TWO: THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF THE MfSP.

i) Humans' Debts to Wildlife.

It was not god but Plants, Micro-organisms and Wildlife who created the Earth. It was not god but Wildlife who created humans. Humans owe a huge ecological debt to Wildlife because Wildlife created the Earth's habitability, and they owe an existential debt to Wildlife because Wildlife created humans.

ii) Geocentrism.

Geocentrism is the belief that all value derives from the Earth. The more a species contributes to the maintenance of the Earth's habitability the more valuable that species is, the greater its Earth value. The more a species destroys the Earth's habitability the greater is its negative Earth value. The scale of the pollution and ecological devastation determines Earth value. It is possible to measure the exact contribution of each species to the Planet's geophysiology and scientifically determine its Earth value. Whilst most Animals produce little pollution and protect the Planet's ability to carry out Photosynthesis, humans dump huge quantities of pollution into the environment and are devastating the Planet's life support system. Bacteria, Ants and Worms contribute more to the Planet's life-sustaining processes than humans. In fact, all Animal species are doing more to protect the Planet than humans. From the Earth's perspective humans not merely have a lower Earth value than Wildlife but, as the most geophysiologically destructive species on Earth, theys have a negative Earth value. Why is it, then, that the only Animals on the Planet with votes are those causing the greatest ecological destruction?

Geocentrism is capable of extreme precision and could measure the contribution made to the Planet's life-sustaining processes not merely by each species but by each individual within each species. This is of especial relevance to humans given the wide disparity between those in the over-industrialized world who cause a considerable amount of destruction to the Earth's life support system and those in third world countries most of whom make a far smaller impact and some even have a positive impact on the Earth.

The only way to create a sustainable Planet, and ensure climatic stability, is to allocate land to each species according to their Earth value since species with a high Earth value protect and preserve the Earth's ecological processes. The greater the Earth value the greater the entitlement to land. Whilst Wildlife would be allocated huge areas of land because they protect the Planet's life sustaining processes, humans would be entitled only to a much smaller area. However, humans could increase their Earth value by reducing their pollution and their ecological devastation.

The first step on the road to ecocide is allowing humans with an exceedingly low Earth value to expropriate Wildlife habitats and then smother the land in tarmac and cement. It is the height of ecological stupidity to allow the human population in low earth value countries to go on expanding at the expense of Wildlife populations because all this does is to replace Planet-saving creatures with Earth-wreckers - which is more absurd than replacing bank managers with gangsters.

iii) The Ecological Threat Posed by Humanism.

The cultural origin of the modern age was the scientific rediscovery of the fact known to the ancient greeks that the sun did not revolve around the Earth. It was a profound shock for the christian world to discover that god had not created the solar system solely for the benefit of the Earth and its inhabitants. Whilst this may have been unsettling, christians still had the consolation that god had created humans and gave them dominion over the Earth and its Wildlife. This view became secularized during the modern age into various forms of humanism in which humans became the measure of all value, the Lords and Masters of the Earth, the most important species on Earth. This entitled humans to do whatsoever they wished to the Earth and allowed them to maim, mutilate and murder as many Animals as they wished.

It has become transparent in the most recent cultural revolution, however, that it is the Earth which is the measure of all value. Humanism is the biggest threat to the Planet's life support system. Until humans accept that they are just one species amongst many and that they are far from being the most important they will not survive. The crucial issue of our time is not global warming but the dismantling of humanism.

iv) Humans Are Planetary Beings.

As has been pointed out there are three types of Earthly beings. All of them have an impact on the Earth's life sustaining processes and, in turn, are affected by those processes. The main difference between humans and Animals is that only humans know that they have an impact on the global ecology and that they are capable of changing the Planet's geophysiology. In other words, only humans are Planetary beings. Only humans realize they live on a finite planet (even if they totally refuse to recognize the implications of such a basic fact) and only humans have Planetary responsibilities. Although humans have divided the Earth into segments owned by countries (and within each country the Earth is further divided into segments owned by individuals or collections of individuals) all humans, as Planetary beings, have a vested interest in, and responsibilities for, the ecological viability of all parts of the Earth. Any damage inflicted on any part of the Earth affects all humans and the protection of one part of the Earth benefits all humans. Humans can fulfil their status as Planetary beings only when they regulate the Planet's climate and protect Biodiversity. When humans act as Planetary beings they increase their Earth value.

