Several Issues About Promoting Ecological Civilization …
437
2 Nature-Centrism and Human-Centrism
This is a central issue in ecological ethics or environmental philosophy and an important theoretical subject in ecological civilization, while it also concerns how to view
nature’s practical and intrinsic values. From the early twentieth century when ecological ethics was founded in the west to the 1980s when China introduced the discipline
and began to study it, and to the first decade of the twenty-first century, the debate
over nature-centrism and human-centrism has never stopped. I’m no expert on this
field, so I’m not in a position to make comments, but when I recently read Xiao
Xianjing’s Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues,
a book published in 2006, I found a simple and clear overview of this topic. I agree
to most of its views, but have my reservations on some of the points. Regarding the
relation between man and nature, I basically agree with the view of modern humancentrism mentioned in the book. When we talk about harmony between man and
nature, “man” must be the main entity or main aspect of the contradiction, meaning
the man-nature relation should exclude the social relation among people. Although
the man-man relation, if not properly handled, would affect the man-nature relation,
the point in question here is what attitude the mankind as a group with independent
consciousness should adopt toward nature for its overall interests, not the specific
attitude or behavior of some individual, class or group toward nature.
From an axiological point of view, modern human-centrism holds that all human
activities stem from and serve human interests, which is not wrong. The key lies
in how to understand “interest.” There is nothing wrong with this view as long as
the interests refer to the long-term, fundamental and overall interests of humankind
rather than immediate, narrow and partial interests. Some people are worried that the
concept of human-centrism would base everything on human interests, thus limiting
the scope of protection and focusing only on protecting the human-related ecological
environment. But the question is, are there any species or their living environments
on earth that are unrelated with human race today? The UN’s Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005) generalized the various benefits drawn by man from ecosystem
with ecosystem services, which consisted of four categories—supply service, regulatory service, cultural service and supportive service—that were further divided into
27 items. This assessment covers all aspects of nature’s intrinsic and instrumental
values mentioned in ecological ethics. If we can realize these service functions of
natural ecosystems and cherish, protect and make proper use of them, I believe many
scholars would no longer have concerns about the idea of modern human-centrism.
Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues mentions
that Paul Taylor, a proponent of modern bio-centrism, put forth in 1986 four principles
on respecting all lives as well as five priority principles that must be observed when
the protection of species based on the four principles conflicted with the protection
of human values, rights and interests. All those principles are worth popularizing and
practicing now as they are meaningful rules regarding our respect for and protection
of nature, especially living entities. I find Fu Hua’s An Inquiry into Ecological Ethics,
which was published quite early (2002), a good book because it explicitly generalizes
437
2 Nature-Centrism and Human-Centrism
This is a central issue in ecological ethics or environmental philosophy and an important theoretical subject in ecological civilization, while it also concerns how to view
nature’s practical and intrinsic values. From the early twentieth century when ecological ethics was founded in the west to the 1980s when China introduced the discipline
and began to study it, and to the first decade of the twenty-first century, the debate
over nature-centrism and human-centrism has never stopped. I’m no expert on this
field, so I’m not in a position to make comments, but when I recently read Xiao
Xianjing’s Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues,
a book published in 2006, I found a simple and clear overview of this topic. I agree
to most of its views, but have my reservations on some of the points. Regarding the
relation between man and nature, I basically agree with the view of modern humancentrism mentioned in the book. When we talk about harmony between man and
nature, “man” must be the main entity or main aspect of the contradiction, meaning
the man-nature relation should exclude the social relation among people. Although
the man-man relation, if not properly handled, would affect the man-nature relation,
the point in question here is what attitude the mankind as a group with independent
consciousness should adopt toward nature for its overall interests, not the specific
attitude or behavior of some individual, class or group toward nature.
From an axiological point of view, modern human-centrism holds that all human
activities stem from and serve human interests, which is not wrong. The key lies
in how to understand “interest.” There is nothing wrong with this view as long as
the interests refer to the long-term, fundamental and overall interests of humankind
rather than immediate, narrow and partial interests. Some people are worried that the
concept of human-centrism would base everything on human interests, thus limiting
the scope of protection and focusing only on protecting the human-related ecological
environment. But the question is, are there any species or their living environments
on earth that are unrelated with human race today? The UN’s Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005) generalized the various benefits drawn by man from ecosystem
with ecosystem services, which consisted of four categories—supply service, regulatory service, cultural service and supportive service—that were further divided into
27 items. This assessment covers all aspects of nature’s intrinsic and instrumental
values mentioned in ecological ethics. If we can realize these service functions of
natural ecosystems and cherish, protect and make proper use of them, I believe many
scholars would no longer have concerns about the idea of modern human-centrism.
Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues mentions
that Paul Taylor, a proponent of modern bio-centrism, put forth in 1986 four principles
on respecting all lives as well as five priority principles that must be observed when
the protection of species based on the four principles conflicted with the protection
of human values, rights and interests. All those principles are worth popularizing and
practicing now as they are meaningful rules regarding our respect for and protection
of nature, especially living entities. I find Fu Hua’s An Inquiry into Ecological Ethics,
which was published quite early (2002), a good book because it explicitly generalizes