the socio-psychological roots of the ecological crisis - undergraduate capstone thesis

ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS 1

The Socio-Psychological Roots

of the Ecological Crisis

by Carl Mahlmann

"Humans are in the world ethically, as no other animal is. …Only humans

can consider, reflect upon, be right or wrong about the way they are in the

world. Ducklings can make mistakes in their imprinting, but this is a mistake

of instinct, not of reason. Ducklings do not cause ecological crises as a result

of mistaken world view.”

-- Holmes Rolston, III

During the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year history there have been countless mass

extinctions; 99 percent of all the life-forms ever to have come into existence have ceased

to be.1 The exact causes of many of these disappearances are unknown. The extinction

of the great reptiles, for instance, which dominated the land one hundred million years

ago, remains a mystery. Scientists don't know exactly what may have precipitated it, but

a popular, though controversial theory, based upon large craters scattered across the

earth's surface, holds that an earth-shattering meteor shower may have occurred sixty-

five million years ago; the effect having been a blanket of debris which was raised into

the atmosphere, preventing life-giving sunlight from reaching the planet's surface,

resulting in the reptiles' and the majority of other species' deaths. Whatever the reason

for their extinction, there's no argument that it was one of natural causes. The next great

mass extinction, however, will not be one of nature's making, but rather, will be that of

Man's. For, in his unrelenting thrust toward "progress," he is upsetting the planet's

natural life-support systems; he is fouling the air he breathes, contaminating the water

he drinks, despoiling the land on which he lives, and exterminating the very life on which

he depends for his own survival. If we are to prevent a self-made catastrophe the likes

of which the world has never before seen, we must have a shift in values -- from those


oriented in a narrow economic/anthropocentric view of the world to those harbored in a

broader humanistic/ecological perspective.

Astronomer/ecologist George A. Seielstad, in his book Cosmic Ecology: The View from

the Outside In, "...suggests that we have reached a critical moment in human evolution.

One species, Homo sapiens sapiens, has acquired sufficient power to act with global

consequences." 3

"Our future, and that of our cohabitants on the planet, is what we will it to be."4 -- This

indeed being the case (we need only acknowledge the existence of nuclear weaponry to

realize that Seielstad's statement is true), we may, depending on our actions, affect the

future of the entire planet for better, or for worse. Exactly how we wield the global power

at our command is entirely dependent on our values and institutions -- or, if we may

borrow a term from author Richard Dawkins, our memes.* One popular "meme" is that

which holds that man is the center of all -- that is, that all things were created solely for

the use of human beings, and that all things, both living and inanimate, are of value only

insofar as they are instrumental to man: "...deeply embedded in our culture and

consciousness... (anthropocentrism is) ...the idea that humans are the crown of creation,

the source of all value, the measure of all things...,6 and that "...everything in the

universe is arranged to produce and serve humans."7 If we examine the hierarchical

nature of the food chain, we see how this appears to be a sensible postulation. Aristotle,

for instance, rationalized:

"Plants exist to give food to animals, and animals exist to give food to men

...and other conveniences, such as clothing and various tools. Since nature

makes nothing purposeless or in vain, all animals must have been made by

nature for the sake of men."8

Implicit in this concept of instrumentality is the notion of superiority -- the idea that man

occupies a higher station than that of all other living creatures, and that by virtue of his

position, has the right to exercise dominion over nature. Philosopher Immanuel Kant

explains:


"The fact that man can have the idea 'I' raises him infinitely above all the

other beings on earth. By this he is a person ...that is, a being altogether

different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, which

we can dispose of as we please." 9

Not only may man feel he has the right to dominate nature, but if he is of the Judeo-

Christian persuasion, may interpret that he has the obligation to do so. For it is ordained

in the Book of Genesis: "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." 10

So, it may be said that the meme of anthropocentrism -- which sees man as being the

centerpoint of all creation; as being superior to all other living creatures; as being

nature's master -- is indeed a prevalent one, being upheld by some of the world's most

renowned thinkers, and encouraged by at least two of its major religions.

