Rownowaga 1 uk-8-15

Marius de geus

illustrations: anna zabdyrska

natUReand sUstainability in tHe eCoLoGiCaLUtoPiantRadition

autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 9

ROWNOWAGA_1_UK_cs4-3.indd 8 13-10-30 14:38

In our era of large scale environmental degradation and increasing climate prob-lems, there is a need for counter images of an alternative ecologically sustainable

society, one that protects and respects nature. Often it is forgotten that in the ecological utopian tradition one may fi nd instructive visions, as well as highly evocative images of a sustainable society. It appears that soci-ety is letting an opportunity pass by, by not fully recognizing the true value that lies in the ‘ecotopian’ tradition. I shall investigate whether ecological utopias are capable of pro-viding a meaningful contribution to the quest for an environmentally sustainable society. More particularly: what is the signifi cance of various ‘ecological utopias’ for interpreta-tions of mankind’s attitudes towards nature, and the modern social debate about the meaning of ecological sustainability?

huMans as partiCipants in nature

In the work of American political philoso-pher Murray Bookchin (1921-2006) one can observe the view of humans as ‘partici-pants’ in their relation towards the natural environment. In The Ecology of Freedom (1991) Bookchin argues that the fundamental roots of the present ecological crisis must be found ‘in the underlying institutional, moral and spiritual changes in human society that pro-duced hierarchy and domination – not only in bourgeois, feudal and ancient society, but at the very dawn of civilization’1. His central thesis is that the idea that humanity must dominate and explore nature, historically stems from the domination and exploitation of humans by humans.

1 M. Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom. The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy, Montreal: Black rose Books, 1991, p. 44

Historically, this conception can be traced back to a period when men began to domi-nate women:

‘From that point onward, human beings were regarded as mere resources, as objects instead of subjects. The hierarchies, classes, propertied forms, and statist institutions that emerged with social domination were carried over conceptually into humanity’s relationship with nature. Nature too became increasingly regarded as a mere resource, an object, a raw material to be exploited as a mere resource as slaves on a latifundium.’2

In reaction to this development, Bookchin argues for a more ‘holistic’ analysis of relationships in nature and society. In his view, natural evolution does not develop in the direction of a simplifi cation of forms of life, but in the direction of growing complex-ity and variety. Hence, respect for nature is paramount: ecosystems are much too vari-egated to be left to humans and their claim to sovereignty and complete domination over nature.

In essence, natural ecosystems resemble food webs rather than stratifi ed pyramids. Ecosystems are organized non-hierarchically and rely heavily on forms of participation. What makes Bookchin’s ‘social ecology’of the utmost importance is ‘that it off ers no case whatsoever for hierarchy in nature and society; it decisively challenges the function of hierarchy as a stabilizing or ordering prin-ciple in both realms. The association of order as such with hierarchy is ruptured’3

Bookchin argues in favor of making these principles the basic premises of a new bal-

2 Ibidem3 Ibidem, p.37

ance between humanity and nature: man-kind must strive for the maintenance of ecological spontaneity and non-hierarchical organization of the political, social and ecological systems. It also means that in the future agricultural and industrial practices, urbanization and the use of technology will have to be carefully tailored to the natural re-quirements of local and regional ecosystems.4

In his analysis, up to now human kind as well as nature have been the victims of a hi-erarchically structured society. The individu-als are unfree because of the institutions and values of hierarchical society: citizens lack both power and opportunity to control their destinies and lives. These hierarchical social relations have a direct impact on humanity’s attitudes and behavior towards nature.

An ecologically responsible society can only be accomplished when all the spheres of life that are contaminated by domination are ‘decontaminated’, for instance the relations between men and women, politicians and citizens, as well as the relationship between humanity and nature itself. In Bookchin’s view the introduction of an ‘anarchist soci-ety’ is vital in ending the dominant attitude of humans towards nature and in realizing an equilibrium between humanity and its environment.5

huMans as partners with nature

English designer, writer, architect and craftsman William Morris (1834-1896) was one of the fi rst utopians who gave an aesthetic portrayal of an ecologically balanced society.

4 Ibidem, s.415 M. Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, Montreal: Black rose Books, 1990, p.19-32

autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 9


In his News from Nowhere (1891) Morris fi rst provides a critical analysis of 19th century English capitalist society and the natural environment in his days which, as he put it, have grown ‘ugly’. He then sketches an extremely detailed alternative, where society and the natural environment are relieved of their ugliness and the world is once again ‘beautiful and harmonious’.

