Hermeneutics and Field Environmental Philosophy: Integrating Ecological Sciences and Ethics into Earth Stewardship - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 232

biological species? And, especially: What theoretical framework does FEP provide
for tracing a hermeneutical path towards an ecological Earth stewardship?
One archaic reason for conceiving Earth as a purely economic resource for
exploitation derives from a biased interpretation of the biblical Genesis. The words
“…fi ll the Earth and subdue it” (1:28) have been interpreted from an anthropocen-
tric and utilitarian perspective, with a reductionist interpretation that lacks a histori-
cal and hermeneutic context (see White 1967 ). Considering that humans are created
in the image and likeness of God, this text has been interpreted as teaching that
humans are privileged beings with the right and divine endorsement to use nature
without restriction. The “land” or “Earth” (not the creation) is an object to be domi-
nated and conquered. In addition, a monotheistic theological justifi cation prevents
conceiving nature as a sacred reality with its own subjectivity -if its subjectivity
were recognized, then nature would demand respect rather than be subjected to the
desires of exploitation of the human will.
This reifying theological conception of the Earth and the land ruptures the link
between humans and nature. Similarly, the natural sciences also have established a
reifying conception based on the epistemological dichotomy: “subject-object” (see
Klaver 2014 ). Such separation has its sources in the epistemology of early modern
sciences. Descartes (1596-1650) believed that non-human living organisms were
equivalent to machines and that all material reality was res extensa -i.e., a mere
measurable thing. This is the sphere of the object. In contrast, human beings are
conscious of themselves, they are res cogitans -i.e., a “thinking thing,” and there-
fore a subject that controls everything else.
This reifying attitude was instilled in land use planning and management through
the foundational ideas of economic liberalism expressed by John Stuart Mill. In his
infl uential topic Principles of Political Economy ( Stuart Mill 1978 ), the “Earth” or
“land” is considered to be “soil” -i.e., as a factor of production and capital. Mill
introduced these ideas specifi cally in Chapter XII, Book I of his work entitled “Of
the Law of the Increase of Production from Land,” whose name expresses the focus
on production. Later in Book III, Chapter VI “Summary of the Theory of Value,”
Mill adopted the capacity of production as the only value of land. Following this
utilitarian view, today “natural resources” commonly refer to nature.
With archaic biblical slogans and the emerging epistemology and political econ-
omy of modernity, the objectifi cation and exploitation of the land and the Earth have
been endorsed. Mill's idea continues even today, stimulating attempts to evaluate
the biosphere in monetary terms. In the framework of market economy, in 1997 the
value of ecosystem goods and services delivered by the biosphere was estimated in
an annual amount of 33 trillion dollars (Costanza et al. 1997 ). This example illus-
trates how the prevailing ways in which the Earth is conceived and understood
today, and how this understanding infl uences the prevailing ways in which humans
assess, inhabit, and manage the Earth today (Rozzi 1999 ).
Contemporary ecological sciences have disclosed, however, that the notion of
Earth or land as a mere factor of production and capital should be expanded into the
notion of biosphere (Naeem 2013 ). Moreover, the concept of sustainability itself
goes beyond a purely economic condition. Sustainability is more than the perpetual