Introduction: Linking Ecology and Ethics for an Interregional and Intercultural Earth Stewardship - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 7

human genesis and as the means that make life possible. Humanity is seen as being
part of a network of interrelationships binding together the earth and the human, in
such a way that a good and just life is facilitated, as conveyed by the Andean idea of
Pachamama . In Aymara and other Andean societies, May highlights the multiple
and important functions of llamas. Even the dung they produce is worthy of respect
and care because it contributes to the cycle of life through enriched soil for cultiva-
tion. It is this integral respect for the animal that makes the llama a fi tting metaphor
for stewardship. Reading stewardship from the praxis of peasant societies such as
the Aymara, provides a perspective that emphasizes mutuality, care and protection,
and advocacy for the wellbeing of the Earth and its many forms of life.
The closing chapters of Part I address a core question. If there are so many forms
of traditional ecological knowledge with associated traditions of ecologically sus-
tainable practices, why do we face environmental crises in Asia, Latin America, and
around the globe? The chapters by Ricardo Rozzi and by Laura Ogden and collabo-
rators provide complementary answers. Rozzi combines the conceptual frameworks
of the biocultural ethic and of liberation philosophy to argue that the core problem
is axiological, that is, a matter of values. Today, the value of capital is ranked above
the value of life. As Argentinean-Mexican philosopher Dussel ( 2003 ) has demon-
strated, this scale of values is in disagreement with the theological and philosophi-
cal roots of Western civilization. Therefore, Rozzi argues that it is necessary to
re-establish the right hierarchy of values; that is, to rank the value of life above the
value of capital. This conclusion coincides with the perspective of infl uential US
environmental philosophers, such as Holmes Rolston ( 1985 ) or Mark Sagoff ( 2008 ).
As concisely stated by Poole et al. ( 2013 , p. 356) in the closing chapter of the fi rst
topic of this Ecology and Ethics series, “inverting the value hierarchy—i.e., treating
economic value as the primary value as we usually do—is as incorrect as planting a
tree with its roots in the air.”
From the perspective of political ecology, Laura Ogden et al. argue that social-
ecological changes associated with global assemblages—that is, globally extensive
and multiform governance arrangements—disproportionately impact poorer nations
and communities along the development continuum, or the “Global South,” as well
as others who depend largely on natural resources for subsistence. Complementarily,
they show how transnational networks of grassroots organizations resist the
negative social and environmental impacts of global assemblages, thus fostering
social-ecological resilience. Thus, new community-based global assemblages have
emerged as alternative governance mechanisms to counteract the hegemony of
corporate, economic versions of the global order.
In summary, the biocultural approach undertaken in Part I suggests that to build
a solid Earth Stewardship initiative, we need to identify more precisely the main
agents responsible for socio-environmental problems at all scales, from local to
global. They are not humanity in general, but specifi c agents—unequal power rela-
tionships, exclusionary institutional arrangements, inequitable and unjust economic
strategies. Rozzi concludes that omitting this specifi cation in the diagnosis of global
environmental change would be a mistake as serious as a physician blaming micro-
organisms in general for a disease, rather than identifying the specifi c organisms