Confucian Depth Ecology as a Response to Climate Change

Abstract

Aside from a few passages addressing animals or the environment, Confucian philosophy appears to lack an environmental ethics perspective. Li Zhehou’s (李澤厚) contemporary work in Confucian philosophy continues this lacuna by limiting his understanding of community to the human realm. Using the common liberal humanism that limits moral actions to the interpersonal human realm misses the importance of inclusive moralities such as animal rights and environmental ethics. I propose that if we return to the original shared common cultural roots of Confucian and Daoist philosophy that a Confucian understanding of the natural world can embrace the non-human environment within the scope of Confucian morality. Extricating ideas from the Yijing, the Shijing, Xunzi, Dong Zhongshu, Wang Chong, and later scholars, the concept of the mutual resonance and response (ganying 感應) between the natural world and humans developed into the unity of heaven and humanity (tianren heyi 天人合一). An inclusive Confucian depth ecology opens new ways of thinking that can be deployed to envision deeper dimensions for understanding the self’s inner life, its connections to the outer life of the self–other relationship, and its extension to a kin relationship with the environment. This paper explores how these old and new ways of thinking can change our behavior and change our moral interactions with others including the environment and thereby enhancing freedom as an achievement concept derived from graceful moral action.

Years ago, scientists presented their findings and warning.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

(World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity 1992 signed by 1700 scientists in 1992)

To prevent widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity loss, humanity must practice a more environmentally sustainable alternative to business as usual. This prescription was well articulated by the world’s leading scientists 25 years ago, but in most respects, we have not heeded their warning. Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out. We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home. “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice (2017)” signed by more than 20,000 scientists in 2018.

(Dufresne 2019, unnumbered title page)

Before beginning it should be noted that we must change our behavior regarding the use of fossil fuel and transform all forms of travel and modern agriculture to use sustainable energy sources—from space travel to ground transportation and shipping, and from factories to agriculture. Changing our behavior is more important than changing our belief system. It is not only our behavior that needs to change. We must insist that our governments take action to restrain both government and corporate dependency on fossil fuels and short-term profit making (greed) to begin to manage the climate crisis (Dufresne 2019).

There is a tension in this paper and in Confucian philosophy between the pragmatic need to act appropriately regardless of one’s personnel beliefs vs. the necessity to adhere to a good and proper philosophy or belief system. The pragmatic elements of Confucian philosophy have been explicated (Ames et al. 2021; Behuniak 2019; Wen 2009). As Richard Rorty notes, the pragmatist and postmodernists agree, there is no one depiction of reality that is correct (Rorty 2022, pp. 68, 210). However, pragmatism and the postmodern approaches offer their own skeptical approaches to dealing with reality. If their skepticism is correct, then we ought to continue to seek other correct approaches. Confucianism itself contains a comprehensive worldview with good reasons for living according to its ethical and moral code. Despite the differences in the historical development of the various Confucian philosophers, a majority of them, especially those presented below, adhere to optimistic forms of this-worldly environmental ethics.

Past beliefs have influenced behavior; however, that said, it seems like the belief in a final Judgment Day, which entails a judgment by fire, taught by the monotheistic religions, including Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and new age movements, is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The religions also promote an anthropocentric moral code in which animals and the environment play no or very little role. Whether religious beliefs that project an afterlife more valuable than this life are in fact a root cause of the climate crisis cannot be fully determined. A majority of the world’s population are not deterred from carrying on with business as usual despite the ongoing climate changes. In this regard it may be instructive to find alternative belief systems that embrace transformation, growth, and progress as organic ongoing processes without proposing a final judgment by fire and the end of earthly life. Prasenjit Duara proposes that Asian religions and philosophies offer hope for a sustainable future (Duara 2015). Roger T. Ames argues that Zoetology, following the organic patterns of the living world, offers such an alternative perspective to better understand our position and role in the natural world (Ames 2024). Zoetology is linked to process philosophy and the “new materialism”, and William E. Connolly expands on the new materialism, offering process philosophy ideas such as “speculative realism and immanent naturalism,” countering the dualistic baggage associated with classical materialism, highlighting the fragility of the planet (Connolly 2013, pp. 402–03). Li Zehou also notes this difference between the world religions that have a Judgment Day versus the Confucian Way that focuses on “… everyday situations and relationships” (Li 2023, p. 217). Confucian philosophy accepts the natural world at face value, embracing a world of change and transformation without proposing an end to history. Generally speaking, Asian religious and philosophical higher (co-called transcendent) values are merged in everyday activities as an immanent–transcendent fusion. May we look to Confucian philosophy for an alternative perspective on the human relationship with the natural world to provide a belief system that does not rely on an apocalypse to create environmental ethics?

