A 21st-Century Environmental Ethic: Theistically-Conscious Biocentric and Biomimetic Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Preliminary remark: I am a Christian theologian specialized in ethics of creation – so I read the passages about Hindu theology with great interest, but little knowledge!

The article proceeds in four steps: In the first step, Aldo Leopold's land ethics are taken up. Its basic concern is acknowledged, but at the same time the limits of a purely holistic approach are also shown. In the second step, a holistically informed biocentrism is designed. In the third step, the author draws on Arne Naess' Deep Ecology and the Vaiṣṇavism tradition in Hinduism. The conclusions made here, that God is the "Supreme Proprietor" (l. 543) and that creation is His extended self, are very inspiring and convincingly derived from Hindu tradition. The core idea appears in l. 565-572: What from a human perspective are nothing but separate intrinsic values of individual individuals, from a divine perspective is the multiplicity of functions of the Absolute as the Organic Whole. With this thesis, the author conclusively binds together the first three parts of his exposition. In the fourth part, the author addresses a completely different question: How can capitalism, which dominates human activity around the globe and is based on the destruction of large parts of nature, be transformed. Here, the author advocates a very special form of biomimicry.

Overall, the article is extraordinarily inspiring, clearly structured and well argued. It should definitely be published. Nevertheless, it has 3 major weaknesses that should necessarily be fixed before release:

1. Section 4 opens up a completely different topic. This is too important to be treated only as the fourth part of an article. It deserves its own article and should therefore be taken out of here.
2. I don't understand why it matters to the core theses of the article whether or not life evolved from matter (l. 386-439). Why can't this remain open? In my opinion, the presentation would become more plausible if this section were omitted.
3. After careful reading of the article, I am not sure whether the different epistemic status of a scientific truth of fact and an ethical or theological truth of faith is sufficiently conscious. A factual truth can be proven – a truth of faith can only be plausible. A factual truth compels its recognition, a truth of faith promotes its recognition, which nevertheless remains a free decision. This should be stated and taken into account more explicitly in the text.
4. A very small remark: I know that most English speaking authors rightly speak about “biocentrism”, but falsely correlate it with the adjective “biocentric”. The correlative adjective is “biocentristic” or “biocentrist”.

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer 1, namaste. Your advice is happily received and effort to improve my paper is greatly appreciated. Please find your review points italicized below with my reply following them. 

Section 4 opens up a completely different topic. This is too important to be treated only as the fourth part of an article. It deserves its own article and should therefore be taken out of here.

Agreed. I have removed all paragraphs that elaborate on capitalism, while keeping a brief mention of ecological economics as an instance of biomimetic innovation.

I don't understand why it matters to the core theses of the article whether or not life evolved from matter (l. 386-439). Why can't this remain open? In my opinion, the presentation would become more plausible if this section were omitted.

While I didn’t omit this section, it has been significantly altered. I elaborated on the difficulty with the origin of life from matter as resulting from modern scientists’ understanding of matter as a mind-independent substance, which divorces life from being inherently connected with mind/cognition/consciousness, where the positive connection between matter, life, and mind is an important theme in my paper.  I’ve also provided a lengthy yet relevant quote regarding Louis Pasteur’s perspective on how the validity of spontaneous generation of life from matter might negatively impact a theological worldview. I present biogenesis as an empirical principle that seems more in line with a mind-dependent view of matter, but have removed definitive statements regarding the correctness of either biogenesis or abiogenesis. I hope these changes articulate the relevance of this topic to the rest of the paper while also making this section of the paper more open to an ongoing conversation.  

After careful reading of the article, I am not sure whether the different epistemic status of a scientific truth of fact and an ethical or theological truth of faith is sufficiently conscious. A factual truth can be proven – a truth of faith can only be plausible. A factual truth compels its recognition, a truth of faith promotes its recognition, which nevertheless remains a free decision. This should be stated and taken into account more explicitly in the text.

