Download 2016 Virtual Dialogue on Harmony with Nature – Theme Earth

2016 Virtual Dialogue on Harmony with Nature – Theme Earth Jurisprudence
By Rachel Waters – Philosophy/Ethics
1. What would the practice of Philosophy/Ethics look like from an Earth Jurisprudence
perspective? How is that different from the way that Philosophy/Ethics is generally practiced
now? And, what are the benefits of practicing Philosophy/Ethics from an Earth
Jurisprudence perspective?
The Eurocentric philosophical and ethical worldview has long made distinctions between “man”
and “beast,” creating an artificial binary between the “natural world” and humankind. This dualism
has governed how we approach this relationship and has rarely sought to merge the words “Earth”
and “Jurisprudence” because they have been seen as occupying two unrelated realms.
This notion stands in stark contrast to that held by most peoples of indigenous heritage who interact
with the Earth on the premise that we are intimately and inextricably entwined with nature. For
indigenous peoples, every philosophical and ethical concept takes into account plants, animals,
water and air as extensions of humankind. What is just and healthy for the environment is thus just
and healthy for human beings.
While this Earth-centered perspective is essential to understanding our current predicament of
ecological collapse at the hands of extractive capitalism, it’s clear that this premise is obscure even
in the realm of academia where ecology and environmental studies have long lived in separate
spheres apart from social, political, ethical and economic studies. Unfortunately, the separation of
these spheres has been to our detriment.
Extractive capitalism, as it began to take its large-scale, globalized shape in Europe and its colonies
during the 16th Century, was free from any constraining ideas of interconnectedness and left us with
the concept of nature’s bounty as a free resource to be tapped at will to meet the boundless demands
of human consumption. Even as the worlds from which resources were drawn and those which
consumed those resources drew closer together and began to overlap, the binary persisted.
The indigenous approach, as well as other emerging philosophical and ethical approaches, which
accounts for Earth Jurisprudence, acknowledges that, as beings who are only a small part of nature,
we cannot realistically extricate ourselves from nature and adapt it to meet out demands but must
instead adapt ourselves if we are to survive. Incorporating this and its adjoining concept of Earth
Jurisprudence into the realm of mainstream philosophy and ethics dissolves the artificial binary
between man and nature. It creates a world in which children are raised to believe that to love
nature is to love themselves and in which all people are compelled to consider the consequences of
this entwined reality in their every economic and political interactions.
2. What promising approaches do you recommend for achieving implementation of an Earthcentered worldview for Philosophy/Ethics?
Within the practice of philosophy and ethics, we must conceptualize the Earth and all of its
inhabitants as a complex and deeply interdependent life-support network. We must shun the
artificial dualism which separates man from nature as unrealistic, illogical and dangerous. We must
normalize concepts of environmental connectedness and Earth Jurisprudence and incorporate these
into our everyday language. For those of us who work as journalists, researchers, advisors and
policymakers, we must examine how the language we use in our work can serve to dissolve or
reinforce this dangerous binary.
1
Consider the Fifth Assessment Report issued by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change in 2014. On its face, this necessary document presents an urgent and convincing case for
modifying how we interact with the planet within the global capitalist system upon which most of
the world currently depends. However, closer inspection reveals the persistence of problematic
dualisms that risk masking how dire the consequences of our current trajectory are.
For instance, on page 12 of the report, it is noted that global warming above 2 degrees Celsius will
have detrimental impacts for “disadvantaged people and communities.” While many writers,
researchers and policymakers operating today would find no ethical problem with this statement, its
language exposes a deeply ingrained binary mindset which artificially separates groups of humans
into “advantaged” and “disadvantaged” in terms of climate change.
However, those operating from a stance of interconnectedness and interdependence instinctively
ask: Why the distinction? After all, if we are to have millions of climate refugees in the coming
decades, won’t we all be massively impacted in a detrimental way? The language in this sentence
isolates their impacts from the rest of the “advantaged” world, distancing one from the other and
impacting planning and preparation within these so-called “advantaged” societies.
The policymakers who make decisions based on the recommendations of this document would be
better served by language which makes it clear that the effects of climate change will not be
contained to certain populations but will impact all.
3. What key problems or obstacles do you see as impeding the implementation of an Earthcentered worldview in Philosophy/Ethics?
Although this dualistic notion has begun to shift thanks to the rising voices of scientists, scholars
and indigenous peoples who challenge it through research and lived experience, we still suffer from
the separation of mankind and nature in the theoretical and, thus, practical realms.
In world whose economies are premised on this artificial dualism, the notion of nature as little more
than a cheap good to be extracted and exhausted by any means necessary has continued to persist
even as it becomes increasingly clear that this ideology has been to our detriment. As such, most of
the current approaches to sustainability focus on ways to maintain the “low cost” of natural
resources, ignoring that the cost of these goods is rising due to scarcity and environmental
externalities and that we are married to those price hikes, whether we like it or not.
Searching for ways to force a lower cost onto the bounty of nature isn’t adaptation nor is it in any
way sustainable over the long term. It’s more accurately framed as a willful self-extermination
facilitated by the idea that catastrophe is something that is generations away rather than mere
decades ahead.
4. What are the top recommendations for priority, near-term action to move
Philosophy/Ethics toward an Earth Jurisprudence approach? What are the specific, longerterm priorities for action?
The near-term and long-term recommendations are married in that these actions operate along a
continuum to bring about a sea change in terms of how we incorporate an Earth-centered approach
within current philosophical and ethical discourse.
2
Within the realm of higher education, we must incorporate and normalize the voices of indigenous
ethicists and philosophers, not as radicals or persons representing special interests, but as valid,
essential voices that have a place in every philosophy or ethics class.
Furthermore, we must dissolve the binary that exists in education where environmental philosophy
and ethics are concerned. Deans, boards, administrators and faculty must shift these topics from the
fringe to a place within the core curriculum of every discipline, regardless of whether the student is
pursuing a social science, communications, business or an engineering degree. Within this
framework, we must also problematize the use of binary language and concepts like
“sustainability,” interrogating what they actually mean in terms of human development, adaptation
and survival within the natural framework.
Finally, we must make significant efforts to cultivate within our children a sense of wonder,
connection and responsibility toward Earth and all its systems and inhabitants. We can do so by
telling stories in which humans cooperate with other parts of nature and by teaching respect and
care for everything in nature from the smallest garden snake to the vastest mountain vista. By doing
so within these crucial, formative years, we will instill an ongoing and intrinsic understanding that
will inform not only how ethically they will operate within world, but how well they will adapt and
cope with its changes.
3