Another well-rooted meme, interrelated with that of anthropocentrism, is that which holds

that the world is a marketplace, its natural resources commodities whose values are

properly determined in monetary terms: "...deeply rooted in the contemporary social

structure...,"11 this economic perspective of the world views "...the entire world ...(as)

merchandisable objects ...with price tags that are to be sold for profit and economic

expansion."12

It is this way of thinking of things in terms of their profit potential which motivates us to

produce goods in ever newer and more innovative fashions, and which has "...contributed

to the unprecedented wealth and productivity of modern industrial societies." 13

In order to evaluate progress, a society which assigns values to things on a monetary

scale must have a system based on quantitative measures. Our own system, for instance,

depends on numerical tools such as balance sheets and income statements to monitor

progress, and regards the Gross National Product (GNP) "...where everything is boiled

down to dollars and cents...," It "...as a measure of economic welfare, of how 'well off'

we are. Annual increase in the size of the GNP (is) viewed with pride..."15


When quantitative guides are used to determine states of welfare, those states are

considered as being "better" or "worse" depending on whether they consist of more or

less: "...if everything is reduced to one number, if how we are doing can always be added

up, then the only real value can be 'more,' and growth in some quantity the only

acceptable sign of progress or of doing well.

And so we experience an imperative to grow."16

Thus we come to equate "making progress" and "being better off" with producing,

consuming and accumulating more: "...societies across the ideological spectrum have

persisted in equating quality of life with increased consumption. Personal self-worth

typically is measured by possessions, just as social progress is judged by GNP growth."17

So, it may be said that the meme of economics -- which values things according to their

monetary profitability; which uses quantitative guides to measure well-being; which

equates "better" with "more" -- is, like the meme of anthropocentrism, a widely-

advocated one, being maintained by "societies of varying ideologies," including our own.

We have discussed two of our "memes" -- our institutionalized perceptions of the world

from which we derive our values, upon which we base our ethics -- for how we perceive

the world and evaluate it invariably determines how we behave toward it. -- These memes

exist at a time in which we are causing untold harm to our natural environment. The

problems we are causing, while overlapping each other, are legion. They include: air

pollution; ozone depletion; acid rain; solid waste overload; toxic waste hazards; water

pollution; deforestation; desertification; global warming; extermination of species; and

resource exhaustion.

Such are some of the well-documented problems we are causing to our environment.

However, by degrading our environment, are we not in effect harming ourselves? When

we pour pollutants such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides generated by industry and

automobiles into our breathing atmosphere; contaminants such as gasoline and fertilizer

run-off from underground storage tanks and farm fields into our drinking water;

hazardous wastes such as heavy metals and toxic chemicals from various sources into


the land upon which we build our homes and into the soil in which we grow our food, we

harm ourselves in ways that increase our risks for developing cancer, being poisoned and

developing other health problems. However, there are ways in which our degradation of

the environment affects us less evidently and directly, though even more impactfully.

For, through our careless behavior, we are tampering with the mechanism that makes

our very existence possible: the earth's ecosystem.

Man does not live independently of the planet's other life-forms. He is part of a vast and

complex symbiotic system wherein all life-forms depend on each other for their

sustenance: "Within this life realm, every organism is linked, however tenuously, to every

other. Microbe; plant, and mammal, soil dweller and ocean swimmer, all are caught up

in the cycling of energy and nutrients from sun, water, air, and earth. This global

exchange system flows through various transport mechanisms, from ocean currents, to

climate patterns and winds; from the travels of animals to the processes of feeding,

growth, and decay. ...And throughout the life zone, change and diversity, specialization

and intricate interdependence, are found at every level."18 An interesting example of

interdependence among life-forms can be found in the relationship between plants and

insects:

"Flowers and insects ...(have entered) a marriage -- more properly, a

symbiosis -- which (is) to the advantage of both partners. Their

...interaction is well illustrated by the presence of carotenoids in the petals

and, pollens of many flowers. These vitamins sharpen the vision of their

insect consumers in exactly those colors which the flower is offering as an

attractant. In addition, flowers send forth molecules, pheromones, whose

scent mimics the sexual advertisement of several insects. In return for

nourishing insects, flowers benefit t from a system of fertilization." 19

--Wherein insects transfer pollen in excess of what they use for food from one flower to

another, thereby setting in motion the plants' reproduction process. Since man depends

on plants for food and oxygen (through the process of photosynthesis plants convert solar

energy into carbohydrates and produce oxygen as a by-product), we also depend on the


insects which make possible their reproduction. Additional examples of ways in which

different species interact with each other and make possible the existence of yet other

life-forms abound. If it were not for the relationship between a triad of infinitesimal ocean

creatures, for instance, the earth's oxygen content could not be maintained at its present

level, and life as we know it would not exist:

"First of the trio are photosynthesizing algae, ocean residents that are

oxygen producers. The oxygen consumers are tiny oceanic animals called

zooplankton. A large population of these animals means a thorough

utilization of the algae-expired oxygen, leaving little for escape to the

atmosphere. Conversely, few zooplankton means incomplete interception

of oxygen on its way from algae to atmosphere. With only these two

participants, the system might be unstable; a spurt in the population of

zooplankton, for instance, might unleash the savage consequences of

atmospheric oxygen depletion. Fortunately, a third apex of the triangle

regulates the numbers of zooplankton and thereby indirectly controls the

flow of oxygen to the atmosphere. The critically important governors are

marine bacteria.

