Valuing Naturalness in the
“Anthropocene”
Now More than Ever
Ned Hettinger
Philosophy Dept., College of Charleston
March 2013
“Age of Man Environmentalism”
vs. traditional environmentalism
“Nature no longer runs the
Earth. We do. It is our choice
what happens from here”
(Mark Lynas, 2011).
“Humans neither can nor ought to
denature their planet . . . On
larger planetary scales it is better
to build our cultures in intelligent
harmony with the way the world
is already built, rather than take
control and rebuild this promising
planet by ourselves . . . We do not
want a de-natured life on a denatured planet” ( Holmes Rolston,
2012)
The “Anthropocene”
Scientific Debate
Conference announcement
Geology Society of UK
• Have we left the Holocene
• “In the blink of a geological eye,
(recent age began 10,000
through our need for energy,
years ago) and entered the
food, water, minerals, for space in
Anthropocene?
which to live and play, we have
wrought changes to Earth’s
• Some geologists are debating
environment and life that are as
whether the human impact
significant as any known in the
on the earth is significant
geological record.”
enough to justify designating
a new geological epoch
named after us
Many are now using the term
Human impacts are massive
• Consume ½ earth’s surface
fresh water & dam most of
the earth’s rivers
• Use 35% net primary
productivity of plants
• Fix more nitrogen than all
other terrestrial sources
• Devastated sea life with
over fishing
• Homogenize ecosystems
with our exotics
• Causing species extinction
at 10 to 1000 times
background rate
• Three Gorges Dam shifts
earth’s axis about an inch
• Climate change likely to
raise temperatures 2-5
degrees Celsius, affecting
climates globally--and thus
virtually all organisms
**Perhaps we are altering the planet on a scale justifying a new
geologic epoch**
Anthropocene troubling as a new
environmental philosophy (1)
• Exaggerates human influence and denigrates nature’s continuing
fundamental role
• Promotes a problematic human/nature relationship
• Humans as indistinguishable from nature
• Humans as planetary managers, engineering earth according to our
values and ideals
• Misconceives nature of human virtue and flourishing
• Humility, restraint, and gratitude for a gifted world,
• Replaced with
• Reconciliation about a lost world and celebration of our competence
and control and of our responsibility for the new one we’ve created
Anthropocene troubling as rejects a
key value of naturalness
• Argues that because the remaining
naturalness is so tenuous
• Traditional environmental goal of preserving,
restoring, valuing nature is a pipe-dream
• I argue that valuing the natural is more,
rather than less, important in the
Anthropocene
Naturalness and Nature
• Naturalness = Degree of freedom from human influence
and/or control
– Extent of lack of humanization
– Autonomy from humanity
• Nature
– That which is outside of human dominion/domination
– The given, unbidden, gifted world
• Not necessarily: Pristine, virgin, nature “untouched by man”
Humans: Natural and unnatural
• While in many important ways humans are natural
– We evolved on his planet as other species did, are subject to its laws,
and are deeply dependent on its health
• Crucial to emphasize the ways humans are different from the
rest of nature
– We are social, political, economic, and technological
– To understand humans, must understand the social as well as natural
sciences
• Anthropocene boosters, typically insist that humans and their
activities are thoroughly natural
– One Anthropocene booster promotes
• “A deeper acceptance of our place on the planet, with all of our
synthetic trappings, and our faults, as fundamentally natural”
(Andrew Revkin, NY Times)
Humans as creating the earth
• “The age of man” is “well-deserved,
given humanity’s enormous
alteration of earth… This is the earth
we have created” and hence we
should “manage it with love and
intelligence … designing
ecosystems…” to instantiate “new
glories”
“Hope in the Age of Man” (Marris, Kareiva,
Mascaro, and Ellis, NY Times, 2011)
A new name for our planet?
Even McKibben
thinks we need a
new name for the
planet
Geographer Erle Ellis: Humans as
gods and nature’s creator
“We are poised at an important time in human and Earth
history.”
“We can and are changing the way the entire planet
functions.”
“This is an amazing opportunity -- humanity has now made
the leap to an entirely new level of planetary importance.”
“As Stewart Brand said in 1968: ‘We are as gods and might as
well get good at it’.”
“We used to depend on nature to care for us.”
“Now it's entirely the other way around.”
“Will we be proud of the planet we create in the
Anthropocene?”
Humans as fashioning the earth
• “One clear reality is that • Climate change has the
for a long time to come,
“potential to shape
Earth is what we choose
totality of nature in a
to make of it, for better
fashion quite
or worse.”
unprecedented in
human history”
– Andrew Revkin (N.Y.
Times science reporter,
& author of Earth is Us)
– Christopher Preston (Env
Philosopher, Univ. of MT)
Humans as responsible for the earth
• “We now know that the fundamental conditions of
the biosphere are something that, collectively, we
are responsible for”
• Humans’ “awesome responsibility for the flourishing
of life on earth”
• “Once the planet was larger than us, but it no longer
is”
•Allen Thompson, Environmental
Philosopher, Oregon State Univ.
