The 2020’s perfect vision – unity in heralding the year of Jubilee
Here are three keywords to research in efforts to cultivate transformative learning: Systemic holism, Deep Ecology, and Cosmocentrism
‘Systemic Holism‘ has a view with ‘Nature’ as a system and the perpetrator of ‘value’. Values may be classified into three distinct types,’ namely Anthropogenic, Biogenic, and Systemic values. Anthropogenic values get their significance with reference to human interest. Biogenic values underline the centrality of living beings. Values owe their significance and rationale in so far as they serve the interest of the biotic species. On the other hand, the ‘Systemic Values’ owe their significance to the system as a whole, the Nature as a whole in so far they lend value to other things and beings, as integral parts of the system.
‘Nature’ is construed as a whole in which different parts of it get their significance and value in relation to one another and in a relation to the whole as well. This is termed as ‘systemic holism’. By this, our attention is drawn to the fact that a true ecological consciousness calls for a unique blend of Science and Conscience, Biology and Ethics.
‘Deep Ecology’ also spells out how things and beings interact with each other. It has been proven beyond any doubt that the position of the moon in the sky also triggers the growth of a tiny plant in the ocean floor. This introduces us to the distinction between ‘shallow ecology’ which takes into account only the physical components of the universe and the ‘deep ecology’ which also takes into account the psyche of the developed and underdeveloped creatures.
This is also supported by scientists who claim that the whole universe is mind or thought. Nowadays, it has been proved beyond doubt that most air crashes take place due to metal fatigue. Deep ecology holds that so-called matter is not [really] matter as such, but the gross expression of ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’. These points to the convergence of Philosophy, Science, and Spirituality.
‘Cosmocentrism’ as a viable model in Environmental Ethics which gets its rationale from a holistic world view that recognizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things and beings, not only living beings but also the so-called inanimate objects constitute the whole, in which the living beings are raised and grow is. These ideas construe the ‘whole universe’ as the expression of one singular entity. Not only the biotic community but also the whole universe is an interrelated web. The health and growth of each one is intimately bound up with the health and growth of the rest of the creation.
The state of nature [here] is one of interdependence and interconnectedness. It has been tried before to bring this truth into focus to show that any harm to any part of the cosmos is bound to have its prejudicial effect on the rest. This being the truth, the only model in Environmental Ethics which turns out to be logically and practical viable is ‘Cosmocentrism,’ which accords value to everything living and nonliving, animate and inanimate, mobile and immobile. Hence, the only way for man to promote the cause of human existence is to extend recognition not only to the other biotic species but the non-biotic existence.
It has [also] been that, while arguing in favor of the dominion of man over the non-humans, one does not find approval of man’s exploitation over nature. It is argued that man has to handle nature only sparingly. This leaves no room for greed on the part of man to promote any exclusive interests of mankind who is responsible for the ecological disaster before us today.
______________________________________
References
__Debnath, B. (2020). The Basic Concept of Environmental Ethics. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (7)1.
__Passmore, J. (1974). Man’s Responsibility for Nature. London: Duckwort.
Share this content:
