Because of its theocentric nature and the dispersion of relevant passages, the Old Testament presentation of creation theology is frequently misunderstood. I investigate the works of modem Old Testament scholars, particularly Walther Eichrodt, Gerhard von Rad, and Claus Westermann, in regard to the theology of creation. Using principles of analysis suggested by Gerhard Hasel, I discuss how the Old Testament portrays God as acting in both the original creation and post-Genesis events. The role of God as creator is not independent ofother major Old Testament themes, such as God the savior. God’s care for creation continues as does his blessing.

The individual motorist often defends his unwillingness to change his driving habits in the face of air pollution by pointing out that a change in his actions would be insignificant. The environmentalist responds by asking what would happen if everyone did change. In this paper I defend the environmentalist’s response. I argue that we can appeal to the following principle to defend both group and individual obligations to clean up air: if the consequences of everyone doing aare undesirable, then each and every one ought to do was he can to prevent the undesirable consequences.

New discoveries about materials and solar energy raise the possibility of a long-tenn shift of mining, refining, and manufacturing from Earth’s surface to locations outside Earth’s ecosphere, allowing Earth to begin to relax back toward its natural state. A little-discussed ambivalence toward the potential of space exploration exists among environmentalists. One camp sees it as a human adventure that may allow a bold initiative to improve Earth; another camp shies away from “heavy technology” and thus distrusts efforts as massive as space exploration or utilization. Due to impending resource depletion on Earth, we may have only until the mid-twenty-first century to pursue the promising potential of space exploration to alleviate environmental problems of Earth. Subsequently, there may be too litde industlial base to support vigorous exploration and exploitation of resources in space.

In recent years, philosophers have begun to devote serious attention to animal rights issues. Most of the attention has focused on factory farming and animal experimentation. While many of the arguments used to justify sport hunting are shown to be spurious, the paper defends sport hunting on utilitarian grounds. The loss of sport hunting would also mean the loss of a major political pressure group working for the benefit of wildlife through the preservation of habitat. Peter Singer argues that “the shooting of a duck does not lead to its replacement by another.” I argue that, on the contrary, the shooting of a duck leads to the production of other ducks and other life forms that are not shot at.

Play requires security from sober concems, and only recently have non-native North Americans feIt secure enough in wildemess lands to view them as potential playgrounds. Employing a pretend quality of play illusion, many kinds of play are derivatives from normally sober activities. I argue that the most genuine sorts of wildemess play derive from the activities of the original geographical explorers. It is thus possible to distinguish types of play for which wildemess is especially suited from types that merely happen in the wildemess-i.e., for which wildemess is an accidental playground. Play values are important enough to receive serious consideration in the administration of wildemess lands, and Iconclude that our public policy ought to favor wildemess activities that most closely imitate the activities of the original geographical explorers.

There is an international deep ecology social movement with key terms, slogans, and rhetorical use of language comparable to what we find in other activist “alternative” movements today. Some supporters of the movement partake in academic philosophy and have developed or at least suggested philosophies, “ecosophies,” inspired by the movement. R. A. Watson does not distinguish sufficiently between the movement and the philosophical expressions with academic pretensions. As a result, he falsely concludes that deep ecology implies setting man apart from nature-a kind of “anthropocentrism” in his terminology: humans and only humans have no right to interfere with natural processes. What the deep ecology movement insists on is rather that life on Earth has intrinsic value and that human behavior should and must change drastically-and soon.