The article develops an argument that science and religion should not be
antagonistic. Science originally came from a spiritual contemplation to meet with the absolute
truth, which can guide humankind to become a wise animal in this planet.
Let me begin with the Anthropocene as an epoch of an impressive and enormous pressure of
human activities to nature (Steffen et al., 2007). We could say that all natural changes and
environmental degradations have been coming from human influences (Lewis and Maslin,
2015). This massive human pressure has mainly been occurring since the industrial revolution
in England (Zalasiewicz et al., 2008; Zalasiewicz* et al., 2010). Scientists recognize it as the
first epoch of the Anthropocene, which was the starting line of high consumption of fossil
fuels, coals, and oils (Steffen et al., 2007). It is no doubt that science has a significant
contribution to the industrial revolution with the invention of the steam engine by James
Watt in 1970s and 1980s (Steffen et al., 2007). Without the invention of scientific work and
without the renaissance, it was possible for industrial revolution to come at that time.
The second epoch of the Anthropocene started in 1945 after World War II. This period is
popular as the great of acceleration in which the human population was double to 6 billion
by the year 2010, currently 3.5 billion people are living in cities, fertilizer consumption has
reached 160 million tons, every day 1200 million motor vehicles consume the gasoline, and
1
This work is an essay of final exam for a PhD course of Methods and Scientific Though at University of Eastern
Finland, teacher professor Ossi Lidqvist
academic activities have used almost 400 million tons of papers (Steffen et al., 2015). As a
result, we currently come to the situation when our earth is less biological diverse, less
forested, much warmer, and more polluted (Steffen et al., 2007). This situation is what Garet
Hardin calls as the tragedy of the commons because of human greediness in which every
humankind is always expecting to maximize the natural resource utilization without proper
principles for the future viability of this planet (Hardin, 1968).
I do believe that the Anthropocene role to the environmental degradations is owing to that
science has limited ethical values when humans use it in the process of development and
economic activities. Science has been deviated from its original objective to promote a better
life for human livelihood, and at the same time, scientists are not able to develop ethical
justifications (Bainbridge, 2004). This situation has well known as secularism, a separation
between science and religion (PHILLIPS, 2012) or a process of knowledge removal from
religious symbols. We can see the ethical values of religions have lost their strength from
science domination (William, 2004) and religious dogmas were always wrong while the
scientific inventions were always the truth (Ferngren, 2015). According to william (2004),
three schemes of science and religion intersection appear namely religion without science,
religion with science, and science without religion. In another word, these three schemes
imply religion dominates science, religion and science complete each other or religion is
declining as the rise of science development and invention (Bainbridge, 2004).
Many predict that the role of religion will be declining; science will take over every single
aspect of modern civilization. For example, an interview with 2000 respondents demonstrates
that in their opinion in 2100 science might be able to demonstrate evidences that God is not
the creator of the universe and science will be able to create a complete ethical justification
(Bainbridge, 2004). Hence, humans will be much greedier and greedier to use science on earth
exploitation. This situation is not we need as science and logic has an ethical limitation. I
believe that religion and science should complete each other to minimize environmental
degradations; humans should use knowledge based on metaphysical ontology, epistemology
and ethic as a synthesis between science and religion.
How this metaphysical ontology, epistemology, and ethic work in the scientific though? Let
me explain in three stages. First, I do believe that three ontological basses exist namely Good,
Nature, and Human. The metaphysical approach sees the basis of the anthology is not only
nature and human but also God. This argument differs from secularism who stood only nature
and human are the primary basis of the ontology. Besides, in the metaphysical point of view,
nature and human are not the real existence; both are nothingness. Nature and human are
the shine of the true real existence; both are existed due to the true real existence. Let me
use the light illustration. Without light we cannot see objects around us, we see them because
of the help of the sun. However, we cannot see the light in its existence; what we can see is
only the light reflection. In another word, we can say that we cannot see God; what we can
see is just God` creations. When we see the beauty of nature and human creation, we see
them as the beauty of God’s existence.
Second, the most critical aspect of scientific research is curiosity by creating a question. I
remember a novel I read when I was in the first year of my senior high school “Sophie’s
World.” The author, Jostein Gaarder (1996) said a philosopher is like a child who always asks
everything that he is wondering. "Wonder" is the hearth of thinking and thinking is the
meaning of our life (Gaarder, 1996). Descartes also said, “Cogito ergo sum” “I think; therefore,
I am meaning.” Due to the metaphysical ontology, the object of scientific studies is not only
the process of the natural system and the interaction of human life but also the existence of
God. The process of thought to find out the answer to our curiosity is what we call as
epistemological work. Hence, research is a process of epistemological thinking to answer our
curiosity about the natural order and human interaction to find out a relative conclusion,
which we follow with a new further question to find out the real existence beyond the truth.
Finally, conducting research is a holy process of spirituality; it is a way to authenticate the
creator existence. Indeed, the ethical principles of science application will base on a spiritual
basis. For example, when we know that forest is a valuable natural resource for economic
development from its timber, we will not have a bravery to cutting down the forest trees, as
we saw that the forest is a God creation. If we destroy the forest, it means that we are
destroying the God existence. When we conserve the forest, it means that we are maintaining
the God creation. If we adopt this metaphysical basis in our scientific thought, we will be
always using our knowledge in the God values. If we use God values in applying scientific
knowledge, there will be no more tragedies of environmental degradation. This metaphysical
ontology and episteme are a synthesis between faith and rationality. Hence, we can conclude
that science and religion is not antagonistic. Research is the process of spiritual contemplation
to find out the real existence beyond the truth.
Reference
Bainbridge WS. (2004) Religion and science. Futures 36: 1009-1023.
Emerson K, Nabatchi T and Balogh S. (2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance.
Journal of public administration research and theory 22: 1-29.
Ferngren GB. (2015) Religion and Sciences.
Gaarder J. (1996) Sophie’s World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy, trans. Paulette Møller.
New York: Berkeley Books.
Hardin G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. science 162: 1243-1248.
Lewis SL and Maslin MA. (2015) Defining the anthropocene. Nature 519: 171.
PHILLIPS G. (2012) Introduction to Secularism. London: National Secular Society.
Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, et al. (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great
acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2: 81-98.
Steffen W, Crutzen PJ and McNeill JR. (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the
great forces of nature. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36: 614-622.
Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Smith A, et al. (2008) Are we now living in the Anthropocene? Gsa Today
18: 4.
Zalasiewicz* J, Williams M, Steffen W, et al. (2010) The new world of the Anthropocene. ACS
Publications.
View publication stats