Are there environmental ethics in classical Confucian philosophy or must environmental ethics be (re)constructed in contemporary Confucian philosophy? I propose that if we consider the original shared common cultural roots of Confucian and Daoist philosophy, a Confucian understanding of the natural world can embrace the non-human environment within the scope of Confucian public ethics and personal morality, exposing Confucian environmental ethics. A selective reading and (mis)interpretation of Confucian philosophy tends to overlook the importance of the Yijing 易經 Scripture of Change that provides a cosmological and ontological understanding of the natural world and our relationship with it. Confucian philosophy in the Han dynasty (206 BCE to 220 CE) relied on Xunzi (荀子 third century BCE), and his namesake book that provides a Confucian perspective on living in harmony with the natural world. After a brief look at how Li Zehou’s (李澤厚) contemporary work in Confucian philosophy limits his understanding of community to the human realm, I review elements from the Yijing, the Shijing (詩經 Scripture of poetry), the Xunzi, Dong Zhongshu’s (董仲舒 179-104 BCE) (Dong 2024) Chunqiu Fanlu 春秋繁露, and Wang Chong’s (王充 27-97 CE) (Wang 2024) Lunheng (論衡) to extract Confucian environmental ethics. An inclusive Confucian depth ecology opens new ways of thinking that can be deployed to envision deeper dimensions for understanding the self’s inner life, its connections to the outer life of the self–other relationship, and its extension to kin relationships with the natural world. This paper explores how these old and new ways of thinking can change our behavior and change our moral interactions with others, including the environment, and thereby enhance freedom as an achievement concept derived from graceful moral action as developed in Eliot Deutsch’s work. But what is depth ecology?

The concept of depth ecology builds on that of deep ecology. Advocates for deep ecology argue that most living creatures, excluding harmful viruses and similar harmful organisms, either have a right to life or we have a duty to protect them beyond our own, anthropocentric advantage of using them, that is they take a biocentric or ecocentric perspective. However, the term “deep” is abstract and can imply that we, the observer and practitioner, are somehow standing outside of the natural world and passing judgments about it, whereas the term “depth” denotes being inside, being a part and parcel of that natural world. Depth ecology proposes that we must situate ourselves within the web of life, see the value of non-human living creatures, see the value of the inanimate environment, and behave accordingly in a protective and nurturing manner (Abram 2005; Chen 2015; Snyder 1990, p. 110). As we see below, the theory of perspective affordances notes that we are created by our environment such that being situated in the natural world is truly the only real perspective that matters mutually for the natural world and humanity.

1. A Common Background

Confucian philosophy shares some common elements with Daoism. The most basic and ancient common ground shared by what became Confucian and Daoist philosophies is the mammalian and human brain structure. The latest findings of human brain research show that the neurological brain structures are correlative, and that ancient texts show evidence of this correlative characteristic implicit in linguistic structures (Farmer et al. 2000; Graham 1986; Slingerland 2019). Slingerland notes that it is modern scientific education that has taken contemporary people away from their roots of correlative thinking (Slingerland 2019, pp. 236–70). However, brain science research shows that the brain learns by analogy, by comparing past known events to present unknown events (Taylor and Marienau 2016). Analogy is a form of correlative thinking. As Angus Graham argued, modern theorists such as Gilbert Ryle and Thomas Kuhn used correlative thinking (Graham 1986). So, correlative thinking is alive and well; it underlies Asian philosophy, and it provides a way to conceive of the bipolar, correlative relationship between the natural world and human beings, which is duly noted in the expression “heaven/nature and humanity unite as one (tianren heyi 天人合一).” The continuity of humanity and the natural world is a defining character of Chinese philosophy (Ames and Jia 2018, p. 7). Correlative thinking avoids the excluded middle in “either or” thinking, accepting the in-between gray areas and the interrelated, mutual dependence of alleged opposites. For example, culture and nature, the individual and the environmental context are co-creating, mutually defining, and self-identifying. Bifurcated dualisms only exist in the mind’s fantasy.

