Implications of the Biocultural Ethic for Earth Stewardship - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 115

Fig. 9.1 The biocultural ethic affi rms the vital value of the links that have coevolved between
specifi c life Habits, Habitats, and communities of co-in-Habitants (“3Hs”). In the inner level of this
fi gure, the core components of the biocultural ethic are matched with the core components identii ed
for Earth stewardship: Habitat/Earth, Habit/Stewardship, co-in-Habitants/Earth Stewards (see
Chap. 8 in this volume). h e intermediate level illustrates that each of the core-components is
constituted by biophysical dimensions ( blue ), symbolic-linguistic-cultural dimensions ( yellow ),
and institutional-socio-political, infrastructural-technological dimensions ( green ). h e green
color, a blending of blue and yellow , indicates that the biocultural ethic requires that the particular
biophysical and symbolic-linguistic-cultural dimensions are carefully considered by the
institutional, policy, and infrastructure dimensions. h e external circle is based on comparative
philosophical analyses, which focus on three families of ecological worldviews that inform the
biocultural ethic: (a) Amerindian and other non-Western ecological worldviews, (b) pre-
Socratic and other non-mainstream Western philosophies, and (c) contemporary ecological
sciences. h e biocultural ethic fosters inter-cultural dialogues and practices among heterogeneous,
rich cultural traditions and communities of Earth stewards (which are ot en overlooked in academia
and socio-environmental policy-making). h e circular forms in the i gure indicate that both
scientii c and traditional ecological forms of knowledge and practices (including its multiple
components and interactions) are dynamic; they have changed historically, and I emphasize that
they can change today to orient forms of inter-cultural Earth stewardship
A fi rst philosophical clarifi cation is that: if decision making is governed ulti-
mately by economic interests and the power of the wealthy, then the governance
regime should be called plutocratic rather than democratic (cfr. Lutz et al. 2007 ;
Freeland 2012 ). Plutocracy (Gr. ploutos = wealth; kratos = power or rule) defi nes a
society ruled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens, a form of oligarchy
(Gr. olígos = few), while democracy (Gr. dêmos = people) defi nes a society ruled by
the majority of people. Former U.S. president Abraham Lincoln concisely defi ned
democracy as the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” (Lijphart