To the contrary: Nature continues
to be fundamentally responsible
• Nature--not humans—is responsible for the existence of
sunlight, water, gravity, the chemical bonds, evolution,
photosynthesis, and predation
• Nature—not humans—is responsible for the diversity of life
and geology on the planet!
• Human causal influence does not begin to approach the
combined causal contributions of the nonhuman geological,
chemical, physical, and biological forces of the planet
• Anthropocene boosters talk as if humans had used chemistry,
synthetic biology, and manufacturing technology to construct
the entire planet
Humans’ new authority as planetary
managers and nature’s parents?
• “Whether we accept it or not, human beings now shoulder
the responsibility of planetary management”
(Thompson, 2009)
• Note the model for human relationship to earth:
•
•
•
•
Not caretakers or restorers
Not janitors charged with cleaning up our mess
Not repenters making restitution for our destruction
Nor healers of a wounded earth
• Instead we are managers of this place.
• Humans are boss. We are in charge.
•“Like adoptive parents” we need to “enable” the
“flourishing” of life on earth (Thompson, 2009)
A better model of human
relationship with nature
• Reject the conceit that earth needs us –
• Non-human world would be far better off without us
• Humans desperately need earth
• Rather than developing a new planet, we should
develop our capacities for “gratitude, wonder, respect,
and restraint” toward earth (Rolston, 2012)
• Our responsibility toward nature
• Is not mainly to enable nature, but to stop disabling it
• Is not to control the planet, but–at least in many ways--to
loosen our control and impact
• Humans as admiring and thankful users rather than
managers of nature
Human flourishing not= unlimited
freedom & control over nature
• Controlling nature with our technology has
been key to human progress
• But there are limits to this mode of being and
we are pushing those limits now
– Consider climate engineering and genetic
engineering of our children
• Humans will not flourish w/o the presence of
other, the given, the gifted world
Is naturalness gone
and
environmentalism
based on it
bankrupt?
Plenty of naturalness left to value
• Things can be natural (i.e., relatively autonomous
from humans) and valued as such even when they
are significantly influenced by humans
• Urban parks: Though significantly shaped by humans
they are valuable in large part due to their remaining
naturalness (the trees are not plastic and the birds
are not genetically engineered)
• Natural dimensions of human nature :
– Admire athletic talent not shaped by drugs or effort
– Dimensions of our children we did not shape
False dichotomy: Nature is either
pristine or humans created it
“An interesting way to look at nature
now in the Anthropocene is that
nature is something that we create . .
. There is really nothing around that
has not been touched by us” (Erle
Ellis, video interview).
• But naturalness comes in •
degrees
• Things can be natural w/o
being pristine
• Nature does not cease to be
natural once influenced by
humans
“There really is no such thing as
nature untainted by people. Instead,
ours is a world of nature
domesticated, albeit to varying
degrees, from national parks to highrise megalopolises” (Kareiva 2007).
The Anthropocene boosters
follow McKibben in
fallaciously arguing that
widespread human
influence means “we now
live in a world of our own
making” (McKibben, The
End of Nature, 1989)
Is naturalness less valuable?
“My analysis supports that idea that the
environmentalism in the future . . . will hold a
significantly diminished place for valuing the
good of the autonomy in nature”
Thompson, 2010
• I urge the opposite conclusion
• The naturalness that persists in humanimpacted nature is a seriously important
object of valuation
Valuing diminished naturalness
“When I think of the times I myself have come closest to experiencing what I
might call the sacred in nature, I often find myself remembering wild places
much closer to home. I think, for instance, of a small pond near my house
where water bubbles up from limestone springs to feed a series of pools that
rarely freeze in winter and so play home to waterfowl that stay here for the
protective warmth even on the coldest of winter days, gliding silently through
streaming mists as the snow falls from gray February skies. I think of a
November evening long ago when I found myself on a Wisconsin hilltop in rain
and dense fog, only to have the setting sun break through the clouds to cast
an otherworldly golden light on the misty farms and woodlands below, a
scene so unexpected and joyous that I lingered past dusk so as not to miss
any part of the gift that had come my way”
William Cronon (Env. Historian)
“The Trouble with Wilderness” (1995)
Naturalness becomes more important
the more rare and compromised it is
• While there is less of naturalness to value,
what remains becomes more precious
• Rarity is a value enhancing property of things antecedently
judged to be good
• The more nature’s autonomy is compromised
by human control and domination, the more
(not less) important it is to take steps to regain
it and protect what remains
Naturalness can return
• Greater degrees of naturalness can return
• Humanization can flush out of humanimpacted natural systems
– By restoration, rewilding, or just letting
naturalness come back on its own
• Nature need not return to its original state or
trajectory for naturalness to be enhanced
– Lessening of human influence is sufficient
• Even if there is “no going back,” path forward
need not be a thoroughly managed future
Conclusion
• The “Age of Man Environmentalism” is the latest
embodiment of human hubris
– Ignores the profound role nonhuman nature continues to
play on earth
– Fails to appreciate a gifted nature
– Arrogantly overvalues humanity’s role and authority
– Misconstrues human flourishing as unlimited control over
the world
• We should not get comfortable with or reconcile
ourselves to the Anthropocene, but work to
undermine it
“I suspect that unless a duty of respect for
nature is widely recognized and
acknowledged, there will be little hope of
successfully addressing the problem of climate
change”
(Jamieson, 2010)
notes
• A slide on dif env policy implications
– Palmer’s no duty to assist the wild is gone
– Nussbaum’s response to predation is to advocate
replacing natural with just
– Exotic species be happy with
• non-native species should be accepted because they
can play useful roles in the novel ecosystems emerging
as a result of human-induced global change
– wilderness preservation needs to be deemphasized and
• Need quote of Shellenberger
Slide on what is right in anthro
boosters?
