GLOBAL CAPITALISM AS THE ROOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE CRITIQUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

GLOBAL CAPITALISM AS THE ROOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE:

CRITIQUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Ronald Timoland

Week 2

Professor Helman

June, 2024

Introduction

In the midst of the current environmental crisis, philosophers and theologians are

competing to provide environmentally "friendly" environmental ethics. Many options are

presented, ranging from anthropocentrism1 , biocentrism2 , ecocentrism3 to theocentrism4 .

Then, the question arises, what ethics are truly environmentally friendly? Which ethical

position is actually able to overcome the current environmental crisis? Apparently, the

debate about ethics does not end. MacIntyre explains that contemporary moral philosophy is

characterized by uneven moral argumentation and its inability to reach consensus on moral

issues.5 For example, David Ehrenfeld, a proponent of ecocentrism ethics, argues that the

smallpox virus has a moral right to continue to exist.6 The opinion is also relevant to the

current Covid-19 virus which is fully consistent with the assertion that all creatures have a

moral right to continue without human intervention. Philosophers and theologians are stuck

on moralism, in other words, they think that environmental problems can only be solved

with the concept of non-anthropocentric ethics. Ultimately, in this debate, the question needs

to be asked: Is the root of the problem (environmental degradation) indeed in the wrong

concept of ethics?

There are several problems for non-anthropocentrism environmental ethics. First, all

those arguing are humans offering human judgments about human actions. Humans

certainly cannot defend the moral interests of animals or inanimate objects. Humans can

only defend human judgments about what humans think are the moral interests of animals or

inanimate objects. Various ethical views can only be created, defended and acted upon by

humans. Humans cannot suggest that tigers should accept that kele-dai have a moral right to

live. In that practical sense, humans can only be anthropocentric, or epistemologically,

humans are necessarily anthropocentric.7 On the other hand, humans are not separate from

nature. Humans are part of nature. A person who climbs a cliff, for example, uses tools made

with the understanding of natural laws and in his activities requires nature (air, the law of

gravity, and others). Thus, humans cannot be separated from an ecocentric attitude.

In this article, the author explains that the so-called anthropocenic morality is not the

main cause of environmental damage, but it is a justification for practices that inevitably

occur in a society based on capital accumulation.

The current situation is one illustrated by Marx and Engels in the 1840s. In a text titled

German Ideology, they outlined a declaration on their approach to understanding history and

society.

The philosophers that Marx and Engels criticized today are certainly gone, but their

way of thinking is still present in many ideas. Of course, these ideas come in a different

context, and certainly not with the idea that one's drowning is caused by a belief in gravity.

Rather, it is the idea that environmental destruction is caused by wrong thinking about the

relationship between humans and nature. This can certainly be found in the environmental

ethics train of thought. In other terms, saving the earth requires ecocentric or nature-centered

values, not human ones.

Among environmentalists, this is often followed by accusations that Christianity is

anthropocentric, i.e. only concerned with human life. For example, the most famous critic is

Lynn White, who published an article entitled The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis

in 1967, arguing that the mass destruction of nature is a consequence of the anthropocentric

views of Christianity and Judaism. According to White, the ethical teaching of

anthropocentrism expanded along with the development of Christianity by conquering local

religions.9 This thesis was the beginning of the development and debate on Christian

environmental ethics. White's thesis is described by Callicot as fertilizing Christian

environmental ethics,10 as well as Jenkins who agrees that White's thesis greatly impacted

the development of Christian ethics.

Defensiveness against White's thesis is not uncommon. Ken Gnanakan in Creation,

Christians and "Enviromental Stewardship" reinterprets Genesis 1:28 to refute White's

argument that the verse is the basis for legitimizing anthropocentrism.15 Simangunsong

offers an alternative ethic of human and non-human partnership.16 Ngahu and Yuono agree

that the anthropocentric paradigm is at the root of destructive-exploitative behavior and thus

examine Genesis 1:26-28 by promoting ecological justice.17 White's environmental ethics

continues to be criticized, but often critics are stuck with White's way of thinking, namely

that Christian ethical views have a major influence on environmental destruction, so

ecotheologists are busy building a religious cosmological view that is not instrumentally

oriented and anthropocentric.18 Other theologians argue that capitalism is a contributing

factor to environmental destruction without providing a critical assessment of environmental

ethics, such as Nassa's research.