As Li Zehou and others have pointed out the Shang and Zhou dynasties shared some common cultural beliefs and technologies that would influence the later development of what we refer to as the various lineages of ancient Chinese philosophy. The role of the court shamans, court diviners, and the folk-religion domestic shamans or spiritual leaders in ancient times is a case in point (J. Li 2015). In a sense we can say that the role of the shaman in Shang and Zhou times was twofold in that it both created a context and position for spiritual leaders to establish and maintain the importance of ritual for social, political, and environmental control by the ruling dynasty, and the shaman maintained the role of spiritual leaders outside of the court in everyday life (Michael 2015). The Shang and Zhou dynasties’ reliance on the use of shaman rituals influenced the Kong–Meng–Xun reliance on court rituals which were believed to impact the environment. The shaman practices also maintained the importance of personnel spiritual mastery in the form of high levels of self-cultivation both within and beyond the social context, influencing the Lao–Zhuang support for spiritual freedom. In this sense the shamanic practices laid fundamental starting points for both the Kong–Meng–Xun and the Lao–Zhuang philosophies. Let us consider the possibility that the teachings of Kongzi, Mengzi, Xunzi, Laozi, and Zhuangzi grew out of a common cultural milieu with shared core values, especially a shared worldview of the correlative nature of a vital-world (tiandi 天地 or later yinyang 陰陽), destiny (ming 命), and self-cultivation to become a sage (sheng ren 聖人) or a consummate person such as a prince-of-virtue (junzi 君子) or a sublimely transforming-person (zhenren 真人). These core values continued in the form of composite practices and common beliefs throughout Chinese history despite the special interest groups that developed later. The special interest groups attempted to win favor at court, by accentuating differences in the teachings to fit their imposed model of the various contending lineages (jia 家) of thought. Roger T. Ames (1985), Kirill O. Thompson (1990), and Michael Nylan (2017) have proposed that there is a common ground, or shared values found in these thinkers and the subsequent teachings associated with their “family-linages” jia 家. This common cultural ground shared with Daoist environmental concerns shows that early Confucian philosophy had a deep connection with the natural world. The common ground of the subsequent diverse teachings is still captured today in the expression “Confucian by day; Daoist by night” to characterize the modern sentiment that the two philosophies are not mutually exclusive. It appears that due to historical contexts, both ancient and modern Confucians have emphasized interpersonal human-to-human morality and ethics over external non-human environmental ethics. Given both the ancient and modern examples of “man’s inhumanity to man,” it was and still is important to stress the value of treating other humans with humane compassion, love, and respect (ren 仁). However, in the age of the Anthropocene where our use of fossil fuels has altered the natural world, we, humans, are now called upon to acknowledge that we must change the way we interact with the natural world to ensure that it, others, and ourselves can flourish. Confucianism can provide a way to do this.

As John Berthrong notes, Confucian philosophy, in general, embraces “… a resolutely relational and holistic cosmology …,” and he goes on to note that “… the same kind of immanent transcendence and relational holism …” is reaffirmed in Korean Confucianism and in the 20th century New Confucianism of Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi (Berthrong 2016, p. 326 and note 8). Naturally, we must add Japanese Confucianism to this list. Tu Weiming adds Qian Mu, who focused on the original concepts of Chinese philosophy, avoiding Western ones, to the list of New Confucians who embrace the immanent transcendence of the unity of heaven/nature and humanity (Tu 2001, p. 244). Of course, Wing-Tsit Chan also argued for the importance of the unity of heaven/nature and humanity as a defining general characteristic of Confucian philosophy (Chan 1963). This kind of non-dual, interrelated onto-cosmological Zoetology provides approaches to depth ecology and environmental ethics. Let us look at another example of a contemporary Chinese philosopher for insights on bridging the moral gap between humans and the environment.

2. Li Zehou

Li was instrumental in contemporary Chinese philosophy for breaking down rampant dualistic thinking, especially in his use of acknowledging modern psychology’s findings that emotion and reason are not bifurcated but entail each other (Li 2023; Rošker 2020). The insight that reason is connected to the emotions was noted by David Hume (1711–1776) in his famous quote that “reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” Recognizing the holistic interrelatedness of emotion and reason in human psychology and the evolution of ethics is an important correction for understanding ethical justifications and our moral obligations. Li limits social ethics and personal morality to human-to-human interactions (Li 2023, p. 27). For Li the evolution of human society, ethics, and morality depended on the few who overruled their biological instincts to survive, teaching others the role of self-sacrifice, and the subsequent growth of a legislative will, to set the path for rectified human conduct. This is still very important given man’s inhumanity to other people. However, to some extent Li’s thinking separates human society from the biological natural world. This kind of dualism of culture vs. biology and human vs. nature is at the root of the climate crisis because it both limits human moral behavior to the human-to-human interpersonal level, and it does not acknowledge an existential commitment to the natural world. Li’s historical context had him focused on “humanizing nature” (Rošker 2020, p. 14). Li does acknowledge the Zhuangzi’s move for the “naturalization of humans,” but he limits it to aesthetics (Li 2010, pp. 78–79, 116). The binary division between the natural world and humans that leads to “humanizing nature” needs to be reunited on a spectrum with the “naturalization of humanity” by which I mean humanity’s return to living in accord with the processes of the natural world that creates and sustains us. Humanity needs to embrace an existential parity where everything has value on some level that inspires an existential commitment to be responsible to care for the environment (Sellmann 2002, pp. 161, 189).

