[Pre-Print]Buddhist Environmental Humanism (Ch. 2, Part 1) - Diagnosing the Root Cause of the Ecological Crisis

Diagnosing the Root Cause of the Ecological Crisis

Understanding reality as it really is constitutes one of the most fundamental values of Buddhism. Therefore, our exploration of Buddhist environmental humanism must start with an examination of the current state of the human-nature relationship and the factors disrupting its harmony and integrity. Gaining a clear understanding of our present situation is crucial for setting a goal for the future and outlining the steps to achieve a more balanced relationship with the natural environment. The aim of this chapter, then, is to present a Buddhist analysis of the ecological crisis. Additionally, it is essential to position the Buddhist perspective within the broader environmental discourse to identify areas of convergence and divergence with non-Buddhist approaches. Regardless of the outcomes, a candid assessment and self-reflection are vital for the development of Buddhist environmental humanism.

The value of this exercise is highlighted by the Thai scholar monk Phra Prayudh Payutto, who, in his published talk "Thai People and Forests," posed a simple yet profound question to his audience: "Is the relationship between Thai people and forests one of friendship or enmity?"[1] Phra Prayudh intended for his listeners to thoughtfully examine their attitudes and behaviors to assess the quality of their relationship not only with forests but with nature as a whole. This question is relevant not only for his Thai audience but for all people, regardless of cultural and religious backgrounds. How human beings perceive nature and our place vis-à-vis it has significant implications for the current and future state of the environment.

As humanity faces an escalating ecological crisis, the question naturally arises: “What is the root cause of this crisis?” Answers such as the overuse of non-renewable resources or rampant materialism are often cited. However, these merely point out the symptoms rather than identifying the core issue. These visible manifestations stem from deeper problems rooted in human spirituality and psychology. Without identifying and understanding these underlying causes, effective solutions cannot be devised. Diagnoses of the ecological crisis can come from various perspectives—scientific, sociological, political, and spiritual. In this chapter, I will present the Buddhist approach. The Buddhist viewpoint is, in fact, very straightforward. The crisis, like many societal problems, reflects an unwholesome moral and spiritual condition in humanity, leading to destructive actions towards both human and non-human nature. These negative tendencies in humans harm our relationship with nature, manifesting in violent acts and the over-exploitation of natural resources.

A Non-Buddhist Analysis

Before delving into the Buddhist perspective, it is beneficial to briefly examine non-Buddhist viewpoints regarding the root causes of the ecological crisis. While these perspectives may not contradict Buddhist thought, surveying them illuminates the distinctiveness of the Buddhist outlook on this issue.

Among the various approaches to diagnosing the ecological crisis, many environmental ethicists propose that the underlying problem lies in militant or strong anthropocentrism, which fosters a conflict between humans and nature, ultimately leading to the destruction of natural ecosystems. On the surface, anthropocentrism appears innocuous, denoting "human-centeredness." Eugene Hargrove advocates this perspective. Epistemologically, anthropocentrism is inevitable because humans perceive the world from their own subjective standpoint.[2] This viewpoint posits that humans, as perceivers and interpreters, construct reality through their sensory faculties, cognitive processes, and cultural frameworks. Each individual's perception is shaped by personal experiences, beliefs, and societal influences, forming a unique lens through which they understand the world.

Philosophically, thinkers such as Martin Heidegger[3] and Maurice Merleau-Ponty[4] have explored the inseparable connection between human existence and the environment, suggesting that our understanding of reality is intricately tied to our lived experience within it. From a cognitive science perspective, research underscores that human cognition is shaped not only by biological factors but also by cultural and historical contexts, influencing how individuals perceive, process, and interpret information.

