The Human Person in the Environment

As you reflected on the meaning of what it means to be an embodied spirit, you learned that
because of our embodied nature, unlike angels, we can touch, move, and change the world through our
bodies. We are a product of the world, and everything we are and have become is given by the world.

Unlike animals and other beings, however, the human being is not completely limited by the
natural world; that is, human life does not just simply undergo the cycle of nature. Our spirited nature
allows us to go beyond nature, to look at it from a detached perspective, transform it and bring more
possibilities to it.

This capacity is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it make us capable of taking matters
into our hands, and control nature and its wrath, to some extent. On the other hand, this capacity has led
us to abuse the environment.

In this lesson, we explore different ways of understanding our relationship with the environment.
By becoming aware of these different approaches, we can understand where the tendency to abuse and
destroy the environment is coming from.

Three Main Approaches Of Understanding Human Relationship With The Environment

We shall schematize the different approaches of understanding our relationship with the
environment into three (3) approaches:

1. Cosmo‐centric Approach
In the earlier civilizations human beings understood themselves as being in harmony with nature.
The whole of the cosmos is one whole system of order of which we are a part. Early Greek and Chinese
philosophers have articulated this harmony in their poetry and reflections.

If you may recall in the earlier discussions of Philosophy, how the early Greek philosophers were
focused on finding the “basic stuff” of the universe. This means that they understood everything in the
universe to be united by one basic element. This is what relates everything together. For Thales, he said,
it was water. For other philosophers, it was air, music, or numbers. What this establishes is that early
civilizations understood everything to be interconnected, and that whatever we do with one part of the
environment affects everything else.

You might probably have heard the Taoist thought that the universe can be understood as a vast
spectrum of energy in need of constant balance and harmony. In essence, everything is Qi only in different
states and forms: like the water cycle, where there is condensation Qi forms Earth—like water turning to
ice. In the opposite side of the cycle, dispersion of Qi, like water turning into vapor—forms Heaven.

In the middle of these two poles is the human being. Natural laws govern the movement of Qi as
Yin and Yang to create a harmonious balance in the universe. Part of the balance created is the human
being—a reflection of the balance between heaven and earth, of Yin and Yang.

If the natural law is skewed towards one pole, an imbalance is created. Global warming, for
example, is the movement of Qi more towards the Yang. The predominance of Yang Qi creates rising heat
into the Heavens (or atmosphere in this case) to create all these strong typhoons; increased Yang Qi at
the same time warms up the Earth’s Yin energy below manifested as melting of the ice caps and severe
droughts in certain places. These changes affect the human person who is in the middle of the imbalance.
His whole well‐being is affected as well. An imbalanced energy in the environment leads to illness,
whereas a balanced energy leads to health.

At the same time, the human person can also affect the balance in the environment. If there is
too much Yang in the person (meaning there is too much expenditure of energy such as aggression, greed,
vanity, and other forms of imbalance), the surrounding environment suffers as well. Forests are denuded,
rivers are polluted. These are all results of overconsumption and wasteful living of the human being. If
there is too much Yin (indifference, idleness, or laziness) there is no regard for the preservation of earth’s
resources. We simply watch and wait for everything to self‐destruct.

The cosmos‐centric approach to understanding our relationship to the environment shows that
human beings are a microcosm of the cosmos (‘micro’—small + ‘cosmos’—universe). It means that the
universe is reflected in us; we are a small version of the universe. The same cosmic patterns that govern
nature also govern our being. What this means then is that when these natural laws and cosmic patterns
are tampered with (i.e. increased air pollution leading to global warming), the resulting imbalance will
also affect the balance within humans (i.e. increase incidence of asthma). If there is no balance of energies
in nature, the persons also feel imbalance within themselves. On the reverse side, when there is imbalance
within the person, there would also be imbalance in everything around it.

2. Theocentric Approach
Theo (God)‐centric approach refers to the understanding coming from a religious interpretation.
This especially applies to the Judeo‐Christian tradition as specified in the creation story of Generis. The
story relates that after creating the world, and all that is in it, including man and woman, God said “Go
and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” The first man, Adam, was given the power over the rest of
creation. The creation story tells of how God entrusted the earth to man and woman by giving them the
role of stewards of creation, [making them accountable to God—the creator].

It is important to stress the meaning of the stewardship here. To steward over something is to
manage or to be put under your care. In Filipino, to be a steward is to be katulong or katiwala. It is
important to stress this in order to prevent the tendency of interpreting scripture, “…fill the earth and
subdue it” as a welcome note to dominate and completely lord over the environment. According to the
recent Laudato Si of Pope Francis, “…we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s
image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over the other creatures.” We
have been given the power to make use of what has been given us, but with this power comes the
responsibility and duty to take care of the gift. As such, we are not just consumers of earth’s resources.
We are its co‐creators.