•
Ellis: For better or for worse, the Earth system now functions in ways
unpredictable without understanding how human systems function and how they
interact with and control Earth system processes. Not clear to me what earth
systems we control rather than influence
–
•
Human involvement in the Earth system has now gone far beyond mere interference with “natural”
processes. Human systems have emerged as new primary Earth systems, not only by dramatically
altering preexisting natural processes but also, more important, by introducing a host of new Earth
system processes entirely novel to the Earth system. As a result, the classic paradigm of “Earth
systems with humans disturbing them” is obsolete.
Make the clear example in he paper of how restoration might not work when
climate in local is different
–
Sandler’s lobsters in the Long Island sound historical versus blue crabs
Callicott on anthro
• USE####Fretting about the sixth mass
extinction and global climate change? Get
over it; welcome to the Anthropocene; get
with the program. Next up, geo-engineering.
Don’t worry about it; after all, this is the
Anthropocene, humans are now the main
geological force.
. Eileen Crist on anthropocene
•
•
•
•
The Anthropocene . . .The seductiveness of the concept flows from its following
features: it is catchy; on the surface it is empirically valid; it is being proposed by a
cadre of vocal and influential scientists; and it contains that magic word
anthropos, pulling the strings of humanity’s infatuation with its own self-image.
Is it a productive concept? It is an extremely dangerous one. . . .The concept of
the Anthropocene communicates the message: bye-bye Holocene, we have left
you behind. It says this: our collective goal is not to drastically scale back our
overwhelming presence, but rather to inscribe it in the annals of geological time.
It also says this: we are a “force of nature” on the planet and we accept the part,
thereby turning the fated course of human history into human destiny.
Those who are closely tracking the Anthropocene primary literature hear it saying
this as well: we will use science and technology to manage the Earth system as a
whole; yes, we need to do the research first, maybe even consult the humanists
on the non-scientific dimensions, but if need be we will geoengineer, so that key
planetary variables are kept within thresholds that can sustain the existence and
march of human civilization as we know it.
The “Anthropocene” is the worst news in years. It adds insult to the planet’s
injuryhttp://environmentalhumanities.org/about/profiles/ep-crist
Emma Harris on can’t avoid
managing
• We can run it justly, dividing up natural resources evenly
between the Earth’s people and leaving plenty for future
generations. We can run it hospitably, making a place for all
the species we haven’t yet managed to kill as the climate
warms and ecosystems change. We can run it, in places, by
not running it, by letting the weeds grow and species move
and new ecosystems assemble themselves. We can manage
Earth well. But we can also manage Earth badly.
• .But why is not managing seen as managing? Its like if a
husband could beat his wife into submission to his will but
allows her to do his thing he is really running her life because
he could!
Ability to control but choose not
• If humans refrain from manipulating the world in a certain
respect (or to a very high degree), but can do this, does the
independence of nature loose its power/value?
• What is lost from a relationship with nature where we can’t
control it to one where we decided not to control it?
• Related here is if we have knowledge of how it will change if
we don’t control it
• Also, problematic is if we don’t control it only in those cases
were it goes in ways we like
cuts
• Replaced with competence, reconciliation,
adaptation, and celebration of control and
responsibilty
• Palmer: For instance, it might be argued that
if we are already in the Anthropocene,
further human impacts don’t matter, or
won’t register; or that rather than aiming for
more restraint, humans in the Anthropocene
should aim at more and better control
“A New Goal for Nature: Healthy,
but Not Pristine”
– Scientific American (August 2012) by Ben
Halpern
• “People are now fundamentally integrated (Ned: this suggest
harmony, whereas much human involvement in ecosystems is damaging or domination) into every
ecosystem on earth. As such nature not only includes
people but must address the needs of those people”
• Radical departure from past goal of protecting or
returning nature to a pristine state
• That goal is impossible
• Change our relationship with nature from trying to lock
it away to using it sustainable way;
• “To be feasible, conservation has to let go of the ideal
of “nature untouched by humans” and embrace an