"As man does not live by bread alone, neither do zooplankton live by oxygen

alone. Among their other needs are the nutrient nitrogen. The bacteria,

however, likewise compete for this precious resource. The ferocity of the

competition depends upon the quantity of oxygen in the environment. If

the bacteria sense ample oxygen, their appetite for nitrogen subsides.

The zooplankton then prosper and proliferate. As a result, the flow of

oxygen, to the atmosphere is reduced -- but not dangerously so, for when

the bacteria sense an atmospheric oxygen deficiency, they greedily

consume nitrogen. Zooplankton starve, their numbers plummet, and

oxygen flows more abundantly to the atmosphere. To the successful

operation of this intricate interplay among microscopic coplaneteers we owe

our existence. "20


So, just as man depends upon insects for the reproduction of plants for food, he depends

upon such things as bacteria for the regulation of oxygen levels for respiration.

As highly-evolved mammals, we do not tend to identify with "lower" forms of life such as

honeybees or diatoms, nor are many of us even remotely aware of the existence of tiny

creatures such as zooplankton -- yet we rely on them for our subsistence and are united

with them in the ecosystem and by the elements of life that we share: "All life is one.

This is not a cliché, but a biological reality. Over 3.6 billion years, a teeming variety of

life-forms has evolved, yet in every living cell there are common features of nucleic acids

that encode inheritance, and adenosine triphosphate that provides energy. In every living

organism, hormones and similar compounds carry vital chemical messages. In turn,

organisms are linked together in intricate ecosystems. What happens to one can affect

all: our present biosphere has evolved only after photosynthesis in early algae plants

began to release essential oxygen into the atmosphere. Evolution produces vast diversity,

yet it links all living forms in a single process."21

There is a hypothesis which takes an even broader account of the ecosystemic process.

The Gaia hypothesis, formulated by James E. Lovelock, takes a position contrary to that

of conventional Darwinian theory, which holds that life-forms simply react to given

environments. Rather, the Gaian notion holds that life, collectively, plays an active role

in creating and maintaining the conditions necessary for its sustenance:

"On Earth, there is a huge global system that is self-regulating -- in the

sense that life is part of it. And life interacts powerfully with the

environment, in such a way that conditions on Earth remain constantly fit

for its survival."22

Since life began 3.5 billion years ago, the sun's thermal output has risen by 30 percent;

yet earth's surface temperature has remained constant at a comfortable-for-life average

of 5 - 25°C. during that great span of time.23 How might this phenomenon be accounted

for? Professor Lynn Margulis of Boston University's Biology Department induces:


"It is hard to believe from an astronomical point of view that the

temperature has, simply by accident, maintained constant. We prefer to

believe that there's an active temperature regulating system. And when we

look around, we see that it's really the sum of the organisms and their

activities that have the potential for regulating the temperature. Organisms

produce gases that can absorb radiation. They change surface

temperatures. They produce clouds by producing lots of water that produce

clouds, that change surface from white, dark to white, and so on. ...and we

believe that temperature is also part of the Gaian regulation system."24

Life then, according to the Gaia hypothesis, is vastly more than just a "passenger" on the

planet -- "In fact, life is so intimate a part of this planet that divisions into animate and

inanimate are artificial."25

"Earth's biosphere (life) is not independent of the atmosphere (air),

hydrosphere (oceans), or lithosphere (soil). Instead all are parts of a

coherent whole. Insofar as that whole maintains a constant temperature

and a compatible chemical composition -- in short, a benign homeostasis -

- within a constantly changing setting, it can be considered alive." 26

So, the hypothesis argues that the earth itself, functioning much like an organism whose

parts work interdependently to maintain its existence -- having a "metabolism," if you

will -- may be regarded as a single (though enormous) living entity. If true, this would

imply that we are parts of a greater "self," and that by harming our environment we are

quite literally harming ourselves. So, rather than abusing our environment, we should be

caring for it. Yet, in the ways mentioned earlier, we are doing just the opposite. Through

such practices as deforestation, we are driving to extinction the various species which

make their habitats there -- vital parts of the ecosystem that maintains the conditions

for our existence; by polluting the oceans and waterways, we are interfering with the

normal interactions of the species which live there -- further upsetting the ecological

balance;" and by profligately burning non-renewable fossil fuels, we are risking the

chemical composition of the atmosphere being altered in such a way that cannot be


compensated for by natural temperature-regulating systems thereby paving the way for

global cataclysm on a scale unseen since prehistoric times.