In his work, Morris provides an even more nature friendly and far going view

on the relationships between human kind and nature than Bookchin. William Morris had an extremely sharp eye for ‘modern’ problems such as large scale industrializa-tion, environmental degradation, waste of natural resources, ongoing urbanization, and the destruction of valuable, traditional land-scapes. According to him, the capitalist in-dustrial system had deeply aff ected people’s attitudes towards nature. He describes how in general people led lives in which humans and nature were separated from each other, and nature was even treated as a slave:

‘…a life which was always looking upon everything, except mankind, animate and inanimate – “nature”, as people used to call it – as one thing, and mankind as another. It was natural to people thinking this way, that they should try to make “nature” their slave, since they thought “nature” was something outside them.’6

In his interpretation, the industrialized 19th century society lacked a sense of nature and the Earth as a comprehensive whole. The natural surroundings were viewed by the inhabitants ‘ as an ugly characterless waste,

6 W. Morris, News from Nowhere, London: Kegan Paul, 1983, p. 154

with no delicate beauty to be guarded’. 7In reaction to this, Morris describes the need for a social, political and ecological revolution. The country would be divided in small scale decentralized unit (a commune, a ward, a par-ish), which would be self-governing. Private property of the means of production would no longer exist: large-scale factories, heavily pol-luting the natural surroundings and wasting energy and materials, would be replaced by environmentally friendly cottage industries and small scale workshops where products are made under safe working conditions.8

Morris accentuates that parallel to these drastic political and economic changes, an ecological revolution has to take place to ensure the people’s complete happiness. The perfect starting point of this ecological revo-lution was a completely diff erent attitude of humans towards nature. Morris indicates in News from Nowhere that the inhabitants of this new society felt a deep ‘aff ection’ for their natural surroundings, for the landscape where they lived, and for everything that grows and blooms.

In his utopian society many people would move from the cities to the countryside. There would be a dispersion of people and gradually city and country would fl ow seam-lessly into one another. The result would be an exemplary and crucial ‘partnership’ between human kind and nature. In this ecotopian society people lived in a carefully managed garden landscape, where nothing was neglected or wasted, as the following passage indicates:

‘This is how we stand. England was once a country of clearings amongst the forests

7 Ibidem, p.1628 Ibidem, p. 83

and wastes, with a few towns interspersed, which were fortresses for the feudal army, markets for the folk, gathering places for craftsmen. It then became a country of huge and foul workshops and fouler gambling dens, surrounded by an ill kept, poverty stricken farm, pillaged by the masters of the workshops. It is now a garden, where noth-ing is wasted and nothing is spoilt, with the necessary dwellings, sheds and workshops scattered up and down the country, all trim and neat and pretty.’ For indeed, we should be too much ashamed of ourselves if we al-lowed the making of goods, even on a large scale, to carry with it the appearance, even, of desolation and misery’. 9

Morris most vividly describes how the people would live in simple yet solid homes with well-kept gardens and allotments, in harmony with their natural surroundings. Moreover, there would be abundant space for untouched landscapes and exist large pieces of wild nature. In his vision, when people as-sume an attitude of ‘partnership’, friendship and closeness with regard to nature, they consider humans and nature as ‘partners’ in the sense that the needs, interests and preferences of both sides must be taken into account and be weighed harmoniously.10

In this vision nature is observed as an alli-ance of diff erent life forms, in which human and other life forms are not adversaries but are working together in order to achieve common purposes.11This requires a respectful

9 Ibidem, p. 6110 Ibidem, p.6311 See also: P. Kockelkoren, Ethical Aspects of Plant Biotechnology In Plants – Report to the Dutch Government Commission on Ethical Aspects Biotechnology in Plants, Appendix I, [in:] Agriculture and Spirituality – Essays from the Crossroads Conference at Wageningen Agricultural University, Utrecht: International Books, 1995, part.5

autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 10 autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 11


relationship with nature and an emphasis on various forms of cooperation and bal-anced relations between life forms on earth. Overall, humankind is allowed to make use of natural resources, but without having the right to dominate or exploit nature. 12

As ‘partners’ humans will tend to draw more radical consequences than as participants. Being a partner implies an increased con-sciousness of being a part of nature and of feeling closely associated with the natural surroundings. In general, an intimate, close and friendly partner will set more stringent restrictions on man’s interventions in nature than a participant. Moreover, partners will systematically act in ways which stimulate nature to develop and realize itself, as in a fl ourishing and healthy human partnership.

huMans eXperienCing a funda-Mental ‘union’ with nature

The most radical interpretation of the relationship between human kind and na-ture can be found in the ideas of American political philosopher Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862). Thoreau has become well-known as author of Walden, or a Life in the Woods (1854). In this most wonderful and still widely read book he meticulously recounts the greatest experiment of his life.