However, environmental ethicists critique not epistemological anthropocentrism but ontological anthropocentrism, which places humans at the center of the universe or as the pinnacle of creation. This perspective, they argue, leads to normative anthropocentrism, wherein humans assert intrinsic value for themselves while viewing nature and non-human entities as having merely instrumental value.[5]

Normative anthropocentrism justifies prioritizing human needs, desires, and well-being in ethical decision-making, often viewing nature as valuable primarily for its utility to humans—whether as resources, ecosystem services, or other benefits. Ethical justifications may include human rationality, self-awareness, divine mandate, economic growth, or technological advancement. Consequently, when human interests conflict with those of non-human beings, priority is typically given to the former at the expense of the latter. This argument was famously illustrated by Richard Routley's 1973 "last man" thought experiment, suggesting that the last surviving human could ethically justify destroying all other species for self-preservation.[6]

While militant anthropocentrism is seen as a root cause of the ecological crisis, deeper questions arise about the origins of ontological and normative anthropocentrism. Lynn White Jr., an American historian and professor, is central to this discussion. In his influential 1967 essay, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," White posited that the Judeo-Christian tradition, particularly its anthropocentric worldview and interpretation of human dominion over nature, significantly shaped Western attitudes towards the environment.

White argued that the biblical concept of humans being created in the image of God and given dominion over the Earth fostered a perspective where nature was seen as a resource to be exploited for human benefit, often without regard for its intrinsic value or long-term sustainability. He critiqued Western Christianity as "the most anthropocentric religion the world has known," blaming it for desacralizing nature and facilitating practices like deforestation, pollution, and overexploitation of natural resources in pursuit of industrial and technological progress.[7]

White's essay sparked extensive debate within religious and environmental circles, prompting critical reflection on the ethical and spiritual dimensions of humanity's relationship with the natural world. While his arguments have been contested for oversimplifying environmental issues and neglecting broader cultural and economic factors, they raised significant questions about the ethical implications of human dominance over nature.

Other scholars diverge from Lynn White Jr.'s singular focus on Christianity as the primary driver of anthropocentrism, instead emphasizing the combined influence of Christian theology and Greek philosophy on Western attitudes towards nature. John Passmore, J. Baird Callicott, and Eugene C. Hargrove are notable among them, arguing that understanding the ecological crisis requires considering how elements of Greek philosophy, particularly its dualistic worldview, have intertwined with Christian teachings.

Greek philosophy, notably Plato and Aristotle, laid foundational ideas that shaped Western thought. Plato's dualism, which posited a hierarchy between the material world and the realm of Forms, established a conceptual framework where the physical realm, including nature, was seen as inferior and less real than the spiritual or ideal realm.[8] Aristotle's teleological view, where nature was understood in terms of purpose and function,[9] further influenced how humans perceived their relationship with the natural world—as something to be understood and manipulated for human benefit. Christianity, particularly as it evolved through thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, integrated these philosophical ideas into its theological framework. The notion of human dominion over nature, stemming from Genesis in the Bible, was interpreted through this dualistic lens, reinforcing the idea that nature existed primarily for human use and benefit.

Passmore, Callicott, and Hargrove argued that this dualistic thinking, inherited from Greek philosophy and incorporated into Christian theology, contributed significantly to anthropocentrism. It set the stage for viewing humans as separate from and superior to nature, thereby justifying the exploitation and manipulation of natural resources for human ends. This worldview persisted through the centuries, influencing Western attitudes towards the environment and contributing to the ecological crisis we face today. Callicott stated:

Newton and other seventeenth century scientists may have been inspired by belief in a transcendent creative deity and the imago Dei to try to ‘think God’s thoughts after him,’ but the details of the creator’s thoughts were inspired by Pythagoras and Democritus, not Moses and Paul. In my opinion, the culpable conceptual roots of our ecological crisis are traceable to the intellectual legacy of Greek Natural Philosophy—which may have insidiously influenced the environmentally controversial parts of Genesis...”[10]

Hargrove asserted that Greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus who extolled knowledge and reason as permanent, eternal and unchanging while nature was seen as evil, perishable, ever-changing influenced the Christian perspective on nature leading to exploitative attitudes towards it.[11]

Greek philosophy, particularly through the lens of thinkers like Descartes, played a pivotal role in shaping anthropocentric attitudes towards nature. Descartes, a key figure in the development of modern philosophy and science, famously articulated a dualistic worldview that sharply separated mind and matter. In Descartes' view, nature—comprising animals, plants, and the physical world—was seen as purely material, devoid of any mental attributes or consciousness. This mechanistic view likened animals and plants to machines, capable of performing precise functions akin to the gears and weights of a clock.[12]

Descartes elevated the human mind to a position of superiority within this framework. The mind, characterized by reason and consciousness, was deemed separate from and superior to the material body and the natural world it inhabited. This dualism positioned human beings as distinct from and above nature, with the mind assuming the role of controller and interpreter of the body and its surroundings.