Even if one does not subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis, it must nevertheless be

acknowledged that through our current behaviors, we are endangering the conditions for

human existence. Although, in the broader scheme of things, it doesn't particularly

matter whether or not we perpetuate our species; historically, it has been shown that

nature "has no attachment to;' particular life-forms." As mentioned earlier, "Ninety-nine

percent of them have gone extinct." Should we impose our own extinction through our

environmentally-careless practices "...creatures will rise up in our stead that thrive on

murky greenhouse air, or dine on compounds human metabolisms find toxic. The full

measure of the ecosystem's toughness is how little it needs us..." As Dr. Michael Guillen

and E.G. Wilson point out:

"...we humans are somewhere near the top (of the food chain). Now most

people say that that means that we're more intelligent and more important

than other species, but in fact, from an environmental point of view, just

the opposite is true."

"The ecosystems of the world could do without humanity very well. If we

were to disappear tonight the world wouldn't notice; the ecosystems would

gradually heal themselves and come back to the rich equilibrium they were

at ten thousand years ago.

"Nature's only concern is that life persist; it doesn't necessarily care that a

part of that life be human in form. But if we value our species enough to

see it perpetuated, then we must take action to correct our self-destructive

behaviors."

If we are to solve our environmental problems, we must first define exactly what they

are. Though we may be familiar with such issues as pollution, deforestation and dumping

of toxic wastes, we would be incorrect in concluding that such things are the actual

problems -- they are, in fact, only the external symptoms. We must look for the


underlying roots of our behavior if we are to effect a lasting change and save ourselves

from catastrophe. We must look for our memes.

Both our anthropocentric meme and our economic meme, as mentioned earlier, are

interrelated.

If we examine the historical developments of each, we may see how this is so. Thomas

A. Sancton, in his article "What on Earth are We Doing?," in the January 2, 1989 issue of

Time gives us this historical account of our anthropocentric meme:

"Humanity's current predatory relationship with nature reflects a man-

centered world view that has evolved over the ages. Almost every society

has had its myths about the earth and its origins. The ancient Chinese

depicted Chaos as an enormous egg whose parts separated into earth and

sky, yin and yang. The Greeks believed Gaia, the earth, was created

immediately after Chaos and gave birth to the gods. In many pagan

societies, the earth was seen as a mother, a fertile giver of life. Nature --

the soil, forest, sea -- was endowed with divinity, and mortals were

subordinate to it. "The Judeo-Christian tradition introduced a radically

different concept. The earth was the creation of a monotheistic God, who,

after shaping it, ordered its inhabitants, in the words of Genesis:

'...replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living

thing that moveth upon the earth.' The idea of dominion could be

interpreted as an invitation to use nature as a convenience.

Thus the spread Christianity, which is generally considered to have paved

the way for the development of technology, may have at the same time

have carried the seeds of wanton exploitation of nature that often

accompanied technical progress. "Those tendencies were compounded by

the Enlightenment notion of a mechanistic universe that man could shape

to his own ends through science." 30


And Paul Wachtell, in his book The Poverty of Affluence, gives us these insights into the

history of our economic meme:

"Central to our emancipation from nature ...was the development of

farming methods that yielded a surplus beyond what was immediately

needed by the farmer. This permitted more people to engage in activities

other than producing food, and greater differentiation and specialization

could develop. Efficiency and expertise came to be more prominent, and so

too did trade;

and ...the process became an accelerating one in which the accumulation

of surpluses and the changes in modes of production and social organization

mutually influenced each other. This seemingly inexorable feedback cycle

has propelled us into a world of plenty, but a world in which many traditional

values have fallen by the wayside, and only what can be counted seems to

count.

