The Philosophical

Roots of the Ecological

Crisis
The Philosophical
Roots of the Ecological
Crisis:

Descartes
and the Modern Worldview

By

Joshtrom Isaac Kureethadam

The Philosophical Roots of the Ecological Crisis:
Descartes and the Modern Worldview

By Joshtrom Isaac Kureethadam

This book first published 2017

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2017 by Joshtrom Isaac Kureethadam

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-5275-0343-7

ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0343-4
 The time is coming
when the struggle for dominion over the earth will be carried on.
It will be carried on
in the name of fundamental philosophical doctrines.

—Friedrich Nietzsche

We cannot solve a problem

with the same mind-set that created it in the first place.

—Albert Einstein
 CONTENTS

Preface ......................................................................................................... x

Abbreviations ............................................................................................ xii

Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xiii

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Diagnosing the Root Causes of the Ecological Crisis

Chapter I ...................................................................................................... 9
The Philosophical Roots of the Ecological Crisis
1. The Anthropogenic Character of the Contemporary Ecological Crisis
2. Resistance in Looking for the Causes of the Ecological Crisis
3. Going Beyond the Apparent Causes
4. Past Attempts to Trace the Deeper Roots of the Crisis
5. The Roots of the Ecological Crisis as ‘Philosophical’

Chapter II ................................................................................................... 47
Modernity as the Humus of the Philosophical Roots of the Ecological
Crisis
1. The Alleged Roots of the Ecological Crisis in Gnosticism
and Greek Philosophy
2. Christianity and the Supposed Depreciation of the Natural World
3. Modernity as the Humus for the Philosophical Roots
of the Ecological Crisis
4. Bacon as a Possible Accoucheur of Modernity
5. The Singular Contribution of Descartes towards the Creation
of the Modern Weltbild
viii Contents

Chapter III ................................................................................................. 85

Descartes’ Unique Contribution towards the Modern Weltbild
1. The Metamorphosis of Natural Philosophy into the Modern
Mechanistic Science
2. The Epistemological-Metaphysical Project of Descartes
3. Descartes’ New Epistemological Foundations
4. Cartesian Epistemological Revolution and Its Ecological
Implications
5. Descartes’ New Metaphysical Foundations
6. Some Ecological Implications of Cartesian Metaphysics
7. The Cartesian Modern Weltbild and the Philosophical Roots
of the Ecological Crisis

Chapter IV ............................................................................................... 124

Cartesian Ego, Modern Anthropocentrism, and the Ecological Crisis
1. The Absolute Centrality of the Self in Modernity
2. The Cogito and the Birth of the Modern Subject
3. The Reduction and Exaltation of the Self as Res Cogitans
4. Modern Anthropocentrism and the Roots of the Ecological Crisis
5. A Philosophical Debate on Anthropocentrism
6. Biocentrism as an Alternative to Anthropocentrism
7. A Relational Perspective as the Only Viable Alternative

Chapter V ................................................................................................ 163

The Modern Mechanistic Worldview and the Ecological Crisis
1. Descartes’ Substitution of Aristotelian Hylomorphism
with Mechanism
2. Knowledge of the Physical World: A New Epistemology
for a New Physics
3. Clear and Distinct Perception and the Geometrization
of the Physical World
4. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Mechanistic Physics
5. The Ontological Reduction of the Physical World to Res Extensa
6. A Reductive View of the Natural World
7. The Mechanistic Weltbild and the Roots of the Ecological Crisis
 The Philosophical Roots of the Ecological Crisis ix

Chapter VI ............................................................................................... 205

The Modern Mechanistic Physiology and the World of the Bête-Machines
1. Descartes Unique Contribution towards the Modern Mechanistic
Physiology
2. The Mechanistic Explanatory Scheme in Physiology
3. From Mechanistic Description to Ontological Mechanism
4. The Elimination of Teleology from the Natural World
5. Ecological Implications of the Cartesian Mechanistic Physiology:
Animals as Bête-Machines

Chapter VII .............................................................................................. 248

Cartesian Metaphysical Dualism and the Human-Nature Divide
1. The Uniqueness of Cartesian Dualism
2. The Epistemic Route to the Human-Nature Divide
3. The Metaphysical Dualism between the res cogitans
and the res extensa
4. Critique of the Cartesian Epistemological Dualistic Divide
5. Critique of the Cartesian Metaphysical Dualism
6. Cartesian Dualism and the Bifurcation of Nature
7. Holism as an Alternative Paradigm to Cartesian Dualism

Chapter VIII ............................................................................................ 292

The Enduring Modern Weltbild and the Contemporary Ecological Crisis
1. The Long Shadow of Descartes over Modern Philosophy
and Beyond
2. Modern Science, Technology, and the Taming of Nature
3. Modern Economy and the Exploitation of Nature
4. Modern Politics and Educational Curricula for the Conquest
of the Natural World
5. The Enduring of the Modern Worldview and the Deterioration
of Our Common Planetary Home

Conclusion ............................................................................................... 331

New Wineskins for a New Worldview

Bibliography ............................................................................................ 341

Index ........................................................................................................ 382