As a matter of fact, he lived alone in the woods from July 1845 until September 1847, in a self- constructed cabin on the shore of Wal-den Pond, near Concord Massachusetts, his birthplace. In his writings Thoreau presents his general view of a radical simplifi cation of life and develops an alternative vision on the relationship between human kind and nature.

12 Ibidem

Strikingly, in Walden Thoreau continuously writes ‘Nature’ with a capital letter. He also consistently describes nature as a female fi gure, as can be seen, for example, in the following: ‘But there was dawning Nature, in whom all creatures live, looking in at my broad windows with serene and satisfi ed face, and no question on her lips’. 13

In his view, nature is the mother of human-ity, a creator of life and beauty. Like the native Indians, who in his time had already largely been driven onto reservations, he saw the Earth as ‘a living being’, and approached nature as a ‘living entity’, of which humans only make up a small part.14

To a larger extent than Bookchin and also Morris, Thoreau emphasizes the greatness, grandeur and benevolence of nature. He consistently writes with deeply felt refer-ence and great awe about the ‘dignity’ of nature and the vital importance of preserv-ing nature’s equilibrium. In his view nature was not created to be a possession of man, but has ‘ intrinsic value’: it exists in and of itself, and deserves to be treated with love and aff ection. Actually, he considers it his moral responsibility to protect the wild and preserve the forests.15

Thoreau shows how profoundly he enjoys the landscape, and talks with the deepest af-fection about pine, birch and oak trees, with which he appears to carry on entire con-versations. His Walden is like a hymn to the nature around his simple forest hut. When Thoreau meditates he repeatedly experi-ences himself as being part of nature, and

13 H.D. Thoreau, Walden, czyli życie w lesie, przeł. H. Cieplińska, Poznań, Rebis, 1999, s. 29314 Idem, The Annotated Walden, edition by P. van Doren Stern, New York: Bramhall House 1970, p. 186-20715 Idem, Walden…

perceives the essential connection between it and humans. He experiences a salutary sense of ‘union’ and ‘kinship’ with nature, and is surprised that he never really feels alone in the vast forests where he roams.16

He expresses total admiration for nature’s sublime beauty, which he treats with utmost care and deep respect, rejecting each human encroachment on nature. Accordingly, his priority is not to bring land under cultiva-tion in order to make it productive, but rather to ‘maintain’ the wilderness and to live as the original Indian tribes: in an unspoiled land, in complete harmony with nature, without signifi cantly changing the earth.17

iMpliCations for theory and praCtiCe

This short survey of three diff erent views on the relationship between human kind and na-ture found in ecological utopianism, leads to a number of relevant insights and noteworthy consequences for both theory and practice. In the analysis of Bookchin, Morris and Thoreau, an ecologically sustainable society assumes a set of completely diff erent attitudes towards nature. A shared insight of these ecologi-cal utopians is that until now humans have shown an excessive tendency wanting to rule over nature. For many centuries humans have attempted to dominate nature and approach it as a means, an instrument completely at their service. However, this authoritarian and hierarchical way of thinking is absent from the principles of the three ecological utopians which were explored.

As they note, in an ecologically sound society nature will need to occupy a key position,

16 Idem, The Annotated…, p. 88-9317 Ibidem, p. 209-210



and people will need to treat the natural environment with dignity and respect. Despite the specifi c diff erences between the views of ‘humans as participants in nature’, ‘humans as partners with nature’, and ‘humans experiencing a fundamental union with nature’, their arguments are point-ing in the same direction. These ecotopian thinkers accentuate that, until humans have developed an attitude of respect, equality and deep concern for nature, an ecologi-cally sustainable society will remain a very distant prospect. Admittedly, there are some quite serious problems with their visions. For instance, despite my ongoing sympathy for Thoreau’s refl ections, his approach of achieving a union, unity and identifi cation with nature is highly individualistic and remains too subjective. On the whole, it does not seem a ‘necessary condition’ that every individual citizen must be able to identify with for example trees, bushes, landscapes and so on, in the way Thoreau is proposing to eff ectively protect and maintain mother Earth. It seems not everyone will be capable of (or interested in) experiencing this highly personal and subjective kind of ‘spiritual and sublime’ unity with the natural elements.