Humans are not god's children; they are not pilgrims; they are not space explorers for whom the Earth is a mere launch pad for space exploration and colonization; they are not local beings or universal beings in a 'human-centred universe'. They are Planetary beings; Earth-bound, mortal beings living on a finite Planet.

v) Planetary Policies determine Local Policies.

If humans are to regulate the Earth's climate and create a sustainable Planet they have to formulate Planetary policies because the Earth's climate is a unitary entity. All countries must co-operate to produce the correct scale of global Forest cover and a specific concentration of atmospheric Carbon. This has a number of implications:-

Firstly, it is impossible to create an ecologically sound village, region, nation, or continent in the midst of global ecological chaos. There is no such thing as ecology in one village, in one region, in one country, or on one continent. If the Earth's life support system collapses then all humans perish.

Secondly, it is theoretically impossible for any village, region, nation, or continent to justify any policy as ecologically sound if there are no global policies to maintain a sustainable Planet. It is possible to justify a policy as ecologically sound only by showing how it fits into global policies.

Thirdly, Planet-wide policies to create and preserve a sustainable Planet must determine national (and regional and communal) policies and not, as at present, the other way around. At the moment, all 150 odd countries around the world are engaging in activities which are changing the climate by dumping pollution into the atmosphere and by ransacking their Forests. If the scale of a country's Carbon pollution and its devastation of Forests was duplicated by all other countries around the world then this would give rise to 150 different climates. In effect, the world's 150 countries are inadvertently attempting to create 150 different global climates - or, to put this in another way, they are pulling the present climate in 150 different directions (but most are moving in the direction of increasing global warming). If this is allowed to continue, there will inevitably be a geophysiological breakdown. Supporters of national sovereignty believe that nations have the right, in effect, to create their own climate. (This also applies to decentralists who support communal autonomy/sovereignty, and also to bioregionalists who support bioregional sovereignty). But, whilst it may be possible for countries (or communities) to become economically self-sufficient, or achieve resource self-sufficiency, it is impossible to achieve ecological self sufficiency because there is only one climate.

Fourthly, there are, in effect, no local solutions to environmental problems. Solutions to local ecological issues can be determined only within a geophysiological context. It is transparent, therefore, that greens need to be far more concerned about globalization than they are about decentralization.

vi) The Biocentric Principle.

It has been pointed out above that humans currently have a negative Earth value whilst virtually all Animals have positive Earth values. However, if humans decided to act as Planetary beings and regulate the climate this would considerably increase their Earth value. From a situation where humans have the lowest Earth value, they could acquire the highest Earth value.

Geocentrism is not a moral theory. It is an objective, scientific assessment of the ecological value of the Earth's various life-forms. It measures the contribution of each species to the Earth's habitability (or, as will be seen in the next chapter, their relationship to the Earth's global Carbon cycle). Although the Earth value of a climate-regulating human race would be greater than that of other Animal species this would not entitle humans to kill Animals nor to exterminate Wildlife and take over their ecological functions. Humans couldn't increase their Earth value by expropriating the Earth value of other species.

The moral relationship between humans and Animals is determined by the Biocentric principle that humans owe a geophysiological and an existential debt to Wildlife. Humans should repay these moral debts firstly, by not using, abusing or killing animals and, secondly, by preserving Wildlife species in their own habitats i.e. human free, Wilderness zones. Planetary humans would be no more entitled to exterminate Animals because of their lower Earth value than Animals are entitled to kill humans because humans currently have the lowest Earth value. The extermination of Animal species, the colonization of their habitats, and the usurpation of their ecological functions may be scientifically feasible but it is morally unacceptable.

The biocentric principle is not the same as anti-speciesism. The former is concerned with the moral justification for allocating areas of land for the sovereign use of each species on Earth i.e. preserving habitats for each species; whereas the latter is concerned with regulating the way that humans behave towards Animals. The former is based on the assumption that humans should be kept as far away from Animals as possible because the vast majority of them seem to be unable to show any decency towards, let alone have a moral relationship with, Animals.

vii) The Earth is Full Up.