 PREFACE

While attempts to search for the deeper roots of the ecological crisis began
nearly fifty years ago with Lynn White’s celebrated essay, “The Historical
Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis” (published in Science, 1967), the project has
remained largely uncompleted to date. The fact that the crisis has only got
worse in the meantime is a clear indication that we have not yet managed
to diagnose and treat the real root causes of the problem. I believe that in
order to overcome the contemporary ecological crisis, we need to unearth,
in the first place, our fundamental beliefs and attitudes towards the
physical world—the conglomerate of which constitutes a certain
Weltbild—that have led to a voraciously exploitative and ruthlessly
destructive relationship with nature. It is precisely the scope of the present
book.
I have taught courses in Ecology for post-graduate students for several
years. I am of the opinion that environmental philosophy so far has
restricted its domain mostly to environmental ethics, often cogitating on
nuanced issues like the intrinsic worth of non-human species, the rights of
animals, etc. Environmental philosophers have not yet sufficiently
grappled with foundational questions like the metaphysical grounds
underpinning our distorted relationship with the natural world, as evident
in the current ecological crisis. In the light of my own research and teaching,
I am convinced that an important task of environmental philosophy is to
trace the deeper conceptual roots of humanity’s disharmonious relationship
with the surrounding natural world.
The present book is the humble result of an explorative journey over
many years to unearth the latent philosophical roots of the contemporary
ecological crisis. I am indebted to several persons who have nurtured and
sustained me in this process. I remember with profound gratitude Luis
Caruana who was an attentive guide while he was at the Gregorian
University in Rome and later at Heythrop College of the University of
London, Fiona Ellis who acted as my tutor while I was a Research Scholar
working on this project at the University of Oxford, Paul Gilbert who
offered some constructively critical perspectives on the research project
which have improved the quality of the final outcome, Gerard J. Hughes,
former Master of Campion Hall, University of Oxford, my own colleagues
in the Faculty of Philosophy of the Salesian University in Rome, particularly
 The Philosophical Roots of the Ecological Crisis xi

Mauro Mantovani and Scaria Thuruthiyil, and last but not least, my own
students over the years with whom several questions in this book were
discussed and at times passionately debated.
I am deeply grateful to Liz Walmsley who meticulously proofread the
entire manuscript and offered valuable corrections. I also thank Annabel
Clarkson who corrected some chapters of the earlier drafts, and Banzelão
Julio Teixeira for his attentive reading of the manuscript. I am also
grateful to John Dickson and Vincent Castilino for their timely assistance.
I sincerely thank Cambridge Scholars Publishing for the excellent
collaboration that I have received from them in getting this volume ready
for publication.
The state of our planetary home appears to be increasingly deteriorating.
However, the silver lining in the clouds is that there has been a steady
growth of ecological consciousness over recent years. Many people are
increasingly aware of the grave challenge facing our common home and
are disquieted about it, and want humanity to chart a way out of the crisis.
I believe that an important step in this journey will be the accurate
diagnosis of the root causes of the malaise. It is only after having
understood the real and root causes of the contemporary ecological
predicament that we can think of proposing ways and means to overcome
it. This is what I have sought to do in this book. I hope that the book will
appeal not only to academic philosophers and students of environmental
disciplines, but also to all those concerned about the precarious state of our
common home: environmental activists and grassroots movements,
educationists and study-groups, religious leaders and faith communities,
and many others.
I praise and thank God for enkindling a great zeal to care for our
common home (cf. Jn 2:17) in the hearts of so many people around the
globe.
I dedicate this book to everyone engaged in protecting and preserving
our common planetary home for ourselves, for the rest of the biotic
community, and for future generations.
 ABBREVIATIONS

AT Oeuvres de Descartes, eds. Charles Adam and Paul

Tannery. 13 vols. Paris: CNRS/J. Vrin, 1964-74.

CSM The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, tr. & ed. John

Cottingham - Robert Stoothoff - Dugald Murdoch. 2
vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

CSMK The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, tr. & ed. John

Cottingham - Robert Stoothoff - Dugald Murdoch -
Anthony Kenny. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991.

Discourse Discourse on the Method

Meditations Meditations on First Philosophy

Principles Principles of Philosophy

Passions The Passions of the Soul

Rules Rules for the Direction of the Mind

The World The World or Treatise on Light

EFA Ecological Footprint Analysis

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

PETM Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All translations from non-English sources are my own, unless indicated