This article aims to assess the impact of environmental ethics on environmental

degradation, and to see whether or not it is appropriate to debate environmental ethics to

hinder the rate of environmental degradation. Environmental ethics has been the focus of

discussion among environmental theologians, but seems to ignore other factors. This article

explains that capitalism is one of the important factors that environmental theologians need

to pay attention to, so as not to be trapped in endless discussions about the concepts of

environmental ethics. Of course, this does not mean that ethical views and greedy actions

that damage the environment are acceptable. Such actions can be morally condemned, but

there is no need to get bogged down in moralism.

The systematic writing begins by presenting the facts of the current damage through

various journals, books, and online news that can be accessed through the website. Then, it

explains how philosophers and theologians debate environmental ethics that can inhibit

awareness of environmental damage. The author explains the historical development of

environmental ethics, from its emergence to its debates. The author draws from primary

sources on the birth of the modern environmental ethics movement and Christian

environmental ethics, namely from the writings of Rachel Carson to Lynn White. The

modern environmental ethics movement is considered by Roderick Nash to be a major

revolution in history. The author then explains how this moralistic environmental ethic is

confronted with the opposite reality. This is based on various studies that have found that

environmental damage is caused by transnational businesses that are driven not by science,

let alone moral considerations.

Research Methods

This paper uses the library research method. The author uses at least three categories of

literature. First, literature that discusses the current reality of environmental degradation.

Second, literature related to environmental ethics (be it history, concepts and debates).

Third, literature on other factors that influence environmental degradation, especially the

mode of production and consumption in the era of capitalism. This paper examines upstream

findings on environmental ethics from various literature sources such as books, scientific

journals, and online news with a narrative review approach.20 The author also presents

theories obtained through a literature review of experts to explain various concepts to be

researched and become the basis for finding answers to research problems. The

methodological steps began with searching for all relevant literature related to

environmental ethics, environmental damage, and global capitalism. The author seeks

relevant literature from experts in the field and is certainly not free from bias. The author

collected data from a number of journals, books and websites related to the problem and

research objectives. The author processed the existing data based on the topic and year of

research. Data were searched based on the history of the development of modern

environmental ethics in the 1960s to the problems of environmental damage in the 2020s

using the keywords "enviromental ethics", "enviromental crisis", "ecotheology", "capitalism

and enviromental ethics", "Lynn White" and so on based on their relevance to the research

topic. The author also searched for the development of capitalism and its impact on

environmental damage with the key words "global capitalism", "empire", "imperialism", and

others related to the research topic. The data were grouped and then analyzed according to

the relevance and topic of the research so as to strengthen the sharpness of the results and

discussion of the research.

Results and Discussion

Debating Ideas

In this section the author explains how the modern environmental movement began 1960s.

Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, published in the year of 1962, was the first major

thought on modern environmental ethics. Before Carson, environmental concerns were

usually called conservationism and envi- ronmentalism. Before that year, the term

environmental ethics was usually used by psychologists to indicate how personality is

conditioned by social life. In the mid-1960s, the term environmental ethics gained new

meaning and gained the attention of many people and then peaked in April 1970, where it

coincided with more than twenty million people in the United States joining demonstrations

and teaching courses during the first Earth Day and the start of various green activist groups

on college campuses.