But Li did not go far enough to further break down the dualistic split between human culture and the environment or the natural world. Li’s position can be strengthened by adding another aspect from modern psychology. Other animals learn and teach their young. Biologists have been discussing non-human culture in other primates and now in other animals (Whiten 2021). Psychologist James J. Gibson developed a theory of perception affordances that explains how animals and especially humans interact with the natural world from a perspective of what their environment affords them in terms of benefits or harms. In Gibson’s view of ecology, his theory of affordances makes the environment, especially the ecological niche, value laden. In Gibson’s ecology, fact and value merge. Humans and other animals do not perceive abstract things or even mere things. Humans and other animals perceive advantages or threats in their environments. Is it edible prey or a dangerous creature; is it drinkable water or a flood? The environmental survival instinct always perceives value and meaning among the objects in the natural world.

The theory of affordances is a radical departure from existing theories of value and meaning. It begins with a new definition of what value and meaning are. The perceiving of an affordance … is a process of perceiving a value-rich ecological object. Any substance, any surface, any layout has some affordance for benefit or injury to someone. Physics may be value-free, but ecology is not.

(Gibson 1979, p. 140)

… This is only to reemphasize that exteroception is accompanied by proprioception—that to perceive the world is to co-perceive oneself. This is wholly inconsistent with dualism in any form, either mind-matter dualism or mind–body dualism. The awareness of the world and of one’s complementary relations to the world are not separable.

(Gibson 1979, p. 141)

Gibson’s theory of the perception of affordances offers a more realistic perspective on how animals and especially humans interact with and are co-created by their environment. In this sense the natural world is intimately included in the human community. Is this not what the unity of nature and humanity relies upon? Gibson points out that humans have altered the natural world, but we are still a part and parcel of it, defined by the only environment we must inhabit. He hints at the need for environmental ethics in the following.

It is a mistake to separate the natural from the artificial as if there were two environments; artifacts have to be manufactured from natural substances. It is also a mistake to separate the cultural environment from the natural environment, as if there were a world of mental products distinct from the world of material products. There is only one world, however diverse, and all animals live in it, although we human animals have altered it to suit ourselves. We have done so wastefully, thoughtlessly, and, if we do not mend our ways, fatally.

… No matter how powerful men become they are not going to alter the fact of earth, air, and water—…, together with the interfaces that separate them. For terrestrial animals like us, the earth and the sky are the basic structure on which all lesser structures depend. We cannot change it. We all fit into the structures of the environment in our various ways, for we were all, in fact, formed by them. We were created by the world we live in.

(Gibson 1979, p. 130)

Humans can and have altered the environment, but we cannot escape the fact that we ourselves are created by and through our interactions with the natural world, and as such we have both public ethical and personnel moral obligations to the natural world. This kind of environmental think can help reconnect Li to the Confucian environmental tradition. As Zhang Zai proposed in the Western Inscription, the forces of the natural world, yin (our mother) and yang (our father) are our parents. Moreover, due to the mutual co-creative relationship between the environment and humans, our obligations to the natural world are also obligations to fellow community members. It is already apparent that impoverished people are the first and the most adversely affected by climate change. As such we have an obligation to correct the error of our ways with the environment to rectify the past and prevent future human suffering caused by climate change. The first step is to stop altering the climate to protect other people. The next step is to protect the environment for its own sake, which cannot be distinguished or separated from protecting ourselves as integral members of the natural world.

It is interesting to note the literal common ground inhabited by Gibson’s theory of affordances and the Yijing in that both acknowledge the ever-important role that the sky/heavens, and the terrestrial earth play in creating, establishing, and defining the affordance of beneficial–positive (ji 吉and fu 福) and harmful–negative (xiong 凶 and huo 禍) contexts for human life. The natural world described in the Yijing focuses on the basic surface structures, that is, family and social relationships, fire, wind/air, water, metal, wood/plants, soil/minerals, and so on, that offer affordances, auspicious benefits, and inauspicious threats.

Yijing

The Yijing or Scripture of change is also part of the ancient common ground and a foundational text for the evolution of both Daoist and Confucian philosophy (Adler 2014; Ames 2024; Cheng 2000). And yet the Yijing has been ignored by some contemporary scholars because it is connected to the art of divination (Cheng 2000, pp. xi–xii). However, the Yijing is a classical core text of both Confucian and Daoist philosophy, having its roots in the most ancient strategic planning processes dating back to the neolithic period and then being transmitted and expanded to the Xia, Shang, and Zhou Dynasties’ Yijing “texts” and practices (Cheng 2000, p. 32). If we can consider that divination was and still is a human practice of strategic planning, of trying to gain foresight to design ideas for unforeseen future events, then we might be able to accept that the practice of divination is about human attempts to understand the natural world in order to prepare for and embrace positive–benefits, or to avert negative–harms. If we can interpret the Yijing as an attempt to understand the processes of the natural world so that humans can flourish by making strategic plans, not to predict an inevitable, predetermined future, but rather to prepare strategies, techniques, and plans for anticipated patterns that may occur and can reoccur in the natural world, then modern people can explore the insights of the Yijing as a way to reconnect with the natural world and our responsibilities to it and ourselves as members of the natural world.