otherwise.
 INTRODUCTION

DIAGNOSING THE ROOT CAUSES

OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS

The contemporary ecological crisis points to the precarious state of Earth,

our planetary home. The talk about the ecological crisis is, in fact, spurred
by a profound concern for the alarming situation of our common home. It
is evident in the etymological origin of the very term “ecology”, derived
from two Greek words: oikos and logos, meaning “home” and “discourse”
respectively. The ecological crisis is about our very home. It is not a mere
environmental issue, or even a host of them, as it is often presented in the
media and in academic discussions. The crisis is about the real threat to the
survival and flourishing of life, including human life, on Earth, our
common home. For the first time in human history, the very home that
sustains and hosts myriad forms of life, including human life, appears to
be on the verge of a possible collapse.
We live in a rather ironical situation. Today, we know much more
about the contemporary ecological crisis than at any other time. There is
no shortage of warnings about the precarious situation of our common
planetary home. Report after report from the scientific community indicate
in no uncertain terms that the state of our home planet is only deteriorating
year after year, that many of the natural processes that sustain life on Earth
are on the verge of a near collapse and that our common home is in
danger. Some of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies and leading
academic institutions are on the frontline when it comes to the study of
manifestations of the ecological crisis like climate change, biodiversity
loss, pollution, desertification and resource depletion, to name a few.
There is no dearth of proposals when it comes also to the possible
solutions to the crisis which range from technological feats like geo-
engineering to political proposals like cap-and-trade. At the same time, the
crisis is decidedly getting worse, and looms large as a real threat to the
future of Earth as an abode for humanity and other forms of life. In fact,
what is at stake is not just the survival of many forms of life but the very
future of human civilization.
2 Introduction

At this juncture it is important to pause and ask as to why we find

ourselves in such a paradoxical, outright schizophrenic situation with
regard to the precarious state of our common planetary home. We know
that our common home is in real peril, yet we are nowhere when it comes
to responding to the crisis which only gets increasingly worse. One very
plausible reason is that we have not yet devoted sufficient time and energy
to “diagnosing” the deeper root causes of the problem. We have not
attempted to do what any well-trained doctor would do while attending to
a patient with a grave illness. Before trying to treat the patient, any
physician will seek to find out the underlying causes of the illness. It is
only after a proper and thorough diagnosis has been carried out that real
and effective treatment can begin. Otherwise, one will only be responding
to the apparent symptoms of the disease. In fact, the malaise can only get
worse, if the deeper underlying causes are not addressed in the first place.
Faced with the contemporary ecological crisis, we stand in need of a
real “diagnosis” of the underlying causes of the malaise. We need to ask
ourselves some fundamental questions regarding the deeper causes of the
crisis. How did we get here? Why do we pull down the very pillars of our
common home? Why are we despoiling the very nest that shelters us? It is
only after having rightly diagnosed and understood the real and root
causes of the contemporary ecological predicament that we can think of
proposing ways and means to overcome the very crisis.
The importance of diagnosing the deeper underlying root causes of a
problem is only ancient and received wisdom. This was what Gautama
Buddha, the Enlightened One, did thousands of years ago when faced with
the universal problem of human suffering. Buddha’s path to enlightenment
unfolded in four important stages which led him to the discovery of the
corresponding four Noble Truths. Confronted with the predicament of
human misery, Buddha sought, first of all, to understand what suffering
really is. This led him to the first noble truth about human existence and
suffering. Then followed a very important step, probably the most
important of the entire process. It consisted in finding the deep and
underlying root causes of the problem of suffering. Thus he arrived at the
second noble truth about the causes of human suffering. The third and
fourth noble truths concerning the elimination of suffering and the
concrete way to achieve it, namely, the Ashtanga-marga (the eight-fold
path), were possible only after the deeper root causes of the problem of
suffering had rightly been identified.
In the face of the contemporary ecological crisis, we appear not to have
given sufficient importance to (or even skipped altogether) the second
phase of diagnosing the deeper roots of the problem. We have sought to
 Diagnosing the Root Causes of the Ecological Crisis 3

understand and respond to the crisis. As we mentioned earlier, there is no

dearth of studies which seek to describe the crisis as well as offer possible
solutions to it. What has not taken place however, is a radical diagnosis of
the deeper and underlying causes of the ecological crisis. In the meantime,
we carry on responding to the mere symptoms of the problem, while the
crisis itself is only getting worse.
At this critical juncture of unprecedented threats to the sustainability of
our common planetary home, we need to pause and reflect in order to
diagnose the real causes of our current ecological predicament. It is a
fundamental step, a sine qua non, if we are to overcome the crisis. It is
precisely the journey that awaits us in this book.
In the coming chapters, we shall seek to diagnose some of the
underlying philosophical root causes of the contemporary ecological crisis.
Of course, we are embarking on a very ambitious journey ridden with
perils, blind alleys, and false leads. First of all, it may appear naïve on our
part to presume that there exist direct and clear-cut causes for the complex
and multi-faceted ecological predicament. The causes are indeed legion
and they are hardly ever obvious! So we can only begin by advancing
credible hypotheses—as physicians, scientists and others do while trying
to arrive at the underlying causes of a malaise or unknown phenomena.
The main hypothesis we advance in the present book is that the humus,
where some of the underlying and most important philosophical root
causes of the ecological crisis originate is the Weltbild of Modernity—the
historical epoch which ushered a radical shift in the human perception and
treatment of the natural world with detrimental consequences for the latter.
We sharpen the hypothesis further by narrowing down the area of the
humus for the conceptual roots of the ecological malaise more precisely in
the philosophy of René Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, whose
thought contributed significantly to the creation of the modern worldview.
We shall now sketch out in a few strokes, the journey that lies ahead of
us in the verification of the hypothesis regarding the underlying philosophical
root causes of the contemporary ecological crisis in the worldview of
Modernity, shaped largely by thinkers like Descartes.
The first chapter will argue that the conceptual root causes of the
contemporary ecological crisis are significantly philosophical. We will
begin with a reflection on the anthropogenic character of the present
ecological crisis, namely, that the crisis is caused by human activities. It is
precisely for the human-induced origin of the crisis that we search for the
deeper causes of the malaise in the distorted human-nature relationship.
We will then go on to evidence how some of the factors often touted as the
causes of the contemporary ecological crisis—like the indiscriminate
4 Introduction