The first decade of environmentalism was characterized by a war of ideas. It was

argued that socio-economics was at the root of environmental degradation and that

environmental degradation was driven by human ethics. Carson was in the first camp. He

wrote that the main obstacle to environmental sustainability lay in the fact that: "It is also an

era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom

challenged."22 Science is also misused to serve the "god of profit and production".23 A

similar view by Murray Bookchin attributes air and water pollution to destructive market

laws24 and Barry Commoner writes that environmentally destructive technologies are deeply

rooted in our economic, social and political structures.25 By the late 1960s, critiques of

environmental degradation were rooted in social, economic, and political critiques, and had

a large following on American campuses.

On the other hand, in the late 1960s, some writings also existed to define the roots of

environmental degradation with a different perspective. The Tragedy of the Commons, by

Garrett Hardin, blames human nature for the overexploitation of natural resources.26 In The

Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich argues that the root cause of all environmental problems is

human overpopulation, especially in the Third World.27 The third article is The Historical

Roots of Our Ecological Crisis by Lynn White. She sees the environmental crisis as a

consequence of wrong ideas, particularly Christian anthropocentrism. Her work was

published in the famous journal at the time, Science, in 1967. The victory of Christianity

over paganism was, according to White, the greatest psychic revolution in world cultural

history. The effects of that revolution continue to this day and the ecological crisis will

continue to worsen until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason to exist

except to serve man.28

The Philosophers March

White's thesis of Christianity being the root of environmental destruction was rejected

by most historians, and White himself eventually abandoned it. However, the belief that

environmental damage is due to anthropocentric conceptions still persists. In 1973,

philosopher Richard Routley adopted the argument by replacing Christianity with a

"Western ethical system".29 Western ethics justified crimes against nature, such as hunting

blue whales to extinction. Therefore, a new ethical system was needed. When White and

Routley's writings on anthropocentrism were born, colleges and universities in the United

States were experiencing student growth due to the baby boomer gene- ration. Enrollment

doubled between 1964 and 1974. This was an unprecedented increase in student enrollment.

As a result, new fields of study were created that could be promoted among young people

who were aware of social issues. One such new faculty was environmental ethics, a field

that did not exist in the 1970s, but by the end of the decade was a recognized subdiscipline

in many university philosophy departments. The subdiscipline catalyzed the birth of

philosophers of environmental ethics. Since then, philosophical debates on eco-values have

become mass conversations and they propose a non-anthropocentric ethical position as an

antidote to destruction environment.30

Environmental philosophers agree that the environmental crisis is a moral problem.

Therefore, it can only be solved by adopting a non-tropocentric environmental ethic, one

that extends moral considerations to (non-human) nature. As Eckersley writes, an ecocentric

approach is more consistent with ecological reality and more likely to bring humans to

psychological maturity and allow the diversity of all (most) creatures (human and non-

human) to be preserved.

The dominant ethic of today's modern society considers human needs to be more

important than non-human needs. This view can actually come under the various labels of

anthropocentrism, human racism, or speciesism. As long as this ethic of anthropocentrism

dominates, the destruction of nature is expected to continue.

Another consequence is that if humans are considered more important than other living

and non-living beings, then this will always have an impact on human needs or desires that

must always be prioritized over the needs or interests of other beings, no matter how critical

or essential the latter's needs are.32

Thus, according to the philosophers' view, a new ethical system is needed that

recognizes the moral right of the nature of living and non-living things to develop without

human intervention and independently of human needs and needs to replace

anthropocentrism with ecocentrism. This argument triggered the emergence and

development of environmental ethics as a scientific subdiscipline.

Thought Revolution

Ecocentric philosophers seem to believe that ethics has made radical and important

advances in history. Nash considers that the emergence of the idea that the relationship

between humans and nature should be treated as a moral question is one of the most

remarkable developments in intellectual history. He believes that it contains the potential for

radical change and impact on both thought and behavior, comparable to that embodied in the

ideals of human rights and the ideals of justice at the time of the democratic revolutions in

the 17th and 18th centuries.33

As radical as this idea may seem, in practice, it has proven very difficult to find a

unified definition. Conflicting interpretations of what is not anthropocentrism and intrinsic

value lead to endless debates. Philosopher MacIntyre argues that in this age, moral

argumentation seems to function as a mask to hide personal preferences. The result is a

