The Ecology of Environmentalism

From ECOS 8(4) 1987, pp.28-33

Any human society needs to have an ethical system giving the rules that govern:

• our relationships with other humans (Rule 1: intraspecific

relations); this determines how we treat each other, e.g. do or

do not kill, use violence, look after young, etc…

• our relationships with other species (Rule 2: interspecific

relations); rule 2 determines how we treat other species, e.g.

dominate/exploit them, treat as equals, etc…

The rules are generally determined by the religious culture in which

we live (e.g. Islam, Christianity, Western Materialism, etc.), and

most of the emphasis, not surprisingly, tends to be on Rule 1.

There are two approaches to Rule 2:

• an anthropocentric (man-centred) ethic;

• a biocentric (nature-centred) ethic.

Western society has tended to be biased towards the anthropocentric

approach – man is the ‘central being’ above all other creation; this

has resulted in an exploitative/destructive approach to nature.

However, the science of ecology is (re-)teaching us our dependence

on nature, and has created (coincided with) the rise of ‘western

environmentalism’. At heart, the environmental debate is all about

the conflict between the anthropocentric approach and the biocentric

approach – the idea that nature has ‘inherent worth’.

Ecology

Ecology as a science looks at the interrelationships between life and

the environment – the links between plants, animals, soils, and

climate. It helps us unravel what are only now being seen as the

incredibly complex links within ecosystems. For example it can

show how, by turning on an electric heater in any home or driving

my car, I help cause avalanches in Switzerland and also contribute

to climatic change.

If all the impacts of our lifestyle are put together (acid rain,

nuclear waste, rainforest destruction, water and soil pollution, loss

of habitat and species, soil erosion, and so on), it can be seen what a

major impact our lifestyle is having on the planet. As the

revolutionary would say ‘we are all guilty’.

Aware, therefore, that things cannot go on indefinitely the way

they do now, many people are beginning to question the whole basis

of our attitudes and lifestyles and our effect on the planet: people are

realizing that in order to stop acid rain, or the carbon dioxide

‘greenhouse effect’, tinkering with details will only be a stop-gap

measure – ultimately, to solve these and the many other problems,

lifestyles and world views will have to change. Deeper and deeper

questions are being asked about nature and our relationship to it.