In Descartes' Cartesian worldview, nature devoid of mind was relegated to a lower status. This perception of nature as mindless and mechanistic contributed to its marginalization and exploitation, as it was deemed less valuable and more easily subjected to human manipulation and control. This mechanistic interpretation of nature influenced broader Western attitudes, reinforcing the idea that the natural world existed primarily to serve human needs and desires.[13]

The Cartesian worldview constitutes to an ideology that Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a Muslim scholar, calls “scientism,” a philosophical stance emphasizing the primacy of scientific knowledge and methodology. Nasr argued that scientism is intricately linked to Western philosophy. In his seminal work "Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man," (first published in 1968), Nasr critiqued how Western philosophical traditions, particularly in their modern and post-Enlightenment forms, have prioritized empirical observation, quantification, and technological progress as the dominant modes of understanding and manipulating the natural world. This trajectory, Nasr contended, has contributed significantly to the rise of scientism—a worldview that not only elevates scientific knowledge but also promotes it as the exclusive or superior means of comprehending reality.[14]

Nasr identified specific philosophical movements within Western thought that have shaped and reinforced scientism. In additon to Descartes' dualism, Nasr discussed how Francis Bacon's advocacy for empirical observation and experimentation further solidified the role of science as a driver of technological progress and human domination over nature. Bacon's influence contributed to the development of a scientific ethos that prioritized efficiency, productivity, and material advancement, often overlooking ecological integrity and ethical considerations in favor of immediate gains.

In Nasr's critique, scientism's connection to Western philosophy underscores broader cultural and intellectual attitudes that have shaped humanity's relationship with the environment. By emphasizing empirical and materialistic perspectives while marginalizing metaphysical, spiritual, and qualitative dimensions of knowledge, Western philosophical traditions have perpetuated anthropocentric views that prioritize human interests and economic growth over environmental sustainability and ethical stewardship. He remarked, “Nothing is more dangerous in the current ecological debate than that scientistic view of man and nature which cuts man from his spiritual roots and takes a desacralized nature for granted.”[15]

Nasr’s critique of scientism finds resonance in Pope Francis’ critique on what he termed the “technocratic paradigm.” In his encyclical "Laudato Si'," Pope Francis presented a compelling critique of this outlook, a dominant worldview that shapes modern societies' approach to technology, economics, and the environment. This paradigm, according to Pope Francis, encapsulates a reductionist and utilitarian perspective that prioritizes technological progress and economic growth at the expense of ethical considerations, ecological sustainability, and human flourishing.[16]

At the heart of Pope Francis' critique is the reductionist view of nature perpetuated by the technocratic paradigm. He argued that this worldview sees the natural world primarily as a reservoir of resources to be exploited for human benefit. Nature is often commodified, valued primarily for its economic potential and utility in driving industrial and technological advancements. This reductionism, Pope Francis warned, leads to environmental degradation, habitat loss, pollution, and the depletion of natural resources essential for sustaining life on Earth.

Central to the technocratic paradigm is its emphasis on instrumental rationality—the belief that all problems can be solved through technological innovation and efficiency-driven solutions. Pope Francis critiqued this approach for reducing complex ecological, social, and ethical issues into technical challenges devoid of deeper moral considerations. In this framework, human activities such as agriculture, industry, and urban planning are viewed through a lens of maximizing productivity and profit, often neglecting the broader impacts on ecosystems and communities.