application of science and technology or the phenomenal explosion of

human population—are only the apparent and not the real causes of the
problem. The real causes need to be searched at a much deeper level,
namely at the conceptual level of ideas that have moulded human attitudes
towards the physical world and guided human treatment of nature. It needs
to be admitted that there have been some attempts in this regard in the
past. One may recall here the classical essay of Lynn White Jr. who sought
to identify the roots of the contemporary ecological crisis in Christian
theology, and especially in the biblical command to dominate over
creatures found in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Others have
sought to trace the roots of the crisis in monotheistic beliefs and their
attendant theological concepts of a transcendental God, with detrimental
effects on the physical world considered as inferior and without intrinsic
worth. Such proposals however, do not stand the razor of critical scrutiny
as we will go on to evidence. The real roots of the ecological crisis are
“philosophical”, as they emerge from a certain vision of the physical world
and of humanity’s relationship with it.
In the second chapter, we will seek to find out where exactly the
deeper philosophical roots of the ecological crisis originate. We argue that
the conceptual roots of the ecological crisis can be traced to Modernity
rather than any other era of human history. Attempts to indict Greek
philosophy or early and Medieval Christian spirituality for the contemporary
ecological woes appear to be hollow on closer examination. Instead,
Modernity reveals itself as a unique period that witnessed a radical
transformation of humanity’s understanding of itself, the human perception
of the physical world, and especially humanity’s relationship with the
physical world. Such a worldview radically changed human-nature
relationship, to the detriment of the latter. While it is possible to identify
Modernity as the humus for the philosophical roots of the contemporary
ecological crisis, there remains a knotty problem. The difficulty is to
ascertain which modern thinker has contributed most to the creation of the
modern Weltbild and the transformation of human-nature relationship in
terms of dominion and exploitation. Carolyn Merchant, for example, has
suggested that Francis Bacon, the father of modern experimental science,
contributed most to a distorted human-nature relationship in the wake of
Modernity. Others have suggested that the roots of the ecological crisis are
to be sought in the modern mechanistic scientific method ushered in by
Galileo, Gassendi and Newton. While the modern worldview was put in
place by the collective efforts of many such stalwarts of Modernity, the
contribution of René Descartes, universally acclaimed as the father of
modern philosophy, appears singular in this regard.
 Diagnosing the Root Causes of the Ecological Crisis 5

The third chapter will examine the unique contribution of Descartes in

the creation of the modern worldview, especially from the philosophical
point of view. Descartes sought to renew philosophy radically, providing it
with altogether new foundations. The Cartesian approach has been both
epistemological—in terms of a new theory of knowledge, as well as
metaphysical—in terms of a new conception of the ens of beings. It is such
a profound overhauling of the traditional philosophical categories of
knowing and of the very nature of reality that makes Descartes stand out
unique, head and shoulders above, among the accoucheurs of Modernity.
The significant contribution of Descartes in the moulding of the modern
worldview was acknowledged by a philosopher like Martin Heidegger in
his incisive critique of Modernity in Sein und Zeit and in later writings.
Other critics of Modernity like Hans Jonas and Maurice Merleau-Ponty
have also pointed out Descartes’ singular contribution in the creation of
the modern worldview and its attendant ecological implications.
The principal elements of the modern Weltbild in terms of the
emergence of the Archimedean modern Subject, the conception of the
physical world, including animate beings, as reduced to pure extended
matter, and the thorough dualistic divide between humans and the rest of
the physical world trace their origin in Cartesian philosophy. The core of
the present project is precisely to make explicit how the triple foundations
of the Modern worldview—in terms of an exaggerated anthropocentrism, a
mechanistic conception of the natural world, and the metaphysical dualism
between humanity and the rest of the physical world—can all be largely
traced back to the Cartesian thought with direct ecological consequences.
This will be the programme undertaken from chapters four to seven.
In chapter four, we will examine the link between modern anthropocentrism
and the current ecological crisis. The turn to the Subject which becomes
the Archimedean centre of reality takes place in Modernity and precisely
with the emergence of the Cartesian ego, the res cogitans. Descartes
brings about such a radical revolution through a clever epistemological-
metaphysical strategy. From the epistemological perspective, Descartes
proposes a new theory of knowledge in which certainty is arrived at in
terms of the clear and distinct perception from the part of the subject, who
represents physical reality according to its own categories. From the
metaphysical perspective, Descartes reduces the identity of the human
subject in terms of rationality alone, conceived as diametrically opposed
to, and as superior to the physical world, the res extensa. Modern
anthropocentrism thus begins with Descartes, with direct and evident
ecological consequences. We will also discuss how biocentrism, the
6 Introduction