"When most production was for use, and when trade was largely in kind,

the concrete qualities of things were of paramount importance. People grew

primarily what they needed, not what would "sell," and when they traded it

was for particular items that filled quite specific needs. But as, increasingly

economic activity and the garnering of the necessities of life came to require

money, a change of consciousness occurred as well. Both work and its fruits

came to be valued less for what was concrete and given and more for their

exchange value, for the amount of money they could bring. "31

So, we find that the historical development of our anthropocentric meme and that of our

economic meme are analogous to each other: whereas at one time we may have regarded

the earth and its (re)sources in a subjective light -- we revered the earth as our "mother,"

while having valued her (re)sources for their intrinsic qualities -- our world views have

(d)evolved over time to their present anthropocentric/economic state in which we view

both our world and its (re)sources as instruments and commodities. In other words, our

views have become inverted over time so that we regard the earth as belonging to man


rather than man belonging to the earth. It is this objective way of viewing the planet that

birthed us which is common to both our anthropocentric and economic memes, and which

I believe is greatly responsible for the ecological crises in which we presently find

ourselves.

Since the earth is regarded as an object belonging to us, it does not warrant our respect

-- we may do with it as we please. Therefore, since it is not an end in itself, only a means

to one us -- we think nothing of degrading our natural environment: "The natural world

is seen as (human beings') to exploit and despoil. The biological and mineral storehouses

of the Earth, once thought inexhaustible, are ruthlessly plundered. In the process, the

web of interdependence from which humanity itself is derived begins to fall apart." 32.

In effect, our anthropocentric and economic memes, regarding the earth as an object

rather than a subject, blind us to our relation with the environment. By its very definition,

an objective way of looking at things requires a detached perspective on the part of the

viewer; hence by viewing the earth as an object, we become perceptually separated from

the environment to which in actuality (as we have seen earlier), we are intimately linked.

Indeed, the very use of the word environment serves to separate us from the Earth which

is both our parent and our home, and from the cohabitants of the planet who are our

biotic family, connoting "that which is out there" versus "we who are here." And, like a

snowball, our capacity to degrade the earth increases, since a feeling of separation from

it further enables us to degrade it.

Actually, it is not quite apparent to me whether it is a view of the earth as an object

which precipitates our feelings of separation from it, or whether it is a view of ourselves

as transcendent the earth which foments our perceptions of it as an object. But it is

nonetheless clear to me that each perception in turn fosters the other, and that as long

as we continue to operate within this cycle of thought, we shall continue to degrade the

earth.

Man is a highly-encephalized creature -- capable of observing, analyzing and reflecting

upon the world. But it is precisely because of his cognitive abilities that man can be

misguided. To recall the statements of Holmes Rolston, III appearing in this-essay's


epigram, other creatures cannot make mistakes in the same way that humans can; only

humans can rationalize and consciously choose paths of behavior -- therefore the

possibility automatically exists that wrong paths may be chosen. Humans are not

omnipotent, as our technological prowess might lead us to believe; our cognitive abilities

make us capable of great achievement, but they also make us capable of terrible

mistakes. And in light of the ecological crises in which we presently find ourselves, it

seems clear that we've made some. If we are to correct the situation, it will require more

than just the development and application of new technologies, "...(It) will happen only

after a profound change occurs in most of humanity's way of thinking. It will occur only

after a transformation in human values, attitudes and ways of living." 33

To begin, we must accept the fact that we are wholly capable of making errors in

judgement and consequently choosing wrong paths of behavior. In addition, we must

realize that paths which may have been proper choices initially, within the context of time

and circumstances that they were chosen, may later in time become maladaptive. As

Gregg Easterbrook observes:

"(There was a time) when nature was the enemy, industrialization the ally.

Nature spread disease and spoiled food,... . Pesticides, pharmaceuticals,

...and similar inventions held out the hope of a more civilized existence.

(Later in time) nature's excesses had been tamed, replaced by industrial

excess. ...making nature seem the aggrieved party." 34

Once we've realized these things, our minds become open to new ways of thinking. We

become able to cast off the inheritance of our memes and may begin to re-examine our

world and man's role in it in a new light. Is man, for instance, the centerpoint of creation

for whom all things were made?

"From a short-range ...perspective we can say that the value of nature lies

in its generation and support of human life and is therefore only

instrumental. But from a longer-range, ...perspective systemic nature is

valuable intrinsically as a projective system, with humans only one sort of

its projects... The system is of value for its capacity to throw forward (pro-


ject) all the storied history. On that scale it seems shortsighted and

arrogant for such latecomers to say that the system is only of instrumental

value for humans. . ." 35

In other words, "...364/365 of the earth's history has transpired without us."36"We can

measure our history in millions of years, whereas billions are needed to encompass that

of earth itself."37 To think that its resources were created solely for our use then, in light

of their having been in existence for billions of years prior to our even having come on

the scene, seems absurd.

Is man superior to the earth's other living things? Has he the right by virtue of his alleged

superiority to exercise dominion over nature?

