(Fig. 1. Central focuses of 3 environmental Worldviews, Miller, Fig. 25-3, p663).
In Chapter 25: “Environmental Worldviews, Ethics, and Sustainability” of Tyler Miller’s 17thedition of Living in the Environment; Concepts, Connections, and Solutions, he summarizes the leading environmental worldviews that dictate human priorities when it comes to sustainability as having varying degrees of anthropocentric and earth centric standpoints (see Fig.1). He explains that the different environmental worldviews of what humanity’s role in the world should be is created according to individuals’ environmental ethics (one’s conviction of right and wrong specifically as it pertains to the environment). The three major worldviews that he defines are that of Planetary Management, Stewardship, and Environmental Wisdom (see Fig. 2).
(Fig. 2. “Environmental Worldviews, Ethics and Sustainability”, Miller, Fig. 25-1, p663).
The Planetary Management Worldview is human-centered and focused on people’s desires and necessities (anthropocentric), meaning that humanity is separate from/elevated above nature, and nature should be managed and maintained solely to ensure the survival of people (Fig 1.). This worldview claims that it is completely possible for humans to control the earth’s resources which have value in that they are useful to us. Another anthropocentric worldview is the Stewardship Worldview, which- like the Planetary Management Worldview- holds that natural resources are beneficial to humans and should be maintained for our survival. But, the Stewardship Worldview goes one step further in environmental ethics by maintaining that humans have an ethical responsibility to care for (be “stewards” of) the earth, and not only try to preserve necessary resources, but try also try to find alternatives that will promote human survival and not harm the environment. Criticisms of the potential achievability of these two relatively anthropocentric worldviews are that human knowledge of the earth is so limited -as evidenced by the Biosphere 2 project which failed at recreating an earth-like environment suitable for life- that the notion that nature can possibly be “managed” or “stewarded” focuses on short term benefits and does not adequately promote environmental sustainability for future generations.
The third worldview, called the Environmental Wisdom Worldview, is earth centered (biocentric), and does not elevate the value of humans over all other nature, but instead gives all species and life on earth a note of equal importance and dependence on each other for survival. Miller believes that this world view is more practical than the two previously mentioned, as the promotion of environmental sustainability is encompassing of all life and does not assume to know everything about how the biosphere functions. Because it does not claim that humans have greater knowledge or ownership and instead claims a fully ethical and inextricable responsibility for global sustainability, Miller thinks the Environmental Wisdom Worldview and other more biocentric worldviews will be the most successful in preservation of not only humans, but all of earth’s ecosystems and species.
A common theme throughout this chapter by Miller is that human ignorance of the earth’s nature/value and how humans’ over-capitalization of its resources will harm them. He proposes that correcting this ignorance and preventing further damage to the life-sustaining systems that humans understand must accompany three environmental ethics: that all natural resources matter for the support of life and economies; humans have an enormous footprint on earth and has already done damage to and exceeded the ecological capacity; and that humans should never cross a certain point in destruction of earth’s life sustaining systems, because no human efforts will be able to undo the damage (Miller 666).
In the other reading, Greek Natural Philosophy; The Presocratics and their Importance for Current Environmental Philosophy, by Callicot, Van Buren, and Brown, the original philosophies of nature are examined and compared with modern environmental philosophies. In describing what nature is, they say that although today we define “Nature” as simply the biological and physical world, the pre-Socratic philosophers conceptualized Nature as “the whole of Being, including humanity, society, and divinity” (Callicot et. al., 4). Nature was interdisciplinary and included not only the natural sciences, but the humanities and social sciences as well. The work of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers- the questions they posed about all facets of nature- still guide philosophical ethics and environmental philosophers.
The ancient Greek natural philosophies were conceptualized for public consumption through myths, which served socio-political functions and informed public environmental ethic. Early natural philosophers, through these spiritual legends articulated the necessity for balance of nature and harmony between all of earth’s elements. This concept most closely aligns with the Environmental Wisdom Worldview, which aims to incorporate earth’s preservation into human ethics and stress that harmony between and respect for all living things sustains a harmonious and livable environment.
The in-class film, Journey of the Universe, examines the history and origins of the universe in an interdisciplinary way, utilizing the ancient Greek concept of nature over the contemporary one (as described above). The interconnectedness of the fields of cosmology, science, and humanities helps to “expand the human perspective beyond an anthropocentric worldview to one that values life’s complexity and sees the role of humans as critical to the further flourishing of the Earth community” (Tucker, 2012). This film connects the questions posed by ancient Greek philosophers with the Environmental Wisdom Worldview. The film also suggests that those who hold the earth-centric worldviews are much more likely to work to conserve the environment as well as improve human relations, because through the ethic of this worldview they grow to see and respect all life as part of this greater, whole evolution of the universe.
I agree with Miller that the Environmental Wisdom Worldview is the most ideal, because it is difficult to ensure that anthropocentric worldviews which inform sustainability efforts will be in alignment with the same priorities. In other words, some environmental conservation efforts might achieve success for some humans but not for others, and there is no clear way to keep humanity on the same page in that free-market system. The Environmental Wisdom Worldview has a much clearer foundational ethical principle of respect for all life. However, it could be difficult to achieve in that humans are inclined to act in their own self-interest, and there is no proposition of methodology to encourage/enforce this worldview across the different interests and necessities of humans. Despite this absence, I think of the three, the Environmental Wisdom Worldview is the most ideal ethic.
Word Count:1140
2 Line Discussion Question: Miller seems to promote the Environmental Wisdom Worldview as the best ethical option for environmental sustainability efforts. What are some critiques of this worldview that might favor the anthropocentric, Management and Stewardship Worldviews?
Citations:
Callicott, J Baird; van Buren, John; Brown, Keith Wayne. Greek Natural Philosophy; The Presocratics and their Importance for Current Environmental Philosophy. 1stEdition. Cognella Academic Publishing. 2018.
Miller, Tyler G. “Environmental Worldviews, Ethics, and Sustainability” Living in the Environment; Concepts, Connections, and Solutions. Brooks/Cole, 17thEdition. Chapter 25, pp. 661-668.
Tucker, Mary Evylin.“Journey of the Universe”. Journey of the Universe. Yale University Press. 2012. Print.
Environmental Ethics 
Leave a comment