The theocentric approach then tells us that although we may be able to trace the immediate
causes of environmental degradation through technical and scientific explanations, but if we forget to pin
down the main factor that is responsible for it—ourselves, human beings—then we will never be able to
address this escalating problem of the destruction of the earth. It is clear that we are the problem and we,
ourselves, are the solution. In his encyclical Laudato Si, Pope Francis said it succinctly: “The human
environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot adequately combat
environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation”
(Laudatio Si, #48). He calls on the entire humanity…”to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle,
production, and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which
produce or aggravate it” (#23).

3. The Anthropocentric Approach

This approach, Anthropos (man) + centric, is like the theocentric approach that puts the human
person in dominion over the earth but deemphasizes the role of God. This dominant approach began in
the sixteenth century in Europe and has become the most widely used all over the world until today. It
started with the rise of experimental sciences. To understand this approach, let’s recall our lessons in
elementary science when we had to conduct experiments in our science classes.

We remember how we had to use a “control set‐up” and compare it with an “experimental set‐
up”. For instance, recall the experiment you had on plants to understand the conditions that allow it to
grow and develop. The control set‐up consisted of a seed planted on a cup of good soil, placed in an
environment with sufficient light and air, and watered every other day. Alongside with this set‐up was a
group of experimental set‐ups; one seed was planted on bad kind of soil; another seed was planted on
good soil but was placed in the dark; another seed planted on a cup of soil covered with plastic; while the
last one was planted similarly as the control set‐up except that it was not watered at all. In this experiment,
you were asked to compare the control set‐up with the experiments. As you compared, you have seen
that the lack of proper sunlight, water, air, and soil has a significant effect on the growth of a plant. In a
way, the experiment helped you “extract” nature’s secret to know more about it, such as the conditions
that make a plant grow. Notice how you were able to “manipulate” the natural conditions for the growth
of the plant—by artificially covering light and air or disrupting the water supply. In these instances, the
experimenter is seen as “intervening” with nature.

This is the mark of modern science (Tassi, 1982). Before the development of the experimental
method, scientists were more of “listeners” of nature, in which they observed and followed the rhythm
and patterns of nature. Astrologists in the past were the opposite of modern scientists. They simply
observed the movement of heavenly bodies and from there deduced patterns that hey encoded into laws
of nature. Today the sciences are not simply passive observers of nature. They penetrate its secrets, such
as the way an anatomist would open up a human body and study its interconnections. Pharmaceutical
sciences test their medicines against a placebo in order to see how much the invented pill alters existing
conditions. Geologists no longer simply wait for patterns in the movement of the earth. They set up
machines that detect and measure irregularities. The list of modern scientific approaches can go on, but
what we will find common in all these examples is the active intervention of the scientist.

The development of experimental science has made the human being aware that he can detach
himself from the ongoing cycle of nature and thereby control it. No longer is the human being simply
vulnerable to the dictates of nature. Natural calamities such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods can be
controlled to some extent. The natural aging of the skin, or the shape of one’s body parts, among others,
can also be altered. With the awareness of this ability came the dissipation of the power of myth to take
control of our daily lives. Modern individuals are aware that they can be in control of their own fate. They
can alter their life directions based on their own choices.

The downside of the rise of modern sciences is the swelling of the human being’s pride over his
own powers to alter and manipulate nature. Just look at how mountains are mercilessly denuded for
mining and deforestation, how the sees are polluted by mindless throwing of tons of manufactured wastes
buried deep in the ocean every day, how the atmosphere is destroyed by carbon gas emissions from
millions of cars, and planes, and air‐conditioning units operated non‐stop. Unfortunately, the
anthropocentric approach seems to be the most dominant of all three approaches. The past three decades
or more, however, show a growing concern from groups what have developed into NGOs for the
environment. You will notice that in many of these environmental movements, there is a clamoring for a
return of the cosmos‐centric or theocentric approach.

A Balanced Approach

Learning from all these approaches, we can see that it is possible to put them all together. The
cosmos‐centric approach emphasizes on the human being as a balance between heaven and earth. This
relates to the anthropocentric approach which shows how we are earthly beings in need of resources,
and the theocentric approach that emphasizes on our heavenly role as stewards of creation.

References
Corpuz, Brenda B.; Corpuz, Ruben A.; Corpuz‐Paclibar, Maria Lovelyn; Paclibar, Socrates O. (2016).
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon City: Lorimar Publishing, Inc.