An
Argument for Intrinsic Value in Nature
Randolph
B. Flay
“Reason
is a gift of Nature.”
Immanuel Kant
Humans as Members of the Natural Community
Much of
modern physics is consumed with the notion that there exists a grand unified
theory to explain all of physics and the known world.[i][1] It
is thought that this theory will tie together all the random forces in the
universe and finally reduce man's position as observer and overseer to a mere
component of a great system. It is this
role as part of a system that most of humanity has fought since agricultural
revolution. The control of nature was
an achievable good and humans had the power to shape nature into a simple tool
or resource to suit their needs.
It is this type of human/nature relationship that has
brought us to the twentieth century.
Especially since the industrial revolution, technologies have been
developed to divide the world into inputs and outputs whereby humans are
constantly increasing the value of the world by our economic activity. Only in the last century, particularly in
the past 40 years, have we come to question our relationship to the
environment. The great landscapes that
served as the backdrop for the paintings of Moran and the writings of Muir now
suffer from the far-reaching hands of human development. Further, the likes of Carson and Leopold
have outright warned us of the damage that our actions have on the environment.
We now live in a time when the way we utilize the natural
capital of the environment has been called into question. Our simple input/output equations that look
at the value-added to a natural resource as opposed to the actual cost to the
environment of extracting the resource are now insufficient. While the bulk of the environmental movement
and environmental policy has been used to promote recycling, fight global
warming, and protect wilderness areas and rare species, I propose a grand
unified theory of environmental ideology and behavior. It is clear to me that all of the problems
humans have with the environment are not isolated and distinct issues but part
of a grander scheme that speaks to how we perceive ourselves with respect to
the natural world. It is only by
understanding this relationship that we can mitigate environmental problems and
understand our place as part of an all-encompassing system.
I call this theory, a call for intrinsic value in
nature. It is not a new concept. Many philosophers and subscribers to the
deep ecology/ecocentric school of thought have held that this is a novel
idea. However, it is understandably
difficult for average citizens of the twentieth century to perceive the natural
world as valuable in any other ways except for its existence, option, and use
value.[ii][2]
The logic applies that we only value things that we consume in a
utilitarian sense, would like to have the option of using, or find that their
existence increases the quality of our lives by simply existing. While this type of logic may be good in an
industrial society where everything, including the natural environment, can be
priced properly to shape the extent and the pattern of consumption, I see two
great problems with this approach to environmental value. First of all, it assumes that we have priced
everything properly and, second, that there is an appropriate price. As we know that the bulk of environmental
problems are caused by phenomena external to economic and social systems, such
as pollution and the commons, we know that this approach is not working. Further, it presumes that the economic
system will lead us to the most beneficial outcome for society without a
background environmental ethic.
Historical Events in
the Evolution of the Judeo-Christian Anthropocentric Worldview
Ever since Nicolaus Copernicus published his book on the
revolutions of celestial bodies in 1543, we have been moving away from an
anthropocentric view of the world.[iii][3]
While for contemporary, educated people we may find it not surprising
that the sun and not the earth is at the center of solar system, a system that
on the edge of a non-particular galaxy, it came as quite a shock to people of
the day. What Copernicus and Galileo
fought was not astronomy, but "the autonomy of modern man to locate
himself in an open universe."[iv][4]
The event marked a beginning of a shift away from man as a particular
celestial anomaly to a mere member of a community of planets and stars.
The shift towards a mere member of a community of species
is a shift that has not fully taken place.
Darwin's theories in the late 19th century on natural
selection have further reduced man's role in the natural world. The mere notion that man was subject to
natural laws of evolution was a shock to religious and social institutions of
the time.
However revolutionary these theories, we still operate
and see the world as Francis Bacon did in the early 17th
century. It is as if the scientist or
engineer can simply view the world that surrounds us as a static and
experimental phenomenon, make decisions based on it, and engineer a solution to
any problem that might arise. However,
in the late 18th century Kant battled with his predecessors and his
own ideas in the Critique of Judgement.[v][5] It was in this book that he placed man in
an ecological niche. He further
asserted that there is a mutual dependence on everything and so therefore those
who appreciate the existence of other species, while receiving no direct
benefit, do benefit a greater community of which man is a part.[vi][6]
Later would come Werner Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle, stating
that we cannot be observers to any system without affecting what we observe.
These philosophers and scientists have proven one thing:
that man is a member of a community and that the interactions between man and
other members of the community are no different than between any two members of
the community. This belief is strongly
echoed in the Leopold's Land Ethic, "In short, a land ethic changes the
role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and
citizen of it. It implies respect for
his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such."[vii][7]
Being that we are all members of one community that is inter-dependent,
plants, animals, and other organisms must exhibit a level of coexistence to
ensure each other's mutual survival. Is
this what we (humans) are doing?
While I would not argue against the notion that most
plants and animals are subject to laws of ecology and nature, human beings have
been able to seemingly act in ways inconsistent with these natural laws. My reasoning behind this is simply that
humans are incredibly adept at displacing environmental problems over space and
time. In essence that is the only thing
which I believe differentiates us from any other member of the biotic
community. Further, I would hold that
this ability only buys us time in the short-run and that we will be bound by
the same limiting factors of resource depletion and nest-fouling that
constricts other natural populations.