Additionally, such a revolutionary socio-cultural change cannot be expected in the foreseeable future and in fact does not seem feasible. In my view, it is more important that citizens gain suffi cient understand-ing of existing ecological relationships. For instance, people should become fully aware of the high complexity of our climatic and atmospheric systems, and understand the risks of possibly irreversible forms of damage to nature, as in the modern case of global warming and climate change.

Besides, there is the logical problem which is inherent to the approaches of participation

and partnership. In a literal way it is impos-sible to be a participant in relation to nature or a partner with nature, since nature is not able to speak or communicate in any reason-able and sensible way with us, nor can it act as a rationally thinking ‘moral agent’. Only fi guratively speaking, humans may possibly attain to a role of being a participant, or for example a partner in relation towards nature.

The critical remarks made above lead to the question how to choose for one of the three approaches mentioned. Why would one prefer either the attitude of participa-tion in nature, opt for a partnership relation with regards to nature, or favor the idea of experiencing a fundamental union or unity with nature? Obviously, this is not the main theme of this paper, but let me provide a short commentary here.

What could be the main criteria for mak-ing this kind of decision? For instance, one could look at the degree of realism and the level of practical feasibility. In that context, it seems the attitude of participation comes fi rst, followed by the one of partnership, and lastly the attitude of realizing union or unity with nature.

However, it can be defended that it is more rational and appropriate to evaluate the three ecotopian attitudes towards nature on basis of a diff erent criterion: the degree to which they can inspire people to environ-mentally responsible behavior, individually and collectively, or to policies that eff ectively contribute to solving the current ecological crisis, global warming and climate change included. 18

18 W. Achterberg, Samenleving, natur en duurzaamheid, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1994, p. 161-164

Another controversial issue is whether a change of human attitudes towards nature will in any way be suffi cient to achieve an ecologically responsible society. The obvious answer is negative. A change in attitudes and dispositions among citizens will not directly and automatically translate in diff erent environmental government policies. Nor will changes in attitudes of citizens mean that they will actually change their daily envi-ronmental behavior in terms of transporta-tion choices, food habits, housing habits and all other acquired pattern of behavior. As a matter of fact, these are exactly the deeply engrained routines and actions that tend to produce a larger individual Ecological Footprint.

In earlier work, I have noted that changes in political, economic, fi nancial and cul-tural institutions will be needed in order to achieve an ecologically sustainable society. 19 Changing human attitudes versus nature will indeed have to be constitutive element of a new green society, but will most defi nitely not be a suffi cient condition.

The role played by our contemporary atti-tudes towards nature is no doubt detrimental to our planet, but so are for example continu-ous economic growth, ongoing population increase, reliance on centralized and large scale energy production primarily based on fossil fuels, general food habits and con-sumption pattern in the rich countries, and so on. Another decisive issue concerns the ways people think about the broad and often elusive concept of ecological sustainability, to which I shall now turn.

19 M de Geus, The End of Over-consumption, Utrecht: International Books, 2003; M. de Geus, Utopian Sustainability: Ecological Utopianism, [w:] The Transition to Sustainable Living and Practice, ed. L. Leonard, J. Barry, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2009, p. 77-101



pragMatiC versus utopian Con-Cepts of eCologiCal sustain-ability

In the decades following the publication of the UN report Our Common Future (Brundtland report 1987), the great majority of govern-ments in the world have (at least in words and statements) accepted the concept of ‘sustainability’ as a general guideline for economic and environmental policy. In prac-tice, however, the specifi c meaning given to the concept by the countries involved, varies considerably according to the importance which is attached to facts, uncertainties and risks in relation to environment and society.

At least three interpretations of ecological sustainability have come to the forefront in western politics, which diff er with regard to the robustness of the defi nition of sustain-ability (‘strong versus weak’), the general perception of existing and future environ-mental risks (high versus low), the expecta-tions regarding the development of techno-logical solutions for environmental problems (highly probable, versus not probable at all), and the answer to the question whether a ‘general consumer austerity’ is inevitable or preferable in order to achieve an ecologically healthy and responsible society.

