In Defense of Eco-Centrism: The Intrinsic Value of Nature

In Defense of Eco-Centrism: The Intrinsic Value of Nature

















Russell Currie

















Environmental Ethics, PHIL. 2305, Semester 1

Professor C. Ford

November 14th 2012





	Nature is an end-in-itself. It existed before us, and will continue to exist without us. Some might claim that like a quantum event, the existence of Nature is dependent on its observation; dependant on us. This is clearly a fallacious concept, because all conscious observers are in some way an extension of Nature. It could be that the relationship between the observer and its surroundings is more casual, but the focus of this paper is not the metaphysical properties of nature. Perhaps we humans are specialized in that we can serve as a means for Nature to know and understand itself, but this capacity to reason does not in any way make us superior to Nature. In this paper, I will be arguing in favor of the idea that Nature is greater than we are. If we are to be so egotistical as to assume any kind of specialized purpose in Nature, it should the janitorial role of the loving, devoted custodian. We must learn to look after Nature, and cater to Nature’s needs, because Nature looks after and provides for us. In the same way common folk keep their housing in good condition, we must collectively work towards keeping our environment healthy. Instead of trying to satisfy our unlimited desires for western luxury, we should focus on satisfying our long-term ecological needs, including those of developing nations and the needs of our brothers in the animal kingdom.
	When trying to determine the value of Nature, one must ask oneself the Socratic question: What is Nature? Usually Nature is alienated by definition; it is often considered to include all things that are not human influenced, nor human in their origins. I prefer a broader definition of Nature: a definition that includes humans and, by extension, all products of their labor. Nature is everything that is, plain and simple. This broad definition of Nature can easily be broken down into two main categories: the land, and the living. The land encompasses all earthly things that are non-living. On our planet, these things are usually divided into the following domains: atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere. The living, (grouped together as the biosphere, on our planet) can also be broken down into three main sub-categories: humans, animals, and plants. I make the distinction between humans and other animal species only because we humans have always been a very self-centered species, and that has had many severe ecological implications. To view Nature from an ecological perspective, we must examine the relationships between these different living things and their surroundings, or the relationship between the land and the living. That is the central discipline of ecology, and it does not have to be a human centered practice. From an ecocentric perspective, an urban center is not necessarily any less natural than the Great Barrier Reef; despite being much less vibrant, beautiful and efficient.
	If Nature is everything, then where does value come from? According to John Locke, Value is a function of human labor; hence all Nature that remains untouched by humans is valueless. Of course we may have our own human values, but the question remains, to what extent should we treat nature as a resource? Peter Miller would suggest that Locke was mistaken to reject the intrinsic value of nature. How deluded and selfish must we be to perceive Nature’s value exclusively in terms of utility to humans? (Miller 52)  We must seek to learn how to love nature properly.  We can open our eyes to its intrinsic harmony, appreciate its inherent aesthetic beauty, and learn from its strength and resilience. The indigenous people of North America were able to achieve a deep, spiritual connection with Nature, to help them better understand it, and learn to exist in a sustainable harmonious relationship with their natural surroundings. They learned to love Nature as children love their parents. Love is the honey from the flower of the blossom of life, of which Nature has sewn the seed.
	Locke was wrong to write the claim that: “Land that is left wholly to Nature, that hath no improvement of Pasturage, Tillage, or Planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste, and we shall find the benefit of it amount to little more than nothing.” (Miller 51) This statement explicitly ignores and devalues all the known ecological benefits of unaltered natural land systems like forests. The purification of air, the filtration of water, the fixation of nitrogen, and the habitation of natural wildlife are but a few of the well-kept virtues of the natural wilderness. Locke may not have been right in defining the value of nature in terms of its utility to humans, but with respect to how natural resources should be managed, his views are generally much more reasonable. Locke would advocate that we do not take so much from our environment, that there is not enough or as good of resources left for its other inhabitants. This natural resource management scheme is relates directly to the environmental concept of carrying capacity, an ecological practice.
	Many other anthropocentric philosophers still reject the divinity or intrinsic value of Nature. They selfishly consider Nature solely as a means to our own human ends; an economic resource. When we view nature as such, a very difficult problem arises: How do we satisfy our unlimited wants with our finite natural resources? There is no answer to this question, because obviously it would take unlimited resources to satisfy unlimited desires. Of course we may adapt to this western psyche, and become more efficient in processing Nature to suit our interests, but even with our massive technological advancements, we must accept the fact that we are living in a finite environment that will never be able to accommodate all of our selfish wants.
		By constantly trying to satisfy our limitless appetite, we exploit our natural surroundings.  I propose we ask ourselves a new question: How can we find happiness in nature, without exploiting it? The answer is obvious. We must learn to appreciate Nature for everything that it is; not just for what we can get from it. Our long history of dominance over nature has proven to be destructive, time and time again. We must learn temperance, and decrease our human appetite in such a way so that we can achieve a harmonious relationship with our natural environment, if we wish to do better than those who came before us. We must act in such a way to set a stage for a brighter, greener future for humankind.
	According to the French artist Paul Gauguin, humankind is faced with three ultimate questions: Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? (Wright, 14) These questions may seem anthropocentric, but in essence, they are in fact environmental questions. Environmental problems are fundamentally human problems, and there is no scientific answer to them. There is no technological fix for them. We must adapt to changes in our environment as a species, and learn the proper way to exist in harmony with Nature. There can be no progress without a struggle, but we should know by now that Nature is beyond our domination. If we seek to exploit our natural environment, we are only harming ourselves in the long run. Nature shaped us into what we are, just as we have begun to shape Nature to suit our own selfish interests.
	The wilderness provides the key to our salvation. Ecocentrism is the philosophical position that recognizes “the land and the living” as one collective, quintessential organism, worth far more than the sum of all of its parts, which serves as the ultimate end to which we are all responsible towards. It is similar to the theoretical organism which the scientific community compassionately refers to as “Gaia;” the same supernatural organism which the indigenous lovingly refer to as “Mother Earth”. The Ancient Greeks believed that “a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” This land ethic defines the human role in Nature very well. We must learn to look after Nature for the good of itself, and for the good of future living generations on our planet. There is a balance between destructive and constructive forces in Nature. Mankind is proving to be a significant destructive force, but sometimes old things need to come apart in order for new things to be created. Nature doesn’t exist for us. It exists for its own reason, which is something beyond our human understanding.
















Bibliography
Wright, Ronald. An Illustrated Short History of Progress. Toronto. House of Anansi Press. October 2004.

Miller, Peter. From Locke to Gaia: Environmental Ethics and Canadian Forest Policy. Canadian Issues in Environmental Ethics. Editors Wellington, Greenbaum, and Cragg. Broadview Press. 1997.