Man is unarguably the most highly-encephalized creature on the planet; and it is

undebatably true that he is one of the rare few species to be self-conscious; but is he to

be judged on the basis of having such qualities to be superior to other life-forms? Does

possessing them entitle him to special privilege over other species?

"After all, many non-human species have capacities that humans lack.

There is the flight of the birds, the speed of the cheetah, the power of

photosynthesis in the leaves of plants, the craftsmanship of spiders

spinning their webs, the agility of a monkey in the tree tops. Why are these

not to be taken as signs of their superiority over us?" 38

Through the process of natural selection, life-forms have evolved (and continue to

evolve), in such a way that they are best enabled to survive within their particular

surroundings. Therefore, while a highly-developed organ of intelligence may be valuable

to humans, it is not necessarily of importance to other species in their individual struggles

for existence; it would seem that our capacities are being judged as superior to those of

other creatures strictly from a human point of view. That is, "...a point of view in which

the good of humans is taken as the standard of judgement. All we need do is look at the

capacities of animals and plants from the standpoint of their good to find a contrary

judgement of superiority. The speed of the cheetah, for example, is a sign of its


superiority to humans when considered from the standpoint of the cheetah's good. If it

were as slow a runner as a human it would not be able to catch its prey. And so for all

the other abilities of animals and plants that further their good but are lacking in humans.

In each case the judgement of human superiority would be rejected from a nonhuman

standpoint."39

On a broader systemic level, we find that each life-form evolves into its own particular

ecological niche; that is, each species does its own special "job" in maintaining the

stability of the larger ecosystem. (We may recall here our discussion of the interactions

between algae, zooplankton and marine bacteria in maintaining atmospheric conditions.)

One species of life, therefore, cannot be directly compared with another and judged for

its superiority/ inferiority since each performs different ecosystemic functions. Within the

context of an ecosystem a predatory lion, for instance, cannot be considered any more

or less valuable than an environmental- chemistry-regulating microbial protozoan. 40

"Yet it is we humans, supported by the huge warehouse of extragenetic

information stored in our bloated brains, who have arbitrarily divided life

forms into categories of 'higher' (e.g., mammals, especially primates, and

birds) and 'lower' (bacteria, algae, and lichens). ...however ...the 'lower'

forms are the ones essential to the maintenance and operation of the global

life-support apparatus. The higher forms are almost parasitic, profiting from

the industry and enterprise of their primitive ancestors while contributing

nothing of essence to their efforts."41

Indeed, except for our activities which only degrade them, we find that we humans "have

little biological role in ecosystems,... ."42 When compared to other species against an

ecological back-drop, we find that we are perhaps the least important life-form on earth.

"The ...planet could easily adjust for our absence."43 So, far from being superior to earth's

other life-forms, we find that, ecologically speaking, humans are but a burden to the

earth.

It should be noted that it is not the purely academic issue of human superiority which is

important here. Rather, it is what practically results from such a notion that is of


significance. For when we raise our own worth above that of other creatures, nothing

prevents us from using them for our own selfish ends (let us recall here Immanuel Kant's

remarks about "disposing of things as we please") -- whether that use be in the form of

individually slaughtering baby seals and other such animals for their furs so that humans

can walk around in "luxury," or whether it consists in the wholesale destruction of tropical

rain forests vital habitat for millions of the world's species -- so that we can eat cheap(er)

(yet still un-economical and un-ecologically-sound), beef in fast-food restaurants. And in

light of what we have been discussing about the way the earth's ecosystem works, we

dare not, for our own sakes, "dispose" of other creatures for fear of upsetting the

ecological balance and chancing humanity-affecting repercussions. Of course, I am not

saying that we shouldn't harm other creatures simply for our own sakes -- that would be

a very anthropocentric and un-ecological thing to say; what I am saying, however, is that

if we valued and respected the rights of other creatures to live and prosper to begin with,

the question of our own ecological safety might never even arise and I might never have

found it necessary to write a thesis regarding an ecological crises.

If there is a way in which man is superior to other creatures, it lies in "The fact that man

can have the idea 'I'," meaning that he is capable of reflecting upon the world and forming

judgements about right and wrong. As such, man exists in the capacity of a moral agent

whereas other creatures, operating on instinct alone, cannot. Self-consciousness,

therefore, does not entitle one 'to special privilege, but instead honors one with

responsibility. Holmes Rolston, III explains:

"Animals are wholly absorbed into those niches in which they have such

satisfactory fitness, but humans can stand apart from the world and

consider themselves in relation to it. ·..Humans are only part of the world

...but they are the only part of the world that can orient itself with respect

to a theory of it. So humans can begin to comprehend what comprehends

them; in this lies their paradox and responsibility. They have a distinct

metaphysical status just because they alone can do metaphysics. The

metaphysics they do may lead them to an experience of unity with nature,

to responsible care for other species, but such unity paradoxically puts them


beyond nature, where nothing else is capable of such experience and

caring. When they assert the value of Earth and its creatures, they exceed

the creatures' scope of value.

