Ecocentrism
Ecocentrism (from Greek: οἶκος, oikos, "house"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center". Pronounced ekōˈsenˌtrizəm) is a term used in ecological political philosophy to denote a nature-centred, as opposed to human-centred, system of values. The justification for ecocentrism usually consists in an ontological belief and subsequent ethical claim. The ontological belief denies that there are any existential divisions between human and non-human nature sufficient to claim that humans are either (a) the sole bearers of intrinsic value or (b) possess greater intrinsic value than non-human nature. Thus the subsequent ethical claim is for an equality of intrinsic value across human and non-human nature, or ‘biospherical egalitarianism’.[1]
According to Rowe:[2]
The ecocentric argument is grounded in the belief that, compared to the undoubted importance of the human part, the whole ecosphere is even more significant and consequential: more inclusive, more complex, more integrated, more creative, more beautiful, more mysterious, and older than time. The "environment" that anthropocentrism misperceives as materials designed to be used exclusively by humans, to serve the needs of humanity, is in the profoundest sense humanity's source and support: its ingenious, inventive life-giving matrix. Ecocentrism goes beyond biocentrism with its fixation on organisms, for in the ecocentric view people are inseparable from the inorganic/organic nature that encapsulates them. They are particles and waves, body and spirit, in the context of Earth's ambient energy.[3]
and:
To switch Western culture from its present track to a saving ecopolitical route means finding a new and compelling belief-system to redirect our way-of-living. It must be a vital outgrowth from our science-based culture. It seems to me that the only promising universal belief-system is ecocentrism, defined as a value-shift from Homo sapiens to planet earth. A scientific rationale backs the value-shift. All organisms are evolved from Earth, sustained by Earth. Thus Earth, not organism, is the metaphor for Life. Earth not humanity is the Life-center, the creativity-center. Earth is the whole of which we are subservient parts. Such a fundamental philosophy gives ecological awareness and sensitivity an enfolding, material focus.
Ecocentrism is not an argument that all organisms have equivalent value. It is not an anti-human argument nor a put-down of those seeking social justice. It does not deny that myriad important homocentric problems exist. But it stands aside from these smaller, short-term issues in order to consider Ecological Reality. Reflecting on the ecological status of all organisms, it comprehends the Ecosphere as a Being that transcends in importance any one single species, even the self-named sapient one.[4]
Origin of term
The ecocentric ethic was conceived by Aldo Leopold[5] and recognizes that all species, including humans, are the product of a long evolutionary process and are inter-related in their life processes.[6] The writings of Aldo Leopold and his idea of the land ethic and good environmental management are a key element to this philosophy. Ecocentrism focuses on the biotic community as a whole and strives to maintain ecosystem composition and ecological processes.[7] The term also finds expression in the first principle of the deep ecology movement, as formulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions in 1984[8] which points out that anthropocentrism, which considers humans as the center of the universe and the pinnacle of all creation, is a difficult opponent for ecocentrism.[9]
Background
Environmental thought and the various branches of the environmental movement are often classified into two intellectual camps: those that are considered anthropocentric, or “human-centred,” in orientation and those considered biocentric, or “life-centred.” This division has been described in other terminology as “shallow” ecology versus “deep” ecology and as “technocentrism” versus “ecocentrism". Ecocentrism can be seen as one stream of thought within environmentalism, the political and ethical movement that seeks to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities by adopting environmentally benign forms of political, economic, and social organization and through a reassessment of humanity's relationship with nature. In various ways, environmentalism claims that non-human organisms and the natural environment as a whole deserve consideration when appraising the morality of political, economic, and social policies.[10]
Relationship to other similar philosophies
Anthropocentrism
Ecocentrism is taken by its proponents to constitute a radical challenge to long-standing and deeply rooted anthropocentric attitudes in Western culture, science, and politics. Anthropocentrism is alleged to leave the case for the protection of non-human nature subject to the demands of human utility, and thus never more than contingent on the demands of human welfare. An ecocentric ethic, by contrast, is believed to be necessary in order to develop a non-contingent basis for protecting the natural world. Critics of ecocentrism have argued that it opens the doors to an anti-humanist morality that risks sacrificing human well-being for the sake of an ill-defined ‘greater good’.[11] Deep ecologist Arne Naess has identified anthropocentrism as a root cause of the ecological crisis, human overpopulation, and the extinctions of many non-human species.[12] Others point to the gradual historical realization that humans are not the centre of all things, that “A few hundred years ago, with some reluctance, Western people admitted that the planets, Sun and stars did not circle around their abode. In short, our thoughts and concepts though irreducibly anthropomorphic need not be anthropocentric.”[13]
Technocentrism