In the fi rst line of thought, ecological sus-tainability is equated with the Brundtland approach of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘ecological modernization’. The general start-ing point of this essentially ‘liberal’ concept is that ecological sustainability can actually be ‘combined’ with economic growth, a strength-ening of economic competitiveness, better management of urban planning, nature and biodiversity, and a decrease in absolute terms of environmentally hazardous emissions. In this line of reasoning again and again a

general argument is made for so-called ‘crea-tive and intelligent growth’ of the economy, provided that the overall pressure on the en-vironment diminishes. Environmental policy is basically seen as a necessary, welcome impulse for change, for technical, economic or cultural renewal. The challenge of sustainable development and ecological modernization’ is considered as a decisive cause of innovation and improvement of the economic structure. 20

In this pragmatic ‘liberal’ political vision the environmental risks of continuous economic development are estimated to be relatively low. It is assumed that a prolonged exploita-tion of the earth will reveal new stocks of natural resources and that, if needed, the exploitation of alternative raw natural re-sources is possible. In addition, the expecta-tions with regard to the contribution of new technologies to the improvement of energy effi ciency and realization of environmental goals are very high. In this pragmatic view it is expected that the ‘integration’ of environ-ment and economy will be accomplished by future technological revolutions and innova-tions. In line with this, an overall decrease of the level of production and consumption is not considered necessary. The main goal is to induce citizens to develop inherently friendly environmental behavior, without the need for austerity or of radical changes in lifestyles. Hence, the general aim is ‘greener’ or ‘sustainable’ consumption, not ‘reducing’ consumption.

In the second view – which is often (but not al-ways) associated with Christian religious ideas – ecological sustainability is looked at from the general perspective of ‘stewardship’. Here the basic point of departure is that human kind

20 A. Giddens, The Politics of Climate Change, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009, p. 70

is morally obliged to cultivate and conserve the natural environment as a responsible and eff ective steward of the natural environment. Accepting responsibility in order to maintain the natural environment for future genera-tions is a characteristic idea: humanity is held accountable for its share in the conservation of the ‘wholeness of the Creation’.21

In western democracies this Christian-democratic idea of stewardship has remained infl uential in politics. Most Western-Euro-pean Christian-democratic parties who are defending this position, do not perceive the environmental risks of economic growth as insurmountable and show an overall opti-mism about the future availability of natural resources. Their presumption is that, in the end, technological solutions for most cur-rent environmental problems will be found. In general, in this vision a need for more austere consumption patterns or lifestyles is rarely expressed. The emphasis is not on a radicalization of environmental goals and objectives, but on achieving the goals of already existing environmental policies.

A third interpretation of ecological sustaina-bility can be linked to radically green political parties in Western liberal democracies. The foundation of this idea can be traced back to utopian ecological thinkers such as William Morris, Bernard Skinner, Aldous Huxley, and Ernest Callenbach. In this ‘green-tainted’ interpretation, ecological sustainability is considered to be closely related to the idea of a ‘steady state economy’.22

21 P. Kockelkoren, op.cit, part 522 See, H.E.Daly, The Steady State Economy: toward a Political Economy of Biophysical Equilibrium and Moral Growth, [w:] Toward a Steady State Economy, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973; T. Jackson, Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, London: Earthscan, 2009



Their ‘ideal utopian society’ incorporates both an economic and an ecological state of equilibrium. The just mentioned utopians do not think in terms of growth, increase, and expansion, but in terms of equilibrium, sta-bility, and balance. They argue that a large share of environmental pollution and dam-age to nature is caused by society’s unlimited tendencies towards growth in production and consumption.

They emphasize that society should break away from these growth tendencies, and ad-vocate a society that is not based on the ideal of continuous economic development. Their focus on a so-called ‘steady state’ refl ects itself in their principles, in particular the proposition of a so-called ‘stationary state’, as well as in their views on policy, where the ‘stable state concept’ is the decisive criterion upon which social decision-making needs to be systematically based.

It is fair to say that up to now in western liberal democracies this specifi c ecological vi-sion of green political parties has not gained much attention and support. Only the green political parties in for example Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have (at least to some extent) indeed been inspired by these radical utopian ideas. As a matter of fact, their pref-erence for (some version of) a ‘steady state economy’ is demonstrative of the fact that they estimate the risks of ongoing economic development as very high. In the same vein, they tend to be pessimistic about the future availability of natural resources.

Generally, the green parties are opting for risk evasive strategies and are reticent about the possibilities of the so-called ‘techno-logical fi x’: technological strategies to solve large scale environmental problems. In their

perspective today’s high material standard of living will have to be replaced by a ‘high quality of life’, involving a decrease of gen-eral production and consumption levels.