"Thus the human capacity for a transcending overview of the whole makes

us superior and imposes strange duties, those of transcending human

interests and linking them up with those of the whole natural Earth."44

It is this concept of caretaking for -- as opposed to exerting dominion over -- the earth

and its creatures which I believe was the original intention of the writings in Genesis but

which I believe, due to the use of ambiguous language and the distortive nature of the

passage of time, has become very much misinterpreted by our Judeo-Christian faiths and

which has contributed in-no small way to our anthropocentric outlook. Regarding our

economic outlook toward the world, is it indeed best to evaluate things on a monetary

scale, and are quantitative guides really the best tools for evaluating progress?

Lester R. Brown of the Worldwatch Institute provides us with this for our consideration:

"...economic indicators are flawed in a fundamental way: they do not distinguish between

resource uses that sustain progress and those that undermine it. The principal measure

of economic progress is the gross national product. ... GNP includes depreciation of plant

and equipment, but it does not take into account the depreciation of 'natural capital,

including nonrenewable resources such as oil or renewable resources such as forests.

"This shortcoming can produce a misleading sense of national economic

health. According to the conventional approach, for example, countries

that overcut forests actually do better in the short run than those that

manage forests on a sustained-yield basis: the trees cut down are counted

as income but no subtraction is made to account for depletion of the forest,

a natural asset. The advantage is short-lived, however, as overcutting

eventually destroys the resource base entirely, leading to a collapse of the

forest products industry.45 Indeed, economic indicators are so flawed that

"...medical costs due to the diseases caused by pollution are figured' into

the GNP as pluses. ...if less pollution occurred, and as a result less medical


treatment was required, this would show up as a drop in the GNP. "The

problem with the GNP, of course, is that it makes no distinction as to how

(or what goods and services are sold).

The great strength -- and also the great weakness of the idea of the GNP

is that everything is boiled down to dollars and cents. And all things that

represent the same number of dollars are therefore treated as equal."46

Far better, therefore, that we value things for their concrete, as well as abstract qualities,

and that we use qualitative in addition to quantitative guides for evaluating progress,

such as those relating to sustainability and a healthy environment. As Holmes Rolston,

III insightfully states: "...economic activity sooner or later must be and ought to be deeply

ecological activity..." 47

And, is more always better?

Paul Wachtell answers:

"By its very nature, a growth approach to (satisfaction) puts an enormous

strain on the fragile ecological web that supports all life on earth."48

While Dr. Norman Myers echoes:

"(The ecological problem) lies ...in an outburst of human consumerism. One

billion over-affluent people enjoy lifestyles that impose a grossly

disproportionate pressure on our planetary system.

"Not surprisingly, this overtaxing of the Earth's ecosystem leads to

breakdowns of other sorts. As more people seek greater amounts of

declining resources, conflicts erupt: more people have been killed through

military conflagrations since World War II than all the soldiers in that war.

In fact, it is breakdown in our social systems, our economic structures, and

our political mechanisms that generate the greatest threat of all."49


With such things being the ultimate and inevitable consequences of more, far better that

we place greater importance on the less materialistic, though infinitely more satisfying

aspects of our lives, such as suggested by Paul Wachtell: "...feelings, relatedness,

and human experience count more than the nonsense we are told today is 'the bottom

line'... ."50

From this re-examination of our world views we may come to form very different opinions

than the anthropocentric/economic-oriented ones we presently hold. From these new

opinions should emerge a new set of values, along with consequent changes in behavior

with regard to the Earth. We may find ourselves coming to revere and treat her as our

ancient Greek ancestors did, who called her Gaia, or "Mother Earth;" or as our Native

American ancestors did, one of whom summarizes the thoughts in this essay with the

following passage:

"We are part of the Earth and the Earth is part of us. The fragrant flowers are our sisters.

The reindeer, the horse, the great eagle are our brothers. The rocky heights, the foamy

crests of waves in the river, the sap of meadow flowers, the body heat of the pony -- and

of human beings -- all belong to the same family.