While emphasizing the non-duality or correlative thinking in the Yijing and Neo-Confucianism, Joseph A. Adler, in his paper on the deep ecology in the Yijing, quoting an earlier paper, explicates how the Scripture of change provides a way for the mutual self-realization of the world and humans:

The chief significance of spirit and spirituality in Neo-Confucianism is not a transcendence of the natural order but a continuity with it …. By actualizing the principle of being human—that is, being ‘authentic’ (cheng 誠) and ‘real’ (shi 實)—one can ‘assist in the transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and earth’ 贊天地之化育 and ‘form a trinity with Heaven and earth’ 與天地參.

(Zhongyong 22)

Thus the cosmology of the Yijing makes possible an interpenetrating, mutually nourishing ‘communion of subjects’ that constitutes the ultimate fulfillment and self-realization of both human beings and the natural world.

(Adler 2014, p. 70, citing (Adler 2004, p. 141))

Based on the bipolar, nondual, correlative thinking approach of the Yijing contemporary Confucians can find connections to environmental ethics of mutual affordances.

But some may ask why should and how can humans support the natural world; does not the tianming 天命 Mandate of Heaven ensure that at least the controlling moral and caring aspect of the natural world is looking out for us? Is it not literally a top-down relationship with tian 天bestowing benefits? How can humans provide benefits for heaven/nature? Is the natural world concerned about human flourishing or is it indifferent. Both the Yijing and the Shijing can be and have been interpreted as containing both possibilities of a concerned vs. an indifferent heaven/nature. How so? The fluctuations between the basic affordances such as being in the light and being in the shade, the soft and the firm, being at rest and being in motion, the solid and broken lines composing the trigrams, and changes between the trigrams and the zhonggua 重卦 sixty-four hexagrams depicting the changes in the natural world can be interpreted as either keys to unlocking the character of a caring universe often depicted as an impersonal god (or even a personal god shangdi 上帝), or these fluctuations in and of the natural world can be interpreted to be indifferent to human flourishing. The divination process can be interpreted as a way to navigate the indifferent character of good and bad omens. Likewise, the Shijing has poetic content proposing the concerned character of heaven, and it also contains passages that the world is indifferent and even cruel. “Great Heaven is unjust. … Great Heaven is unkind” (Legge 1960, p. 312). There are other passages in the Shijing that depict an indifferent heaven (Legge 1960, pp. 500, 520, 559, 564). Because the Zhou court was making a claim that tian was just and moral and the tianming required their rulership, these passages of an indifferent tian can be and have been interpreted as being folded back into the idea of a moral universe. The Shijing passages in which the people are made to suffer unnecessarily for the king’s lack of moral virtue may have inspired Mengzi’s justification to include rebellion as an expression of the tianming in that this move makes the people’s suffering a necessity for the tianming to change the ruler and reestablish a moral universe (Mengzi, 5A5). Whether or not the natural world was moral or amoral, concerned or not concerned about human flourishing led to three alternatives. Strict naturalists such as Zhuangzi held that the natural world is not moral and not concerned about human flourishing. The Kong–Meng and Mozi approach proposed that the natural world was moral and concerned about human flourishing. Others like Xunzi proposed that the universe is moral but indifferent to human flourishing.

3. Xunzi: Embracing Our Celestial Responsibility

Xunzi interprets the natural world in a manner partly similar to Zhuangzi in that they both accept a form of naïve realism, taking the natural world at face value without hidden supernatural, spiritual, forces at work. They accept what we would call a naturalistic perspective, a form of energy–materialism. But they quickly part company because as a follower of Kongzi, Xunzi accepts that the natural world has built-in, innate, moral guidelines. Nature promotes life; animals nurture their offspring, the apparent hierarchical top–down order in nature sets a model for human society. The natural world apparently contains moral virtues, but it does not impose them on us. For Xunzi, humans must work and create (wei 僞) our moral values through education–learning (xue 學) and ritual (li 禮). Although the natural world is not concerned about human flourishing; nevertheless, humans have an obligation to play our part in maintaining the moral values of the natural world.