alternative proposed against anthropocentrism by deep ecologists and

others, is not a viable choice.
In chapters five and six, we will deal with the modern mechanistic
worldview ushered in by Descartes and other protagonists of Modernity.
In chapter five, we will examine Descartes’ unique contribution towards
the mechanistic understanding of the physical world which dethroned and
replaced the Aristotelian-Scholastic hylomorphic conception of matter.
Descartes’ strategy was to argue that physical entities have mechanistic
properties alone which render the physical world purely inert, extended
matter, and bereft of any element of teleology whatsoever. The Cartesian
and modern mechanistic conception of the inanimate physical world, while
possessing great heuristic value and pragmatic success, ultimately led to
the creation of a one-dimensional perception of the natural world. We will
go on to argue how such a reductive view of the natural world has
contributed significantly to an instrumental and disenchanted conception
of the physical world in terms of utility alone, and reduced to a mere
storehouse of resources for human consumption.
Modernity came up not only with a mechanistic physics but also with a
mechanistic physiology, wherein the animal world also comes to be
subsumed under the category of the res extensa. In chapter six, we will
examine Descartes’ original contribution towards the mechanization not
only of the inanimate world but also of the animate world. Within the
Cartesian system, all non-human entities ultimately get reduced to
mechanistic beings that exhibit machine-like properties alone, while all
rational and intellectual properties are possessed solely by humans, who
alone are the res cogitans. Modern mechanistic physiology is best evident
in the infamous Cartesian doctrine of the bête-machines which has
conspicuously manifest ecological implications.
In chapter seven, we discuss the most important heritage of Cartesian
thought in the creation of the modern Weltbild, namely his metaphysical
dualism. In philosophical circles, Cartesian dualism is often reduced to
anthropological dualism, namely, the question of the union of body and
soul. But it is important to remember that Cartesian dualism is much
deeper and is ultimately metaphysical in character. It is an ontological
dualism in which all reality is divided into the two inseparable segments of
the res cogitans and the res extensa—the human beings and the rest of the
physical world—conceived in terms of diametric opposition and exclusion.
On account of such a dualistic divide, humanity and the physical world
stand in total separation within the Cartesian and largely modern
worldview. Some of the most significant roots of the contemporary
ecological crisis can be traced precisely within the humus of the
 Diagnosing the Root Causes of the Ecological Crisis 7

metaphysical dualism introduced by Descartes at the dawn of Modernity.

It is such an ontological divide between humans and the rest of the
physical world, shorn of any element of continuity and relationship
whatsoever between them, that has sanctioned the domination and
exploitation of the natural world at the hands of humans, as the latter came
to be considered as totally separate from and hierarchically superior to
nature.
In chapter eight, the very last of the book, we will seek to further verify
the hypothesis advanced, namely, that the contemporary ecological crisis
is intricately linked to the modern and Cartesian Weltbild. We do this by
examining how the modern worldview, considered as the humus for the
deeper philosophical roots of the current ecological crisis, endures to our
present day, and continues to contribute to the distorted human-nature
relationship and spoliation of the natural world. We continue to relate to
and treat the physical world within the modern and Cartesian philosophical
framework, in spite of the emergence of contemporary physics and post-
modern philosophical categories. The long shadow of the modern
philosophical Weltbild continues to serve as the foundation and the
encompassing horizon of much of contemporary philosophical thought,
science and technology, neo-liberal economy and political and educational
institutions. This situation also explains why the domination and
exploitation of the natural world has only been intensified in the recent
decades with the “globalization” of the western modern worldview around
the globe.
Since the deeper conceptual roots of the contemporary ecological crisis
lie within such an ideological paradigm, it is evident that the very crisis
will not be overcome without a conscious attempt to surpass the underlying
worldview inherited from Modernity. We will conclude therefore arguing
for a new philosophical worldview that can provide a new orientation to
human living in our common planetary home which appears to be on the
verge of a possible collapse.
We have briefly sketched out the intellectual journey awaiting us in
this book that seeks to trace the deeper philosophical roots of the
contemporary ecological crisis in Modernity and in Cartesian thought. We
will be helped in this journey by the insights of some of the major thinkers
who have sought to offer incisive critiques of Modernity and of the
ecological impact of the Cartesian philosophical system on the natural
world. We will refer especially to the philosophical critique from the part
of Martin Heidegger towards Modernity and to Cartesian philosophy, in
particular. We will also occasionally make mention of other critics of
Modernity and Descartes like Hans Jonas, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Alfred
8 Introduction

North Whitehead, Charles Taylor and others. We will also avail ourselves
of the contributions from the various schools of eco-philosophy like deep
ecology, ecofeminism and social ecology that are openly critical of
Modernity and the Cartesian philosophical heritage in the context of the
contemporary ecological crisis. But above all, we will undertake a direct
and in-depth analysis of the major writings of Descartes, the father of
modern philosophy, who has contributed more than anyone else towards
the creation of the modern Weltbild, and indirectly also towards the
moulding of human-nature relationship ever since.
 CHAPTER I

