Introduction to Political Theory

Critique of ecologism

We have set out the central elements of ecologism. In this final section we explore

some of its ethical and political weaknesses. Our aim is not to provide conclusive

objections but to raise problems, with the intention of stimulating debate. For that

reason we pose a series of questions, which we then discuss.

Do ecologists have a plausible account of why

we should value ‘nature’?

The central claim of ecologism is that there is value in the natural world that cannot

be explained simply by reference to human wants, needs or consciousness: nature,

the environment, or the eco-system has intrinsic value. The difficulty with this claim

is that to say something has value is to make an evaluation, and such evaluation

presupposes a capacity to evaluate, and only human beings possess such a capacity,

therefore values are human-centred.

An ecologist might respond by asking us to imagine a beautiful valley that no

human being has ever seen – would something be lost if that valley ceased to exist?

If we conclude that something would be lost, then does that not show that value

is independent of human consciousness? The difficulty is that the question asks us

to imaginesuch a valley; while it is possible that a valley exists which no human

eyes have ever seen, we nonetheless have the conceptof a valley, and criteria for

evaluating its beauty. Perhaps, however, the ecologist is making a different claim:

value does indeed depend on the human capacity to evaluate, but it does not follow

that values are human-centred. Lovelock makes an interesting comment in his article

on nuclear power that we discussed at the beginning of the chapter: ‘as individual

animals we are not so special, and in some ways are like a planetary disease, but

through civilisation we redeem ourselves and become a precious asset for the Earth;

not least because through our eyes the Earth has seen herself in all her glory’

(Independent, 24 May 2004).

If by saying nature has ‘intrinsic value’ ecologists are arguing that it is not

reducible to the emotions of individual human beings, then there are certain

implications. First, while it does provide a ground for environmental respect and

protection, it still places human beings in a privileged position – although we cannot

disprove the possibility, we have no reason to believe that non-human animals, let

alone non-animal members of the biotic community, are capable of such

appreciation of the natural environment. Second, if the natural world has intrinsic

value, then the possibility exists that the created world also possesses intrinsic value,

and where there exists a conflict between the two worlds it is not clear which should

have the greater claim to protection. This is our next question, or challenge.

Can ecologists respect the created world – that is,

culture?

Throughout this chapter we have operated with the distinction between nature and

society (or culture), or the natural world and the human world. This accords with

370 Part 3 Contemporary ideologies