Xunzi promoted the concept of the triad (can 参) of the three powers (sancai 三才) heaven, earth, and humans (tiandiren 天地人). The concept of the triad was well accepted by the time Xunzi was at the Jixia Academy in Qi, and he made it a central theme of his philosophy “the gentleman (junzi 君子) is the triadic partner with heaven and earth, the supervisor (zong 總) of the myriad things, and the father and mother of the people. If there were no gentleman, heaven and earth would lack any principle of order, and ritual and moral principles would have no guidelines” (modifying (Knoblock 1988, p. 70), citing the Wangzhi chapter 17.2). Humans have a special place in nature and an important role in creating order, but there are basic limitations such that humans ought not to try to replace, take over or overrule the role of tian/nature. As Knoblock notes,

Man must not ‘contest over the work of Nature,’ in which nothing is done yet there is completion and in which nothing is sought yet all is obtained. ‘Heaven has its seasons; Earth its resources; man, his government. This, of course, is why it is said that they ‘can form a Triad.’ When man abandons what he should use to from the Triad, yet longs for the rest of the Triad, he has become deluded.

(modifying (Knoblock 1988, p. 70), citing the Tianlun chapter 17.2)

An important theme in the Discourse on Nature (Tianlun 天論) chapter of the Xunzi is that humans must strive and exert effort to maintain their role in supporting the threefold harmony between heaven, earth, and humans. Heaven endows humans with our inner nature xing 性, but humans must work to improve themselves through self-cultivation, learning, and ritual action, and they must contribute to their destiny ming 命. “Ritual principles are to the state what destiny is to man. Just as man cannot depart from his endowed nature and survive, so too the state cannot depart from ritual principles and survive” (Knoblock 1988, p. 87). I return to the issue of human destiny below.

The Zhongyong passage 22 also proposes that the consummate, achieved person, likely a sage or sage ruler, can also contribute to the nourishing processes of the natural world.

Only those who are absolutely sincere can fully develop their nature. If they can fully develop their nature, they can then fully develop the nature of others. If they can fully develop the nature of others, they can then fully develop the nature of things. If they can fully develop the nature of things, they can assist in the transforming and nourishing processes of Heaven and Earth. If they can assist in the transforming and nourishing processes of Heaven and Earth, they can thus form a trinity with Heaven and Earth.

(modifying (Chan 1963, pp. 107–8))

This passage emphasizes the theme that it is the consummate person who can form the triad and assist with the nourishing processes of the natural world. “Therefore, the basic limitation of the human role emerges from that spontaneously ethical quality of the natural world” (Diana Arghirescu, email correspondence on 8 July 2024). The Zhongyong passage supports Xunzi’s proposal nicely in that it is the supernal sage who must assist the nourishing process.

According to Berthrong, Xunzi’s project recognizes that the human, especially the supernal sage’s, role is to harmonize with the dynamic forces and changing seasons of the natural world, tian, in positive and constructive ways to benefit the people and the state. “While tian provides the lure of the dali 大理 (‘great pattern’), it is human beings who bring virtue to fulfillment and hence are co-creators of a flourishing world” (Berthrong 2016, p. 350). In a sense we can propose that humans can and must relate to tian in a nourishing manner, similar to the way that siblings care for each other (xiong 兄) or the way a child would care for an elderly parent (Li 2024; Z. Li 2015, pp. 144–45). Matthew Duperon develops a case for using Xunzi’s idea that the junzi or supernal sage (shengren 聖人) provides order for the natural world to argue that Xunzi’s approach would support sustainable agriculture (Duperon 2017, pp. 382–85). Agriculture is a human endeavor and promoting sustainable agriculture would be a step in the right direction to improve climate change because modern agriculture is not sustainable, and its use of fossil fuels, chemical fertilizers and pesticides are poisoning us and the planet.

To the extent that human technology and activity have impacted climate change, Xunzi’s policy still holds true today. We must embrace our cosmic and celestial responsibilities and properly nurture and care for the natural world.

Can human activity change the weather and change the climate as a whole? The opening monthly seasonal chapters of the shierji 十二記Twelve Chronicles of the K Chunqiu 呂氏春秋 (ca. 239 BCE) contain the material that became the Yueling 月令 Monthly Ordinance chapter of the Liji 禮記 Record of Rites. Passages from that material relate how the misuse of ritual–technology can have disastrous effects on the climate based on the idea that there is a mutual resonance and response (ganying 感應) between the natural world and humans. The Shijing offers the earliest references to what would later be a dominant theme in pre-Qin philosophy, namely, the “resonance and response of the mutual relationship between heaven/nature and humanity” (Chang and Feng 1998, p. 8). This thinking sets the foundation for tianren heyi 天人合一 the mutual unity between heaven/nature and humanity. The resonance theme is implied in the right to rule bestowed from the tianming 天命 Mandate of Heaven. So, the resonance with heaven theme is especially important in political philosophy and environmental ethics. It applies to undertaking government projects in a timely manner due to the fragile nature of human life and its dependency on the natural world. The resonance theme permeates the ritual–technology requirements contained in the monthly ordinances. What is unique about the monthly ordinance material is that it predicts the Anthropocene claim that human technology and behavior can change the climate. It is obvious that humans benefit when the weather and climate are serene. The monthly ordinances use the reversal concept of the correlative forces of nature returning to the opposite extreme to propose an alternative outcome, namely, that human actions can influence the climate. If the rituals are performed out of season, then climate disaster will ensue. For example, consider the ordinance for the first month of spring that ends with the following admonition.