THE PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS

OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS

Introduction
What stands out about the contemporary ecological crisis is its conspicuously
“anthropogenic” character. The crisis is caused by the humans themselves.
So we will begin our opening chapter by considering to what extent the
contemporary ecological crisis can be attributed to human activities. It is
precisely the anthropogenic origin of the contemporary ecological crisis
which motivates the search for the deeper causes of the malaise in the
distorted human-nature relationship. If the crisis is caused by human
activities, and is rather recent in origin, it is important to ask what are the
factors that lead humanity to engage in an antagonistic relationship with
the natural world. The thesis advanced in this book, namely, that the root
causes of the contemporary ecological crisis are largely philosophical in
nature, and can be traced largely in the modern Weltbild, makes sense only
against such a background. The first three chapters of the book will frame
the boundaries of our discussion in this regard. In the first chapter, we will
argue that the deeper causes of the ecological crisis are ultimately
philosophical. In the second chapter, we will demonstrate how these root
causes can be found in Modernity rather than in any other epoch of human
history. In the third chapter, we will evidence the unique contribution of
Descartes towards the creation of the modern worldview that is the humus
for the philosophical roots of the ecological crisis.
Our claim in the first chapter regarding the philosophical root causes of
the contemporary ecological crisis needs to be proved against some initial
objections. A first obstacle to overcome is a certain resistance to get to the
deeper and underlying root causes of the problem. Some authors like
Robert Kirkman have argued that the ecological crisis is merely endemic
to human nature and that humanity needs to take it in its stride. There are
others who dismiss any attempt to look for the root causes of the problem
and argue that science and technology will eventually solve the problem.
10 Chapter I

We will demonstrate how both these assumptions are rather unfounded

and why it is important to search for the deeper causes of the ecological
malaise.
In order to get to the real root causes of the contemporary ecological
crisis, it is also important to go beyond some of the apparent causes, often
touted as the real causes of the current environmental degradation. We will
discuss here the argument from Paul Ehrlich and others that the population
explosion of the recent decades is the main driver of the current ecological
crisis. Others tend to lay the blame for the crisis on modern science and
technology. They argue that the ecological crisis results from the
indiscriminate use and application of science and technology for the
exploitation of the natural world. We will briefly discuss these positions
and will show that these are only the apparent and not the real causes of
the problem. The latter need to be plumbed much deeper, namely, at the
conceptual level of ideas that have created and moulded human attitudes
towards the natural world and have eventually led to an exploitative
relationship with it.
There have been attempts in the past to trace the deeper conceptual
roots of the contemporary ecological crisis. The most well-known proposal
in this regard was advanced by Lynn White Jr. way back in 1967. White
sought to trace the historical roots of the ecological crisis within the Judeo-
Christian tradition. His thesis was centred around the particular verse in
the book of Genesis on the theme of domination (Gen 1:28) which he
argued served as a licence and motivation for Christians to exploit the
natural world. We will demonstrate how White’s argument, which led to
much discussion in Christian theological circles, crumbles under critical
scrutiny. The same fate also awaits similar claims that seek to identify the
causes of the ecological crisis within the monotheistic religious traditions
with their insistence on the transcendence of God and their alleged
concomitant depreciation and negation of the intrinsic worth of the natural
world.
We will conclude the chapter by arguing how the real root causes of
the contemporary ecological crisis are clearly “philosophical”. Such roots
are basically ideological or conceptual, as they emerge from a certain
vision of reality, a certain Weltanschauung of humanity’s understanding of
themselves, of the physical world, and above all, of the relationship
between humanity and the natural world.
 The Philosophical Roots of the Ecological Crisis 11

1. The Anthropogenic Character of the Contemporary

Ecological Crisis
The project to look for the philosophical roots of the current ecological
crisis is based on the fundamental assumption that the crisis is
anthropogenic in origin, and that behind human activities that have
brought about the ecological predicament, it is possible to identify some
deeply antagonistic human attitudes in the perception and treatment of the
natural world. However, this starting point regarding the anthropogenic
character of the ecological crisis is itself strongly contested in
environmental scepticism. So it is important to deal with this crucial
objection before embarking on the very project.
Environmental scepticism raises serious objections regarding both the
existence of the ecological crisis and of its causes.1 Scepticism regarding

1
Environmental scepticism has kept pace with the spread of ecological
consciousness in the last few decades. Such scepticism is reflected clearly in the
reluctance of mainstream economics and politics, to date, to come to grips
adequately with the ecological crisis. Some of the notable works in environmental
scepticism include: Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1981); Robert Jastrow – William Nierenberg –
Frederick Seitz, Global Warming: What Does the Science Tell Us? (Washington,
D.C.: George C. Marshall Institute, 1989); Julian Simon – Norman Myers, Scarcity
or Abundance?: A Debate on the Environment (New York: W.W. Norton & Co,
1994); Ronald Bailey, Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993); Gregg Easterbrook, A Moment on the Earth:
The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism (New York: Viking, 1995); Bjørn
Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Michael Crichton, State of Fear
(New York: HarperCollins, 2004); J.E. de Steiguer, The Origins of Modern
Environmental Thought (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2006); James
Inhofe, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your
Future (Washington, DC: WND Books, 2012); Jone Fone, Climate Change:
Natural or Manmade? (London: Stacey International, 2013), etc. For a good and
extensive critique of environmental scepticism see: James Hoggan – Richard
Littlemore, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
(Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2009); Wendy Wagner – Thomas O. McGarity,
Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research
(Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press, 2010); Clive Hamilton, Requiem for
a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change (London –Washington:
Earthscan, 2010); Naomi Oreskes – Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a
Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global
Warming (New York – Berlin – London: Bloomsbury Press, 2010); James
Lawrence Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science (New York, NY: Columbia
12 Chapter I

