Introduction to Political Theory

ecologists will argue that neither science nor technology are in themselves to be

rejected, but rather it is the degree of intervention in, and alteration of, natural

processes which is at issue. The danger with ecologism is that it fails to distinguish

between human enquiry – the drive to understand the world – and human wants,

that is, the desire to use the natural world for human ends. Human-centredness is

narrowly defined by ecologists as instrumental reason; nature is used as a means,

or instrument, for human ends. But you do not need to be an ecologist in order to

challenge instrumental reason; you can move completely within a human-centred

view of the world and still raise rationalobjections to the idea that because we have

the scientific knowledge to do something, such as clone human beings, then we

should do it.

Is ecologism compatible with human equality?

As we have seen, ecologists tend not to respect the distinction between facts and

values, or is and ought. Of course, we should not accept uncritically the claim that

the distinction cannot be bridged, and elsewhere we have addressed this challenge,

but here we are concerned with ecologists’ arguments. The approach adopted by

many ecologists is to draw analogiesbetween the natural world and the social world.

Andrew Dobson offers the following summary (Dobson, 2000: 22).

374 Part 3 Contemporary ideologies

Nature Society and politics

Diversity → Toleration, stability and democracy

Interdependence → Equality

Longevity → Tradition

Nature as ‘female’ → A particular conception of feminism

In effect, ecologists are asking us to look at nature, consider its intrinsic value

and draw conclusions about how we should behave to it, and to each other. The

problem, which Dobson acknowledges, is that people can draw quite different

conclusions from nature: interdependence can imply hierarchy rather than equality,

and the supposed femininity of nature may imply ‘natural roles’ that restrict human

autonomy. Dobson talks about the ‘lessons from nature’, but it is not simply that

we disagree about the social implications of our observation of the natural world,

but rather that there are no lessons – or, in more philosophical language, reasons

for action – to be derived from such observation.

At a more practical political level there are concerns about the impact of Green

policies on the poor – that is, the poor in developed countries and the poorest

nations. The demand made by the developed world that developing countries

severely curb their carbon emissions is regarded by the latter as hypocritical: Western

Europe and North America have enjoyed the benefits of pollution as a result of

their early industrialisation and are now denying the ‘majority world’ the possibility

of economic growth. Within the industrialised West the imposition of ‘green taxes’