Moreover, by displacing these problems into the future and onto other
regions of the world, it seems likely that when it comes time to reckon with
these problems that they will be many fold larger than they would be if dealt
with in the present time and place.
The Growth of Natural Rights
In addition to being members of an
inter-dependent community each member possessing its own intrinsic value to the
community, I also believe that there are grounds for the extension of rights to
other species. Over the course of history
the concept of rights has been expanded to encompass larger and larger groups
of people, things, and organisms. It
seems logical that it will continue to extend to natural communities. Thus far we have seen rights extended to
women, children, and minority ethnic groups.
We have also seen rights given to entities such as corporations, trusts,
partnerships, and sea-going vessels to name a few. For some reason it seems to increase our quality of life and
benefit the human community to proceed in such a manner. It is also is possible to argue that the
white, property holding, man gave up some individual quality of life in order
to benefit the community as a whole and further the species as a whole. I would then extend this logic to
incorporating the natural world into our group to which we grant natural
rights.
There is a caveat to simply looking at the extension of
rights on a case by case fashion. This
so called "species rights" has been a great criticism of the animal
rights movement since it seems to favor cute, furry creatures rather
arbitrarily. A more valid view would be
to place value on the system, the ecosystem, as a whole. This approach values the role that each
organism plays as integral part of the community and instantly values all
organisms regardless of whether or not they are furry. This idea was also posited by Leopold in the
Land Ethic, "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the biotic community.
It is wrong when it tends otherwise."
How would society shift to placing value on the natural world?
Even
supposing that there are some logical or even ethical grounds for placing value
on the natural world, it seems difficult to envision a way in which society
could adopt such a value. The developed
world, and especially the United States, is still very dependent on an economic
system that places virtually no value on the natural environment. Natural capital that fuels our cars and
industries, and produces the goods we consume has almost no value outside of
the cost of obtaining the property rights and the cost of extraction.
As one
might imagine, there are many facets of society that would object to the notion
that nature has any intrinsic value since it would greatly redistribute value
and wealth throughout society. Even in
the limited instance of placing an additional two-dollar per gallon tax on
gasoline, it is difficult to see who would directly benefit. Car manufacturers would certainly object on
the grounds that they believe they would lose sales of their larger more
expensive vehicles for smaller more efficient ones. Further, oil interests would also object because the increase in
price would also decrease consumption and the less oil they sell the less money
they make. These adjustments are of
course temporary and if we are entitled to conjecture about the loss of revenue
in certain industries we should be allowed to conjecture about growth in other
industries. Perhaps if such a situation
did occur, the bicycle industries of the world would expand and create jobs. In either case it is fairly safe to say that
the net effect on the economy would be negligible, only that income would be
distributed differently.
However
hypothetical this scenario, the only value that it really placed on the natural
environment, oil in this case, is monetary.
We might be able to calculate the environmental cost of oil extraction
and consumption but valuing forests, mountains, and microscopic species soon
reveals an economist’s nightmare.
Furthermore, valuing the role that these actors play in the larger
ecosystem is an even more complex issue.
For most people, attempting to value these members of the community in
dollar terms is insulting to their very integrity.[viii][8] It
is here that I think contemporary conceptions of economic systems or potential
economic systems are rather limited in their ability to assess and place value
on the natural world.
To
address the value question in terms of very peculiar members of the biotic
community, members which play incredibly complex and mysterious roles, is a
question that must simply take place on an ethical or moral ground in people's
actions. There is, however, one school
of thought that has an interesting view of the human/nature relationship and
seems to possess merit at least in a theoretical sense. Ecological Economics emerged in the 60's and
70's under the guidance of Robert Costanza, Herman Daly, and others. Its 
main
feature is the fusion of economic and ecological principles on a macro-level.[ix][9]
In combining economic and ecological systems it places the economic systems of society within an ecosystem. This is a novel idea that equates growth of the economy with a consumption of very limited resources. If the economy grows too large it is therefore likely to assume that the ecosystem would be overrun. This realization is in conflict with many of the notions that we have in society about economic growth, something generally perceived as a good thing. Ecological economists would further argue that growing GDP is not a sufficient indicator of increasing quality of life in society.
My
interpretation of this concept leads me to believe that we should question
growth that does not visibly improve quality of life for citizens in the
community and that we need a better indicator of quality of life. Currently, the natural environment falls
outside of most indicators of quality of life in society yet most people would
not doubt that the existence value of the natural environment should be valued
a much higher level than other objects in economic systems. We simply leave it out of the equation. Further, if it is easy for us to now
understand that we are subject to natural laws, why should our economy not be
subject to such laws?
The Future of the Environmental Movement
After
examining the issues of humans as member of a natural community and the
extension of rights to natural ecosystems, I think that the intrinsic value of
the natural environment is more logically constructed where humans see
themselves as a mere member of the "biotic community." I believe that this is where the real
groundwork in the environmental movement should take place. Education and the experience of nature
should be used as tools to give people a greater understanding of their
position in the ecosystem. It is this
process that could help to redefine Homo
sapiens role as a mere member of a community and value the roles that all
members of the community play.