the existence of the ecological crisis is hard to sustain in our day as the
multiple manifestations of the crisis have become too conspicuously
evident. Today, hardly anyone doubts the existence of the ecological
crisis. Instead, environmental scepticism regarding the causes of the
contemporary ecological crisis lingers on despite mounting scientific
evidence to the contrary. It is important to respond to this brand of
scepticism which argues that the real causes of the crisis are attributable to
natural factors rather than to human activities, before we can begin the
enquiry about the causes of the crisis in human attitudes and behaviour.
We shall limit ourselves to making evident how two of the most
conspicuous manifestations of the ecological crisis, namely, climate
change and species extinction are caused by human activities.
It is in the area of climate change that the anthropogenic origin of the
contemporary ecological crisis is most contested. A rather widespread
argument advanced by climate sceptics is that it is unwarranted to toll bells
of alarm regarding the present state of the earth because the planet has
itself gone through numerous natural variations of climate during its
geological history stretching into millions and millions of years. According
to the sceptics, the claim that recent climate change is caused by human-
induced carbon emission is an exaggeration on the part of the scientific
community.2 According to the sceptics when it comes to climate change,
natural variability and possible solar influence are more significant than
the human induced greenhouse gas emission.3 Accordingly, the environmental
sceptics claim that the alarm about the ecological crisis is not only
overstated but also misplaced, because it is part of the natural cycles of the
life of the planet and has nothing to do with human activities. It is also
argued that seen from the millennial geological perspective, the so-called
ecological crisis is no crisis at all because the earth has remarkably coped

University Press, 2011); Andrew J. Hoffman, “Climate Science as Culture War,”

Stanford Social Innovation Review 10 (2012), 30-37; Riley E. Dunlap, “Climate
Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction,” American Behavioural Scientist
57 (2013), 691-98.
2
Cf. Tim Ball, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science (Mount Vernon:
Stairway Press, 2014), 7; Richard S. Lindzen, “Global Warming, Models and
Language,” in Climate Change: The Facts, ed. Alan Moran (New Hampshire:
Stockade Books, 2015), 38; Robert M. Carter, “The Scientific Context,” in Climate
Change: The Facts, ed. Alan Moran (New Hampshire: Stockade Books, 2015), 67-
82.
3
Nigel Lawson, “Cool It: An Essay on Climate Change” in Climate Change: The
Facts, ed. Alan Moran (New Hampshire: Stockade Books, 2015), 100.
 The Philosophical Roots of the Ecological Crisis 13

with such challenges in the past, and the planet is bound to display equal
resilience in the future too.
Such a contention about the causes of climate change—which can be
called the lay man’s version of environmental scepticism because one
comes across it often in casual discussions and in popular media—appears
to be rather well embedded in the public psyche. This line of thinking,
however, reveals itself to be too simplistic when critically examined. The
weakness of this argument lies mainly in its consideration of the time scale
and intensity of climatic changes.
It is true that Earth has gone through periods of global warming in the
past. But the most recent global warming episode, similar to what our
planetary home is bound to incur in the near future if no precautionary
measures are adopted by the global community, dates back to millions of
years ago when humans were not around. The anatomically modern
humans, the Homo sapiens sapiens, emerged nearly 195,000 years ago4,
and the Holocene epoch during which our current civilizations rose began
just around 12,000 years ago.5 The arrival and flourishing of modern
humans in our planetary home is indeed very recent when compared to the
long geological history of the earth. In fact, the last time that our home
planet experienced a similar rise in the global average temperatures as
could occur in the current century without mitigation efforts, was a period
named by scientists as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)
which occurred as far back as 55 million years ago when a massive
amount of carbon in the form of methane—about 4.5 trillion tons—entered
the atmosphere, causing temperatures to shoot up by 5C (9F).6 The big
difference is that while the previous episode was caused by natural factors
and stretched over a period of 10,000 years, today human activities are
releasing greenhouse gases 30 times faster than the rate of emissions that
triggered a period of extreme global warming in the Earth’s past, capable
of achieving the same effect in just 300 years.7 Besides, one needs to
remember that it took 100,000 years after the PETM for carbon dioxide
levels in the air and water to return to normal,8 with disastrous

4
See Paul Mellars, “Why Did Modern Human Populations Disperse from Africa
ca. 60,000 Years Ago? A New Model,” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 103 (2006), 9381.
5
See Brian Fagan, The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization (New
York: Basic Books, 2004).
6
Cf. James C. Zachos et al., “Rapid Acidification of the Ocean during the Paleocene-
Eocene Thermal Maximum,” Science 308 (2005), 1611-14.
7
Ibid., 1614.
8
Ibid., 1611.
14 Chapter I

consequences for the species that swamped the waters and the land, a
situation which presents a very bleak picture of the challenges facing
humanity today.
There exists a strong, credible and substantial body of evidence, based
on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming precisely
due to increased greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
Measurements show a rise close to 0.8°C in the average surface air
temperature of Earth over the last century with greater increase in the
recent decades. At the same time, the common conclusion of a wide range
of studies conducted over the past years is that the observed climate
changes cannot be explained by natural factors alone. The perceived
changes can be explained only by having recourse to a substantial
anthropogenic influence in terms of human activities.9
Today there exists a nearly unanimous consensus in the scientific
community about the anthropogenic effect on climate change.10 The
periodical Assessment Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) reveal a progressive trend in this regard. The first
definitive statement that humans are responsible for climate change is to
be found in the Second Assessment Report of IPCC published in 1995.
The Report concluded that the balance of evidence suggests “a discernible