ConseQuenCes of the struCtur-al rejeCtion of the steady state notion

In this fi nal section the following question will be raised: What are the main conse-quences of the fact that in modern western liberal democracies governments are still relying on two - above mentioned - basically pragmatic interpretations of ecological sustainability, and are systematically reject-ing the third and principled ‘steady state’ notion?

By primarily relying on and referring to the two pragmatic visions of ecological sustain-ability, the key concept has been deprived of its foundational character. Ecological utopian thinkers as William Morris, Ber-nard Skinner, Aldous Huxley and Ernest Callenbach have underlined that ecological sustainability is intended as a foundational notion that aims at both an economically and ecologically stable situation. From their point of view, it is a ‘principled and norma-tive’ concept in the sense that in this line of reasoning the aim of nature conservation, the preservation of scarce natural resources and intra- and intergenerational justice are quintessential, and must systematically be given priority over growth of production and consumption.

In line with the arguments given above, the rejection of the value and relevance of the third perspective on ecological sustainability has led to a de facto acceptance and legitimi-zation of the assumption that humans have the right to rule over nature.

Ultimately, both within mainstream political liberalism with its preference for sustainable development and ecological modernization, and Christian religious political visions which are building on the idea of steward-ship, human kind is still having the right to dominate over nature and approach it as a means. This is not surprising, as John Locke, the religiously inspired founding father of political liberalism, wrote the following words in his Second Treatise:

‘God, when he gave the World in common to all mankind, commanded Man also to labor, and the penury of his Condition required it of him. God and his Reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefi t of Life, and therein lay out something upon it was his own, his labor. He that in Obedience to this Command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his Property, which another had no Title by, nor could without injury take from him.’23

Arguably, the right to property is a pivotal element in Locke’s theory, and nature is explicitly to be ‘subdued’’ and made pro-ductive. 24 This creates a clear contrast to utopian ecological thinkers as William Morris, Bernard Skinner, Aldous Huxley and Ernest Callenbach, who argue that in an environmentally sustainable society, nature will occupy a central position, and people will need to treat their natural surroundings respectfully and responsibly.

A last consequence of the fact that modern western liberal democracies are primarily

23 J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1965, p.24 R. Eckersley, Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach, New York: State University of New York Press, 1992, s.23

autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 15autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 14


relying on the fi rst and second interpreta-tion of ecological sustainability, is that still no empirical, physical side-constraints or limits to the carrying capacity of the earth are accepted. Both from the perspective of liberal political and Christian political considerations, it is predominantly assumed that nature can be compared to a ‘spring’ that fl ows abundantly. Both in the Bible and in the work of John Locke it is noted that the Earth provides the rich material human-kind may make use of. In his Two Treatises of Government Locke speaks of ‘the Plenty God had given to him’. 25 In his theory nature is a perpetually productive generator of foods, natural resources and so on. Locke views the commons as an unlimited and incessant source of riches, goods and services. The underlying assumption is that the earth will present us with new harvests and catches, new trees and plants in endless variations. There will always be enough food and natural resources to fulfi ll the incessantly growing human needs. This optimistic idea is systematically refl ected in the two pragmatic visions on ecological sustainability analyzed, but is evidently at odds with the growing scientifi c insight that sustainability unavoid-ably implies the setting of specifi c physical limits to the growth of our economy and presupposes the acceptance of well-defi ned ecological boundaries.

This paper has explored the value of ‘eco-logical utopianism’ for interpretations of mankind’s attitudes towards nature, and the modern social debate about the meaning of the much debated and infl uential concept of ecological sustainability. By developing this analysis, an increased understanding of the signifi cance of ecological utopias for our modern environmental problems and debates

25 J. Locke, ibidem, p.

could be established. In various ways ecologi-cal utopias are capable of providing a valu-able contribution to our ongoing quest for an environmentally sustainable and ecologically responsible society.

As a consequence, a legitimization and ac-ceptance of the assumption that humans have the full right to rule over nature has oc-curred. Apart from that, in the debates there has been no room to discuss the far broader and more integrated ecotopian visions on ecological sustainability. Moreover, the exist-ence of physical boundaries or limits to the ecological carrying capacity of the earth has not yet been recognized in modern politics. All in all, there are still very good reasons to continue studying ecological utopianism and to critically refl ect on the many worthwhile lessons which can be learned from this tradi-tion about the vital role of attitudes towards nature and the deeper meaning of ecological sustainability.

autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 15autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 14


Rownowaga 1 uk-8-15

Technology

Transcript of Rownowaga 1 uk-8-15