This is the only point that I disagree with, presuming I’ve correctly understood what is being offered. So called “scientific truth of fact” constantly change, as the historical development of scientific theories attests. Scientific facts are really models of reality relevant to our limited scope of perception. That is why we entertain the circumstantial validity of Newtonian gravity, Einstein’s special relativity, and quantum mechanics, despite the lack of integration among these models. These are as much in the realm of plausability as faith. Thus, in Physics and Philosophy, Heisenberg says: “We cannot disregard the fact that natural science is formed by men. Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is a part of the interplay between nature and ourselves; it describes nature as exposed to our method of questioning. This was a possibility of which Descartes could not have thought, but it makes the sharp separation between the world and the I impossible.” I’ve expanded on the dynamic interplay between the subject and object in the section of the paper relevant to your previous point about matter.   

A very small remark: I know that most English speaking authors rightly speak about “biocentrism”, but falsely correlate it with the adjective “biocentric”. The correlative adjective is “biocentristic” or “biocentrist”.

While your remark is appreciated and well taken, I must continue utilizing “biocentric” in order to speak to readers familiar with the established environmental ethic called “biocentric individualism,” despite its using the wrong adjective. I have, however, changed one of the keywords from “biocentrism” to “biocentric individualism” to at least remain consistent within this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This submission attempts to construct “a theistically-conscious biocentric environmental ethic,” concurrently as an answer to the call of and a rejection to Leopold’s land ethic. Throughout this submission, the theistically-conscious ethic is presented as “a synthesis of biocentric individualism, deep ecology, and Vaisnava theology.” In the opening part of the submission (Section 1), the authors' (speaking as we/our in the text) make concerted efforts for "adopting Leopold's framing while rejecting [his] land ethic" (pp.1-4) by alleging his "The Land Ethic" of leaving out "the unique functions and contributions that individuals make" (p.4). This allegation appears to be the basis of the authors’ bringing in the biocentric individualism; however, from this reviewer’s reading, it likely results from a misreading or a partial understanding of Leopold’s text, in which he does not undervalue the ecological role of individuals but rather emphasizes their interdependence and symbiotic relations with the ecological environment (community) they live in. The reviewer’s assessment is based on what Leopold writes in the two consecutive sections (The Ethical Sequence” and “The Community Concept”) in “The Land Ethic” (pp.202-204). The authors’ allegation also likely originates from their felt discomfort about Leopold’s repositioning the role of humankind as “plain member and citizen” of the land-community instead of as a species with the “capacity for higher-order thought,” which, the authors of this submission believe, is undervalued (p.3-Line 109). As Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” clearly focuses on land as the community of “soils, waters, plants, and animals…” (Leopold 204), the “higher-order thought” is not its concern. Neither is it rejected. It plainly regards humans as an ecological member of the land-community. It makes little sense that the authors of this submission build an argument against something Leopold does not address at all in his text.

Overall, this reviewer recommends the publication of this submission upon a substantial revision that (1) either demonstrates an evidenced argument or (2) leave Leopold out and straightforwardly argue for “a theistically-conscious biocentric environmental ethic” by synthesizing biocentric individualism, deep ecology, and Vaisnava theology as the authors intend to accomplish. This reviewer prefers the second option as he thinks that this submission stands well without setting up Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” as the unnecessary stepping stone or an unfounded antithesis for constructing the authors’ own thesis.

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer 2, namaste. Your comments are sincerely appreciated as they’ve highlighted aspects of my argument that require clarity and strengthening. Your review seems to boil down to two points, which I’ve paraphrased in italics below. My response is below the points. Keeping your points in mind, you suggest that I “(1) either demonstrate an evidenced argument or (2) leave Leopold out.” It would be impossible for me to leave Leopold out of my paper, as he sets an imperative fourfold standard for what an environmental ethic must entail. As will be seen in my direct response to your points below, a closer reading of Leopold’s original work puts me at practically complete agreement with what he laid out. The current draft of my paper includes tremendous changes to Section 1, which has been renamed from “Adopting Leopold’s Framing while Rejecting the Land Ethic” to “Identifying Leopold’s Standard for Environmental Ethics.” After elaborating on what the four aspects of Leopold’s standard are – offering sufficient textual references – the rest of the paper builds upon them. Before moving on to directly address your two points, please allow me to offer a paragraph from the recent draft explaining Leopold’s standard:

“Leopold established an ethical standard that comprises (1) acknowledging the psychological and sociological evolution that underlies both recognizing the need for an environmental ethic in modern times as well as rising to the occasion of its heartfelt implementation, (2) transcending anthropocentric economic value as the sole determiner of humanity’s ecological decisions while simultaneously accommodating them to an appropriate extent, (3) recognizing the necessity of individual responsibility and care for land in ecological decision making – Leopold calls this “ecological conscience,” and (4) providing a unified mental image of the dynamic aspects of the land which an individual can relate to, feel included in, and genuinely care about. Passages from the “Land Ethic” – provided in the appropriate forthcoming sections of this article – clearly establish these points, although mitigating against interpretations of Leopold’s commentators that detract from them is required. In subsequent sections, the proposed theistically conscious biocentric ethic proves to meet this standard in innovative and progressive ways.”

The author’s original rejection of the core of Leopold’s land ethic due to the allegation that it does not properly consider “the unique functions and contributions that individuals make” is based upon a misreading of Leopold’s work. 

You are right. It turns out my quarrel isn’t with Leopold at all, but with J Baird Callicott’s version of Leopold. A closer reading of Leopold’s “land pyramid” section does indeed articulate the need for  “kinds and functions, of the component species” of the land. However, the allegations I made in the previous draft of this paper were based off of a correct reading of Callicott, who although being one of the leading Leopoldian interpreters, has been criticized for overemphasiszing the agency of the collective. This has been rigorously dealt with in the current version of the paper. Here’s one paragraph from the paper proving the point:

“Due to ‘Callicott [implying] that, ultimately, a land ethic identifies the locus of supreme moral value as residing within biotic wholes (i.e., ecosystems), not within any individual type of organism, human or otherwise’ (Dixon, 2017, p 272), ‘Tom Regan charges that the [Callicottian interpretation of the] land ethic amounts to ‘environmental fascism’. [...] [I]ndictment of the land ethic as being fascistic is wrongheaded, as is Callicott’s early interpretation of Leopold which supports such a skewed hierarchical view’ (Dixon, 2017, p 275).”  

The authors’ allegation also likely originates from their felt discomfort about Leopold’s repositioning the role of humankind as “plain member and citizen” of the land-community instead of as a species with the “capacity for higher-order thought.” This is an inappropriate basis for rejecting the land ethic due to it focusing on the land as a community of soils, waters, plants, and animals, and not their cognitive capacities.  

My current understanding of the land ethic is no longer at odds with humanity’s capacity for higher thought. As referenced several places in the current paper, Leopold is encouraging humanity as a thinking community to rise to the level of “ecological conscience” in order to lovingly relate to the land and embrace stewardship. He even encourages that environmental ethics link with philosophical and religious pursuits in order to more effectively reach the hearts of the people. Leopold says “No important change in ethics was ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and convictions. The proof that conservation has not yet touched these foundations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophy and religion have not yet heard of it.” This gives sufficient reason to build on the land ethic as I have done in this paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for accepting this reviewer's suggestions for revision. The current revision (v.3) shows the substantial efforts of the author to re-visit the Leopold's texts, differentiate Leopold's original thoughts from Callicott's interpretation of them, and revise the initial argument. The reviewer appreciates the author's current explicit position with Leopold's land ethic instead of defending his or her earlier position for concurrently "adopting Leopold's framing while rejecting the land ethic." The current revision reads much more coherently especially from p.1 to p.9.
While this reviewer finds the author's intent to connect Vaisnava theology with Leopold's land ethic barely convincing, he nevertheless reads this manuscript as an experiment of the author and trusts the readers of this forthcoming article will offer feedback to the author about how an ecology in Vaisnava theology is best recognized and whether or not Leopold's land ethic hosts an unsaid theistic consciousness. Thanks for your contribution to Religions.