Moreover, Pope Francis highlighted the ethical implications of the technocratic paradigm. He argued that by prioritizing economic interests and technological fixes over social justice and environmental sustainability, societies risk exacerbating inequalities and perpetuating systems of exploitation, particularly of the poor and vulnerable who bear the brunt of environmental degradation and climate change impacts.

The Pope also underscored the spiritual and cultural consequences of the technocratic worldview. He lamented that this paradigm fosters a sense of disconnection from creation and community, diminishing human relationships and eroding the sense of shared responsibility for the common good. Pope Francis called for a renewed ethical framework that integrates environmental concerns with social equity and human dignity, emphasizing the need for dialogue, solidarity, and collective action to address the ecological crisis.

In response to the challenges posed by the technocratic paradigm, Pope Francis proposed an alternative vision rooted in integral ecology. Integral ecology recognizes the interconnectedness of environmental, economic, social, and cultural dimensions of human life. It advocates for a holistic approach to environmental stewardship that respects the intrinsic value of creation, promotes sustainable development, and prioritizes the well-being of present and future generations.

This analysis has explored the diverse non-Buddhist perspectives on the roots of the ecological crisis, ranging from critiques of anthropocentrism to the influences of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. The concept of anthropocentrism, particularly its normative forms, has been identified as a central issue. Critics argue that placing humans at the pinnacle of existence leads to the instrumentalization of nature and prioritizes human needs over ecological integrity.

Scholars like Lynn White Jr. have provocatively traced these attitudes back to Judeo-Christian traditions, emphasizing narratives of human dominion over nature. While White's argument has sparked significant debate, other scholars, including John Passmore and J. Baird Callicott, have expanded this critique to include the dualistic legacies of Greek philosophy, which have reinforced hierarchical views of humanity and nature.

Moreover, figures like Descartes and Bacon have contributed to the development of a mechanistic worldview that sees nature as inert matter to be controlled and exploited for human ends. This reductionist perspective, critiqued by thinkers such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Pope Francis, reflects a broader technocratic paradigm that prioritizes economic growth and technological progress at the expense of ecological sustainability and ethical considerations.

It is important to note that these analyses are not universally accepted, and ongoing scholarship continues to explore the complexities of philosophical and religious influences on environmental attitudes. By presenting these perspectives, this discussion aims to enrich our understanding of the multifaceted causes of environmental degradation and to set the stage for exploring the distinctive Buddhist perspective on these issues, which will be the focus of the subsequent chapters.

*******

[1] Phra Prayudh Payutto, Thai People and Forest (คนไทยกับป่า) (Bangkok: Karomwichakan, 2010), 11. This talk was originally published in the Thai language entitled คนไทยกับป่า “Khon Thai Kap Pa.”

[2] Eugene Hargrove, "Weak Anthropocentric Intrinsic Value," in Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, ed. Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 175.

[3] Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (New York: Harper, 1962).

[4] Maurice Merlau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962).

[5] Ben Minteer refers to normative anthropocentrism as “ethical anthropocentrism” in which human value is always explicitly or implicitly stated as intrinsic, whereas the value of nature is only instrumental; thus, human interests always trump those of non-humans and the environment, 2008, 58.

[6] Ben A. Minteer, "Anthropocentrism," in Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, ed. J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008), 60.

[7] Lynn White Jr., "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis," Science 155, no. 3767 (1967): 1205.

[8] Plato, Republic, trans. G.M.A. Grube, Revised 2nd edition (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992).

[9] Aristotle, Physics, trans. C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2018).

[10] J. Baird Callicott, "Genesis and John Muir," in Covenant for a New Creation: Ethics, Religion, and Public Policy, ed. Carol S. Robb and Carl J. Casebolt (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991), 110.

[11] Min Choi Hyun, "Interreligious Dialogue: Toward Overcoming the Eco-Crisis," International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture 12 (2009): 162.

[12] René Descartes, Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, trans. Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999)

[13] Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution (New York: HarperOne, 1990).

[14] Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis in Modern Man (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1990).

[15] Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis in Modern Man (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1990), 7.

[16] Pope Francis, Laudato Si, 2015, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html.