Ecocentrism is also contrasted with technocentrism (meaning values centred on technology) as two opposing perspectives on attitudes towards human technology and its ability to affect, control and even protect the environment. Ecocentrics, including "deep green" ecologists, see themselves as being subject to nature, rather than in control of it. They lack faith in modern technology and the bureaucracy attached to it. Ecocentrics will argue that the natural world should be respected for its processes and products, and that low impact technology and self-reliance is more desirable than technological control of nature.[14] Technocentrics, including imperialists, have absolute faith in technology and industry and firmly believe that humans have control over nature. Although technocentrics may accept that environmental problems do exist, they do not see them as problems to be solved by a reduction in industry. Rather, environmental problems are seen as problems to be solved using science. Indeed, technocentrics see that the way forward for developed and developing countries and the solutions to our environmental problems today lie in scientific and technological advancement.[14]
Biocentrism
The distinction between biocentrism and ecocentrism is ill-defined. Ecocentrism recognizes Earths interactive living and non-living systems rather than just the Earth's organisms (biocentrism) as central in importance.[15]
A Manifesto for Earth
In 2004 Ted Mosquin[16] and Stan Rowe published A Manifesto for Earth in the journal Biodiversity. This was a synthesis of their deliberations on ecocentrism and contained a Statement of Conviction followed by a set of Core Principles with their associated Action Principles.[17] These are reproduced here:
Statement of conviction
Everyone searches for meaning in life, for supportive convictions that take various forms. Many look to faiths that ignore or discount the importance of this world, not realizing in any profound sense that we are born from Earth and sustained by it throughout our lives. In today’s dominating industrial culture, Earth-as-home is not a self-evident percept. Few pause daily to consider with a sense of wonder the enveloping matrix from which we came and to which, at the end, we all return. Because we are issue of the Earth, the harmonies of its lands, seas, skies and its countless beautiful organisms carry rich meanings barely understood. We are convinced that until the Ecosphere is recognized as the indispensable common ground of all human activities, people will continue to set their immediate interests first. Without an ecocentric perspective that anchors values and purposes in a greater reality than our own species, the resolution of political, economic, and religious conflicts will be impossible. Until the narrow focus on human communities is broadened to include Earth’s ecosystems – the local and regional places wherein we dwell – programs for healthy sustainable ways of living will fail. A trusting attachment to the Ecosphere, an aesthetic empathy with surrounding Nature, a feeling of awe for the miracle of the Living Earth and its mysterious harmonies, is humanity’s largely unrecognized heritage. Affectionately realized again, our connections with the natural world will begin to fill the gap in lives lived in the industrialized world. Important ecological purposes that civilization and urbanization have obscured will re-emerge. The goal is restoration of Earth’s diversity and beauty, with our prodigal species once again a cooperative, responsible, ethical member.
Core principles
- Principle 1 The Ecosphere is the Center of Value for Humanity
- Principle 2 The Creativity and Productivity of Earth’s Ecosystems Depend on their Integrity
- Principle 3 The Earth-centered Worldview is supported by Natural History
- Principle 4 Ecocentric Ethics are Grounded in Awareness of our Place in Nature
- Principle 5 An Ecocentric Worldview Values Diversity of Ecosystems and Cultures
- Principle 6 Ecocentric Ethics Support Social Justice
Action principles
- Principle 7 Defend and Preserve Earth’s Creative Potential
- Principle 8 Reduce Human Population Size
- Principle 9 Reduce Human Consumption of Earth Parts
- Principle 10 Promote Ecocentric Governance
- Principle 11 Spread the Message
Ecocentrism and the law
An ecocentric ethic can assist in forming a basis for traditional legal methods that are deficient in dealing with many environmental problems. For example, national laws cannot resolve international problems, and can place undue reliance on economic measures as a surrogate for ecological values.[18]
See also
|
|
References
- ^ Political Dictionary. Accessed 13 June 2009.
- ^ Stan Rowe, biographic profile.
- ^ Rowe, Stan J. (1994)."Ecocentrism: the Chord that Harmonizes Humans and Earth." The Trumpeter 11(2): 106-107.
- ^ Rowe Stan J. "Ecocentrism and Traditional Ecological Knowledge."
- ^ Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Lindenmeyer, D. & Burgman, M. 2005. Practical conservation biology. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. ISBN 0-643-09089-4
- ^ Booth, D.E. 1992. The economics and ethics of old growth forests. Environmental Ethics 14: 43-62.
- ^ Arne Naess|Naess, Arne & Sessions, George 1984. "A Deep Ecology Eight Point Platform" cited in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. George Sessions, Shambhala, Boston and London, 1995.
- ^ "Ecocentrism and the Deep Ecology Platform".
- ^ "environmentalism". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Retrieved 13 June 2009.
- ^ Ecocentrism at answers.com
- ^ Naess, Arne 1973. "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement". Inquiry 16: 95-100
- ^ see Rowe
- ^ a b "Earth, ecocentrism and Technocentrism".
- ^ "Ecocentrism". The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. 2009. Encyclopedia.com. Accessed 13 June 2009.
- ^ [1] Ted Mosquin, biographic profile.
- ^ Mosquin, T. & Rowe, S. (2004). "Manifesto for Earth." Biodiversity 5(1): 3-9.
- ^ Tolan, P. 2009. Ecocentric Perspectives on Global Warming: Toward an Earth Jurisprudence. Global Studies Journal 1(4): 39-50.
Further reading
- Bosselmann, K. 1999. When Two Worlds Collide: Society and Ecology. ISBN 0-9597948-3-2
- Eckersley, R. 1992. Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach. State University of New York Press.
- Hettinger, N. and Throop, B. 1999. Refocusing Ecocentrism. Environmental Ethics 21: 3-21.