One of the basic geophysiological realities pointed out above, is that there are Wildlife, pollution, Photosynthetic and climatic limitations to human existence. There is a point at which the killing of Wildlife species will lead to the extermination of the human race. There is a point at which dumping too much pollution into the atmosphere will lead to a nuclear winter and mass starvation. There is a point at which the devastation of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity will cause climatic changes which will have profound consequences for the ecological services on which humans depend and which will, ultimately make the Earth inhospitable for humans. The turning point is more difficult to discern in some cases rather than others. But in all cases it can be suggested that when humans reach these turning points the Earth can be said to be 'full up'.

There are ways of working out when the Earth is full up:-

As regards wildlife, this point can be determined using Earth values mentioned above.

As regards those types of atmospheric pollution which cause a nuclear winter, this can be determined easily through a few calculations.

As regards the atmospheric pollution which boosts the greenhouse effect; it has been estimated that the limit is somewhere in the region of 200 parts per million by volume of Carbon.

As regards the destruction of Photosynthesis, this cannot be calculated independently of the greenhouse effect since the concentration of atmospheric Carbon has an influence on, and is influenced by, the scale of Photosynthesis.

It also depends on a number of other climatic factors so it is not yet possible to say which is the critical point of Photosynthetic destruction.

There are a number of theorists who believe that a number of countries have already exceeded their ecological limitations, "Thus Western Europe is even more over-extended ecologically in relation to its own resources than the United States." (William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan JR 'Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling of the American Dream' WH Freeman and Company, New York 1992 p.256); "In terms of ecological scarcity Japan's situation is much more desperate than that of Europe." (William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan JR 'Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling of the American Dream' WH Freeman and Company, New York 1992 p.257).

There are some theorists who believe that even the Earth itself is full up, "Taking the world as a whole, the point of overdevelopment has long been surpassed. Yet most people, including many 'greens' are prepared to sacrifice more environments .. by consenting to a bit more development - one more motorway, one more housing estate, one more hotel, one more factory, one more plantation, one more quarry." (Sandy Irvine 'Towards a Politics of Ecology' 1993 p.3-4).

The regulation of the climate will limit the amount of pollution dumped into the atmosphere and will determine the scale of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. Keeping within these limits should prevent humans from the damaging consequences of climate change. As will be shown later, it will also be possible to determine climate limitations for each country and each region within each country. The regulation of the climate determines when the Earth is full-up, when countries are full-up, and when each region within each country, is full-up.

viii) The Principle of Global Ecological Equity.

The regulation of the climate will require a a specific concentration of atmospheric Carbon and a specific degree of Forest cover. If humans were starting from scratch they might decided to locate all the Forests for controlling the climate in just one part of the world - say in the temperate regions of the Earth. This would allow humans to occupy other regions of the Earth in greater numbers. The fact is though that humans are currently rooted in nation-states and there is very little chance that of changing this in order to create a sustainable Planet where Forests are based primarily in one part of the Earth. If the climate is to be regulated then, as a result of the current nation-state system, each nation-state must take an equal share of the burden of providing Forest cover. This provides a rough and ready measure of the ecological limitations to which each country must adhere.

On the basis of the facts firstly, that 40% of the Earth's Photosynthesis has been expropriated; secondly, that there has been a reduction in Photosynthesis of 13%; and, thirdly, that if humans continue to expropriate and reduce Photosynthesis at the current rates an ecological collapse is inevitable, then no country should be allowed to exceed these limits. Friends of the Earth have estimated that if present trends continue then 20% of the United Kingdom will be covered in tarmac and cement by 2050. (There are no specific figures either for the reduction in the country's Photosynthetic capacity or for the expropriation of the country's Photosynthetic capacity but given the scale of the deforestation which has taken place since the start of the industrial revolution, it is undoubtedly far beyond either of the limitations just proposed). It is transparent therefore that if Britain is allowed to get away with suffocating such a large segment of its share of the Planet's geophysiology and expropriating a large proportion of the Planet's geophysiology, then all other governments around the world will use this as a justification for pursuing policies which will cause a similar scale of destruction in their own countries. One way of stopping this legitimization of further ecological destruction is to adopt the principle of global ecological equity. This would stop any country from damaging its share of the Planet's geophysiology to such an extent that if all other countries around the world did the same then a global geophysiological collapse would occur.