You are on page 1of 53

The Special Position of

Humans in the Cosmos*

by

Rainier R. A. Ibana
Philosophy Department
School of Humanities
Ateneo de Manila University
This presentation aims to
integrate environmental issues

within the context of a course on the


Philosophy of the Human Person.
Relevance of the problem:

Without an ecological awareness, a


philosophy of the human person can
readily become an ideological foil to
exploit the environment.
There are two extreme advocates for
environmentalism:

 Deep Ecologists who and Conservationists


claim that humans who claim that the
should leave the environment is only
environment to for the sake of human
herself; enjoyment.

The arguments of both Deep Ecologists and
Conservationists are contingent on their
standards to measure ecological balance.

Deep ecologists make while Conservationists


use of other beings, claim that only
such as eagles, to humans serve as the
measure ecological measure of all things.
well being.
There is, however, a third
option:

 The dynamic evolutionary context of


humans within the environment.
An evolutionary approach
can justify

human intervention in cases of


environmental degradation
(conservationism)

and human distanciation in cases where


the environment can care for herself
(deep ecology).
The main ideas that favor the
evolutionary argument for the
environment

Are (1) the ecological context of human


survival and (2) the mutual interaction
between humans and their environments.
The ecological context of
human survival

was made possible by oxygen producing


organisms

and the sacrifice of other living beings for


human consumption.
Environmentalism begins when
humans start to appreciate

the inherent life-force that pervade all


beings.
Plants, like humans, exhibit an
inner life (innersein) -- Max Scheler

that is directed toward

or away from

something.
Animals, likewise, can have an
instinctive instrumental relationship
with its environment

Scheler marveled at experiments that deal


with animals that manipulate objects,
such as sticks, to obtain food for
themselves. (MPN 31)
Animal tricks, however, are confined
to particular environments.

They are attached to the bondage and


pressures of life. ?

They cannot transform their environments


into a “world.” [MPN]
Only humans can actually
transform hostile environments,

 such as lahar,


into something more
productive:

Absorbent materials, such as surplus diapers


and sanitary napkins, for example, may be
combined with lahar to make it suitable to grow
plants.*

 *Poster by E. Espiritu, et. al, Manila Observatory, Ateneo de Manila


Responsibility for the
environment, therefore,

Cannot be abdicated to anyone else but in


the cooperative effort of human beings.
For the sake of humans,
.

deserts are transformed into gardens;


 .

wild animals are tamed.


Humans are in fact the
most voracious consumers

of the environment.


High levels of human
consumption

is confirmed by ecology’s “ten percent law:”


which states that:
 only ten percent of energy is retained by
consumers in an environment:
from 10,000,000 calories of producers

1,000,000 calories are retained by hervibores

and only 100,000 calories are retained by


carnivores.
Even the most spiritual acts are
rooted to the world.

“The human brain burns by the power of


the leaf.”

“All flesh is grass.”


“The World is Our Body”

“Our whole knowledge of the world is,


in one sense, self-knowledge. For knowing
is a translation of external events into
bodily processes, and especially into states
of the nervous system and the brain: we
know the world in terms of the body…”
Allan Watts (p. 188)
Mr. Sekiguchi, one of Japan’s leading
experts on toxic waste, offers the
following advise

to activists who


would like to
monitor the
environment:
 “when you go to a
dump, look at the
trees, listen to your
body. Are your eyes
sore? Do you feel
something strange? Do
you feel sick?” -Time  Payatas (Philippine Daily
(May 20, 2000), p. 33. Inquirer, July 11, 2000)
Ka-paligid-an

Our field of Physical awareness can be


expanded to include our
surrounding environments, that is, our
world. -- “Etikang Pangkapaligiran”
Another argument for
ecology,

moreover, claims that although humans


can transform the environment, the latter
can also transform human life. Ormoc, November 7,1971
Barry Commoner
reports that cancer

Occurs ten times more


in U.S. cities

than in rural villages of Uganda.


What we do to our environment,
we do unto ourselves

Pollution cause Healthy environments


diseases support healthy
populations
Environments manifest the lifestyle of
its dwellers.
Thus, before we begin to interfere
with the the workings of nature,

It is important to clarify two fundamental


attitudes towards the environment: Let us
begin with G. Marcel’s distinction between
having and being.
Marcel’s distinction, between
having and being, implies two
basic comportments:

 I have a body, I have my  I am my body, I am my


world world
It also entails two attitudes
towards the enviroment:

As an observer or As a living participant


(miron) (meron)
Observation vs.
Participation

Observers merely Participants care for


extract what they can their co-participants
from the environment in the environment
Our relationship towards the world
can thus become either reductionist or
complementary:

Reductionism: others Complementarity:


are subservient to others complement
myself and enrich my
uniqueness
The environment may become
my economy or my ecology

Oikos-nomos: Oikos-logos:
management of the organization of the
home home
Both the economy and the
ecology,

however, are grounded in the oikos,


“home”
In the Oikos, our home, everyone is a
kin:

Brother sun

Sister moon

Cousin stars

Mother Earth
The paradigm of kinship

 recognizes
the inherent
right of
every being
for its own while being
existence supportive of
others who are
 in need.
The laws of the oikos (Ecology)
sustain the economy
Violating the laws of the
oikos,

however, can have disastrous


consequences on both the ecology and
the economy.
A healthy environment is
therefore a “Common Good”

for the survival of economies and


ecologies.

 Sibuyan Rice field (Vanishing Treasures of Philippine Rainforests)


The ecology, as the good of
one,

is the good of all.


The best argument to
protect the environment,

Therefore, is to show that those who


violate the laws of the oikos, are to be
adversely affected also by their heinous
environmental crimes.
 (a hand in Ormoc)
In order to care for the ecology,
Fr. Norris Clarke suggests

The cultivation of an altruistic love, not


only towards human persons, but also
towards the whole material universe (PBE
100).
Love for the environment can be
initiated by an appreciation

for the gifts extended by every being that


exists.
Our existence, afterall,

is supported by the sacrifice offered to us


by others.
Like a waterfall,

all beings diffuse their goodness to


others, “as far as possible.” -- N. Clarke,
PBE
By being aware that we are
recipients of goodness,

We are also bound to share goodness to


others, especially to those who are most
in need.
Appreciation for shared goodness will
allow humans to participate in that
divine vision

when God first beheld everything He had


made:

“He found it to be very good” Gen. 1:31.


There are therefore
several ways

of integrating environmental concerns in


understanding our shared humanity:
1. An extension of bodily awareness to
include the environment,
2. A meditation on “being” and “having” as
attitudes towards the environment,
3. And the cultivation of virtues, such as
altruism, towards others.
Including our ecological concerns
within a course on the Philosophy of
the Human Person

Will teach environmental responsibility by


making us aware of our dynamic and
evolving relationship with the oikos, our
environment.

You might also like