9
H. Le Treut et al, “Historical Overview of Climate Change” in Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. S.
Solomon et al. (Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 103;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. T.F. Stocker et al.
(Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 12. See also Charles
Fletcher, Climate Change: What the Science Tells Us (Danvers: John Wiley and
Son, 2013), 7; Kevin E. Trenberth - John T. Fasullo, “Earth’s Energy Imbalance,”
Journal of Climate 27 (2014), 3144.
10
See John Cook et al, “Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus
Estimates on Human-caused Global Warming,” Environmental Research Letters
11 (2016), 048002; Naomi Oreskes, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate
Change: How do we know We’re not Wrong?” in Climate Change: What it means
for Us, Our Children, and Grandchildren, eds. Joseph F. C. Dimento - Pamela
Doughman (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014), 105-148; John Cook et al.,
“Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific
Literature,” Environmental Research Letters 8 (2013), 024024; Naomi Oreskes,
“Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science
306 (2004), 1686; National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of
Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), 3.
 The Philosophical Roots of the Ecological Crisis 15

human influence” on the earth’s climate. In the Third Assessment Report

of 2001, the IPCC pointed to the human fingerprint of climate change
stating that there is strong evidence that most of the warming observed is
attributable to human activities. According to the Report “detection and
attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal
in the climate record.”11 These positions were reiterated in the Fourth
Assessment Report of the IPCC of 2007, which provided multiple lines of
evidence that human-induced climate change is indeed happening. The
2007 Report showed a jump with regard to certitude that changes are down
to human activities—from >66% of the 2001 Report to >90%.12 According
to this Report, human activities are responsible for about 13 times as much
of the warming as changes in the Sun’s output. The most recent Fifth
Assessment Report from the IPCC awards the highest margin of certainty
to the human-induced factor of climate change, i.e., >95%. We may quote
from the Summary for Policy Makers which was released in September
2013.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the
ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions of snow and ice,
in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes.
This evidence for human influence has grown since the Fourth Assessment
Report. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant
cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.13

The anthropogenic character of climate change was reiterated in the

statements of some of the world’s premier scientific academies recently.
The Royal Society—the oldest scientific academy in continuous
existence—concluded its 2010 document Climate Change: A Summary of
the Science by affirming that “there is strong evidence that changes in
greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant
cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half

11
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis
Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. R.T. Watson et al.
(Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 5. The italics are
mine. See also p. 51.
12
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report. Contribution of Working Group I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. R. K. Pachauri –
A. Reisinger (Geneva: IPCC, 2007), 38-41.
13
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis, 12.
16 Chapter I

century.”14 The document is explicit when it states: “Various lines of

evidence point strongly to human activity being the main reason for the
recent increase [of CO2 concentrations in atmosphere], mainly due to the
burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) with smaller contributions from land-
use changes and cement manufacture.”15 The ground-breaking document
of the US National Academies of Sciences in 2010, entitled Advancing the
Science of Climate Change states: “there is a strong, credible body of
evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is
changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human
activities.”16 The 2014 joint report by the Royal Society and the United
States National Academy of Sciences reaffirms the scientific consensus
that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities.17
Human responsibility for the current ecological crisis is equally
evident when it comes to the problem of the mass extinction of species.
Environmental sceptics often claim that the current wave of extinctions is
only the normal turnover in the history of life. The underlying argument
here is that life on Earth has experienced myriad of extinction events over
billions of years, and it will continue to thrive, irrespective of the current
extinction spasms, offering new opportunities for new better-adapted
species.18 However, the naked truth is that the current rates of species
extinction exceed those of the historical past by several orders of
magnitude and is bound to accelerate. It is estimated that the normal
background rates of extinction is roughly 0.1-1.0 extinctions per million
species per year.19 But, as per the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment “over
the past few hundred years, humans have increased species extinction rates
by as much as 1,000 times the background rates that were typical over
Earth’s history.”20 According to the same report the current extinction rate
is up to one thousand times higher than the fossil record when it comes to

14
The Royal Society, Climate Change: A Summary of the Science (September
2010), n. 57.
15
Ibid., n. 25.
16
The National Academy of Sciences, Advancing the Science of Climate Change,
1. See also pp. 3 and 20ff.
17
National Academy of Sciences – The Royal Society, Climate Change: Evidences
and Causes. An Overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of
Sciences (February 2014), 5.
18
See Michael J. Novacek, “Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (2008), 11752.
19
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Biodiversity Synthesis (Washington: World Resources Institute, 2005), 21.
20
Ibid., 3.