"We know that the white Man does not understand our way of life. To him,

one piece of land is much like another. He is a stranger who comes in the

night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The Earth is not his friend

but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He cares

nothing for the land. He forgets his parents’ graves and his children's

heritage. He kidnaps the Earth from his children. He treats his Mother the

Earth and his Brother the Sky like merchandise. His hunger will eat the

Earth bare and leave only a desert. I have seen a thousand buffalo left

behind by the White Man -- shot from a passing train. I am a savage and

cannot understand why the puffing iron horse should be more important

than the buffalo, which we kill only in order to stay alive. What are human

beings without animals? If all the animals ceased to exist, human beings

would die of a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the


animals, will happen soon also to human beings. Continue to soil your bed

and one night you will suffocate in your own waste. Humankind has not

woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to

the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things

connect. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls also the children of the Earth."51

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Derived from the Greek word "mimeme" (imitation), Dawkins, in his book The Selfish

Gene, has coined the word "meme," meaning "cultural phenomena that have been

emulated in so many settings and for so long a time that they have become customs and

traditions." 5

* * *


NOTES

1. Gregg Easterbrook, "Cleaning Up," Newsweek, July 24, 1989, 27.

2. John Groom, "Goddess of the Earth," Nova (Boston: WGBH Educational

Foundation, 1986 - Transcript from the television broadcast on Jan 28,

1986)

3. George A. Seielstad, Cosmic Ecology: The View from the Outside In (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1983), cover.

4. Ibid., 141.

5. Ibid., 157.

6. John Seed, "Beyond Anthropocentrism," Thinking Like a Mountain, John Seed et

al. eds. (New Society Publishers, 1988), 35.

7. Holmes Rolston, III, Environmental Ethics (Philadelphia: Temple University

Press, 1988), 197.

8. Ibid., 45.

9. Ibid., 62.

10. Thomas A. Sancton, "What On Earth Are We Doing?," Time, January 2, 1989, 29.

11. Erich Fromm, "Selfishness, Self-Love and Self-Interest," The Self: Explorations in

Personal Growth, Clark Monstakas, ed. (Harper), 67.

12. Murray Bookchin, The Modern Crises (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers,

1986), 49.

13. Paul Wachtell, The Poverty of Affluence, (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers,

1989), 86.

14. Ibid., 88.


15. Ibid., 87.

16. Ibid., 92.

17. Lester R. Brown, et al., State of the World 1990 (New York, London: W.W.

Norton & Company, 1990), 190.

18. Norman Myers, et al., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, (New York: Anchor

Press/Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1984), 12.

19. Seielstad, op. cit., 116.

20. Ibid., 138, 139.

21. Myers, op. cit., 140.

22. "Goddess of the Earth," op. cit., 4.

23. Ibid., 5.

24. Ibid.


26. Ibid., 135.

27. Geoffrey Cowley, "The Earth Is One Big System," Newsweek, November 7, 1988,

99.

28. Easterbrook, op. cit.

29. Good Morning America, ABC Television broadcast, February 12, 1990.

30. Sancton, op. cit.

31. Wachtell, op. cit., 84, 85.

32. Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, op. cit., 158


33. Peter Ditzel, et al., Planet Earth: Beyond Repair? (Worldwide Church of God,

1990), 24.

34. Easterbrook, op. cit., 29.

35. Rolston op. cit., 198.


37.

38. Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1986), 129

39. Ibid., 130.


41. Ibid., 140.

42. Rolston, op. cit., 72.

43. Seielstad, op. cit.

44. Rolston, op. cit., 71 - 73.

45. ____ op. cit, 8.

46. Wachtell, op. cit., 88.

47. Rolston op. cit., 291.

48. Wachtell, op. cit., xii.

49. Myers, op. cit., 18.

50. Wachtell, op. cit., xx.


51. Chief Seattle, as quoted by (Kansas City: The Green Committees of

Correspondence Membership Pamphlet).

* * *

Student: Carl Mahlmann

School: Adelphi University

Class: Business Capstone II:

Ethics & the American Experience: Business, Government & Culture

Instructor: Karsten Struhl

Date: May 3, 1990

Project: Choose a contemporary social problem with a significant ethical-philosophical

dimension. Synthesize research and develop own ethical perspective.

* * *

RELATED LINKS

http://community-2.webtv.net/AstroEcologist/COSMICECOLOGYECO/

http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Philosophy/philosophy_articles.html

http://www.blueman.com/land/archive/earth/

the socio-psychological roots of the ecological crisis - undergraduate capstone thesis

Documents