If in the first month of spring the commands (ling 令) for summer are performed, then the winds and rains will not be seasonable; the grasses and trees will wither early, and the state will there upon become alarmed. If the commands for autumn are performed, then the people will suffer a great plague; severe winds and violent rains will frequently occur, and briars, darnel, brambles and artemisia weeds will flourish among the crops. If the commands for winter are performed, floods and heavy rains will cause ruin; frost and snow will do great damage, and the first-sown crops will not mature to be harvested.

(modifying (Knoblock and Riegel 2000, pp. 63–64))

The Lüshi Chunqiu’s Benwei 本味 Fundamental Flavors chapter relates a story about a great musician who could change the weather conditions with his music (Sellmann 2002, p. 196). Modern people would consider that changing the climate by performing rituals out of season or changing the weather by playing music are types of magical thinking and not realistic. However, the monthly commands anticipate the claim that human behavior and technology can contribute to the Anthropocene’s climate change. Each of the monthly ordinances contains a similar warning that the welfare of the people and the state depend on the proper enactment of the ritual–technology performed at the right time in the proper season, in the correct manner, aligned with the Five Phases, or else climate disaster ensues. Given the Confucian importance of ritual–technology or ritual action to establish social–political harmony coupled with Xunzi’s idea that humans must contribute order to the natural world and not overstep our role, we can build a case for the importance of a Confucian environmental ethics and the need to change our behavior for the sake of maintaining both natural and social–political order.

Chunqiu Fanlu and Lunheng

Li Zehou renders Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (179-104 BCE) the inheritor of the Confucian concepts of “the unity of heaven and humans, the intercommunication and resonance between heaven and humans or the correspondence between heaven and humans” (Li 2010, p. 72). Li attributes this to the Yijing, but as noted above the mutual resonance and response (ganying 感應) is explicitly stated in the Shijing. In the Chunqiu Fanlu 春秋繁露, Dong Zhongshu continues along similar lines as Xunzi, proposing that human’s ought to nurture the natural world. “Humanity tends to the myriad things below and forms a Triad with heaven and earth above 人, 下長萬物，上參天地.” (Lunheng Chinese text project, tiandi yinyang chapter). Following the interpretation of Xunzi above the character zhang 長 means “to be in charge of things in a virtuous manner,” not to lord it over them, but to treat them in a kind and nurturing manner. The importance of the resonance and response (ganying 感應) concept between humanity and the natural world and the concept of the Triad relationship of humanity’s responsibility to assist with nourishing others and being responsible for bringing order to the world, we can build a case for the Confucian sage being at home everywhere in the natural world. If the world itself is one’s home, then it would make good sense to properly tend to it, to nurture it, and to keep it clean, not to sully or damage the home terrain that human and all life depend upon. The Lunheng Shuxu 書虛 chapter contains two interesting expressions that the sages took the natural world or empire to be their family home. The two expressions are contained in the following passages.

16: 儒書言：舜葬於蒼梧，禹葬於會稽者，巡狩年老，道死邊土。聖人以天下為家，不別遠近，不殊內外，故遂止葬。

According to Confucian writings, Shun was buried in Cangwu and Yu in Huiji because he was old and died on the border. The sages took the world/empire to be their home, not distinguishing between near and far, or inside and outside, so they subsequently could be buried there.

19: 實、舜、禹之時，鴻水未治。堯傳於舜，舜受為帝，與禹分部，行治鴻水。堯崩之後，舜老，亦以傳於禹。舜南治水，死於蒼梧；禹東治水，死於會稽。賢聖家天下，故因葬焉。

(Lunheng Chinese text project)

In the time of Shun and Yu, the great flood was not yet controlled. Yao ceded the throne to Shun, who became the emperor and shared his power with Yu to manage the great flood. After Yao’s death, Shun grew old and passed the reins to Yu. Shun, who controlled the flood in the south, died in Cangwu; Yu, who managed the flood in the east, died in Huiji. Because the superior sages were at home in the empire, relying on this they were buried in those places.

