It is commonly believed that the ecocentric root
of modern environmentalism is
'nourished by the philosophies of the romantic transcendentalists of mid-nineteenth-
century America'. These advocated a democracy among God's creatures, such that
nature was respected for its own sake, above and beyond its usefulness or relationship
to man. Therefore man had a moral obligation towards nature not simply for the pleasure
of man, but as a biotic right'.
However, while man might not be necessary
to nature, the ecocyntric says that nature is
necessary for man. Natural architecture has a grandeur which both humbles and
ennobles man and stimulates him to emulate it. Wild nature ... is an integral companion
to man' necessary for his emotional, spiritual and physical wellbeing in the face of
pressures from sophisticated and artificial urban living. While there is not necessarily
any biological or economic justification in the bioethical value system ecocentrism is
wide enough to embrace also the views of those who argue for nature on more
pragmatic and rational grounds.
This argument, from an essentially scientific ecosystems perspective,
puts man within
nature, as part of natural ecosystems. Consequently, anything which man does affects
the rest of the global system and "^reverberates through it - eventually back on to him.
So, for his own sake, he should not plunder, exploit and destroy natural ecosystems -
because in so doing he is destroying the biological foundation of his own life. Man is
seen as subject to biological laws just as much as is the rest of nature, and so he must
contribute to the stability and mutual harmony of the ecosystems of which he is a part.
The biological law of carrying capacity has already been mentioned in this respect, but
other 'laws' governing population size and dynamics, or laws of thermodynamics or laws
governing systems behaviour (e.g. diversity equals stability) are held to apply also to
social and economic man. Indeed, the whole paraphernalia of systems terminology is
applied by the ecological school - sometimes to extremes which are faintly ludicrous.
If we see the goal of our system
as that of capital formation through the pursuit of profits,
then it is usually 'economic' to replace labour with machinery in doing work. But if the
goal of our system is to produce happy and fulfilled people, then it makes economic
sense to support an organisation of work which creates jobs but does not necessarily
maximise profits. Schumacher was much concerned with work, and the need for it to be
fulfilling and creative. To improve the quality of work as part of an improved quality of life
he proposed to reject the notion that 'high' (i.e. sophisticated and capital-intensive)
technology is of merit for its own sake. He sought to encourage the development of
simple machines which could be accessible to - and owned by - the majority of people,
and which could be mixed in with manual labour to derive a partially-mechanised
production process that would generate work. Thus the division-of-labour/production-line
philosophy of classical economics would be deliberately destroyed. Schumacher's ideas
have been put extensively into practice in the Third World as well as in Europe, and he
elaborated upon them in Good Work (1980), published after his death.
Limits, self-reliance, self-sufficiency,
small-scale production, low-impact technology,
recycling, zero population and economic growth -these are all key words in the standard
ecocentric vocabulary, which is liberally sprinkled through the three landmark
publications described above. The Blueprint and Small is Beautiful are undoubtedly
'ecocentric' in outlook, though Limits has technocentric as well as ecocentric
characteristics.
In discussing the ideological cross-currents
of environmentalism, 'conservative
ecocentrist' is distingished from 'liberal ecocentrist'. The former embraces the morality
of limits and of lifeboat ethics, and the adherents of ecocentrist ideology belong to the no-
growth school and to the ecological planners and amenity protectionists. The latter are
classed as a 'radical ecological activists' - i.e. an 'environmental educator' or citizen,
who generally 'seeks fundamental changes in the values, attitudes and behaviour of
individuals and social institutions through example and enlightenment, not by revolution
or chaos'. The reveal themselves, to be politically more to the right than the former.