Based on the first passage, which clearly states that “the sages took the world/empire to be their home, not distinguishing between near and far or inside and outside, so, they subsequently could be buried (there),” I translate the second passage 賢聖家天下，故因葬焉as “because the superior sages were at home in the empire, so relying on this they were buried in those places.” It might be proposed that we can read jia 家 as a verb meaning “to family the world” or “to make the world family,” which would strengthen the mutual relationship between the natural world and humanity, and our need to behave ethically to and with the environment. Either way, that is either being at home anywhere in the world or making the world one’s home, both interpretations require that we behave appropriately in relation to the natural world. Does changing our behavior restrict or liberate humanity? One way to approach that question is to draw a connection between the Confucian project of becoming human and Eliot Deutsch’s approach to achieving personhood. It is clear especially from the Zhongyong passage 22 cited above that human nature is an ongoing developmental process. For the Confucian project to succeed, people must be exposed to cultural refinements, education, learning, moral virtues, and ritual action. We are born human, but we must achieve our personhood. Deutsch likewise proposed a model for achieving our personhood, freedom, and destiny.

4. Deutsch on Achieving Personhood, Freedom, and Destiny

Eliot Deutsch developed the concept of achieving personhood in which he proposes that a person is more than a biological individual with a psychological self as an orientating function (Deutsch 1982, 1992, pp. 21–23). The achievement of personhood depends on the biological body of the individual, the self, its emotions, feelings, and especially its memories, developing, and functioning within a social–cultural matrix. The achievement of personhood entails acting in a graceful, aesthetic, creative, skillful manner, being able to spontaneously perform activities that generate higher levels of freedom. For Deutsch, freedom is also an achievement concept. Humans are not born free persons; we must grow, develop, and achieve our personhood and our freedom. As Deutsch describes it:

Maturation is a matter not of discovering who I am but of creating the socially informed sensitive person that is right for me. A person who is right is like a work of art; he or she is a simplification that is richly constituted. …

The term ‘freedom,’ then, as applied to a person qua rightly articulated persona, is simply part and parcel of the meaning of personhood.

The self, being fully spontaneous, is completely without limit. It is never other than itself.

A person—the integrated, articulated, particular human being—is free to the degree to which he or she realizes the self and allows that spontaneity to be a determining factor in the creative forming of an appropriate persona.

Freedom is thus a quality of achieved personhood.

(Deutsch 1992, p. 30)

Deutsch notes that the achievement of personhood occurs within a social–cultural context in which the person is a member of a family and a community, taking elements from and creatively contributing to their cultural tradition. He acknowledges the importance of learning from Chinese approaches to humanity’s social nature, and he proposes that social constraints provide the opportunities for self-cultivation for the achievement of personhood (Deutsch 1992, 234 N29). The idea that our person-making, personhood, or human becoming, is an ongoing personal and cultural developmental journey and achievement is evident in the work of Ames, Li, and Rošker (Ames 2021; Li 2023; Rošker 2020), and for the Confucian tradition.

For Deutsch, free actions, like works of art, “… involve a timing that is right for them” (Deutsch 1982, p. 118). The timely performance of free action reflects a person’s achievement of personhood. “It (a properly timed free action) will thus be obedient to what is called for by the situation and it will reflect wholly the rhythm of the actor’s own achieved persona” (Deutsch 1982, p. 118). In addition to the loving care and concern that is needed to embody natural grace, a kind of “wonderment” is also required. This wonder is not an absent-minded gaping at the world,

… rather it is a kind of joyful harmony. Wonder involves … an awareness of belonging to a spiritual domain of being; it involves a sense of shared participation. But it is not that one simply feels part of something else; rather it is that self and world belong together in joyous accompaniment. In wonderment I retain myself as a person while being entirely with the world.

(Deutsch 1982, pp. 118–19)

The unity of our achieved freedom leads to the issue of our destiny. What kind of creative destiny do we want for ourselves and our natural world?

To have a destiny means to have the lively conviction that one is and is becoming what was meant for one to be. Destiny is a creative performance: an acting out in freedom of what seems entirely right for one—until the very end.

(Deutsch 1992, p. 228)

Deutsch’s sense of self-cultivation that innovatively creates one’s personhood aligns nicely with the Confucian project and for creating our destiny. As shown above there is a long-standing Confucian tradition of integrating the inner life of the person within a social–cultural context to manifest and contribute to the natural order of the world. To live freely, spontaneously, in accord with our natural tendencies, drives and desires, to fully achieve our personhood, to achieve our freedom and destiny, then, we must change our comportment to live in harmony with the natural world with both personal moral and social ethical behaviors. It is our proper destiny to freely live in harmony with the natural world.

5. Conclusions

Scientists warned us that we were damaging the environment decades ago, and we have done little to attempt to restore our place in the natural order of things. This paper provides a Confucian approach to depth ecology. Despite the variety of Confucian approaches to virtue ethics and living in harmony with the natural world, few Confucians have fully embraced their responsibilities for the environment. The paper reviews ancient and modern Confucian philosophers to explicate some of the ways that their teachings expose our fundamental responsibilities to care for the environment to tend to human needs. As humanity approaches the so-called tipping point in global warming, the necessity to embrace our existential commitment to care for and to nurture the natural world is readily apparent.