"simulacra of morality" characterized by endless debates, where it would be difficult to

choose rationally between positions.34 This is true for debates among environmental ethics

theorists to date. After decades of discussion, there is no agreement on what terms such as

anthropocentrism, ecocentrism, biocentrism and intrinsic value actually mean. For example,

the term anthropocentrism used by the debating scholars alone is used with diverse, even

overlapping meanings according to the classification by Dzwonkowska.35 In addition, some

argue that intrinsic value is something that is contrasted with instrumental value. Others

understand intrinsic value as the flip side of extrinsic value. Others say that intrinsic value is

the metaphysical status of properties in which something has value.36 The debate on intrinsic

value is not over yet, Chan offers relational value to overcome the debate on intrinsic and

instrumental value.37 The term biocentrism is also questioned, whether it means that some

living beings are more morally important than others. If not, it begs the question, can all

egalitarian beings be confronted with moral considerations?38

Beyond definitions, philosophers have also debated various unresolved philosophical

questions: Does moral concern apply to every animal, river, and tree? Or does it refer only to

species and ecosystems? Is moral concern for all living things or just some? What about

bacteria? Are viruses included? What exactly is intrinsic value? How is it inherent in their

existence or is it something attributed to humans? In the latter case, isn't it anthropocentric?

Of course, there are many other seemingly endless questions, such as the debate of Medieval

scholastics on how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin.

These questions fill thousands of pages of books and academic journals. David

Ehrenfeld, for example, claims that the smallpox virus has a moral right to exist.39 While

this may seem like an exaggerated moral position, it is entirely consistent with the view that

all beings have a moral right to exist without human intervention (non-anthropocentrism).

This endless moral debate is unlikely to find an end. Academic philosophers use a

growing range of analytical tools, yet no agreement is found. MacIntyre argues that there is

something fundamentally wrong because philosophers argue that they can formulate moral

principles rationally, but among themselves there is no agreement, proving that their project

has failed.40 This failure certainly begs the question, is anthropocentrism the problem and

ecocentrism the solution to today's environmental destruction?

This paper answers that question: no. There are a few things to consider, firstly, it is

humans who design all the principles of environmental ethics and offer judgments about

human actions. Humans cannot think like rocks, trees, lakes, because they cannot think like

humans. Humans cannot defend the moral interests of cats, viruses, or bacteria. Humans can

only defend human judgments about what humans think the moral interests of fish are.

Ecocentric ethics can only be created, implemented and defended by humans. Humans

cannot appeal to snakes to accept that mice have the right to live. Only humans can make

such judgments and act. In this sense, humans will always be anthropocentric.

On the other hand, humans are part of nature. Humans cannot exist without nature. A

person cuts down a tree or dredges a mountain using tools made with natural laws and does

so while breathing air. In this sense humans cannot avoid being ecocentric.

Anthropocentrism is not the sole reason for environmental destruction, but the

justification of practices that occur in this world on the grounds of profit is anthropocentric

morality. As Beckert explains, capital- ism has had an impact on nature, it can even be said

that the essence of capitalism is to turn nature into a commodity.41 This process of capital

accumulation results in global environmental destruction. Therefore, environmental ethics

needs to consider its application in the current era of capitalism. Without considering this,

voicing non-anthropocentrism or anthropocentrism issues, such as planting trees, using

metal straws, disposing of garbage in its place, organic farming, etc., only becomes a moral

issue (even if these actions are entirely good). In 2018, Helen Kopnina, Haydn Washington,

and others joined the debate on what anthropocentrism is. They wrote that some scholars

consider anthropocentrism ethics can also be a strong motivation for environmental

protection, as the current ecosystem is also a human life support system.42 Therefore, the

authors argue that whatever is the basis of environmental ethics can be used as a means to

stop the damage of capitalism. Such ethics can be said to be structural anthropocentric

ethics. However, the weakness of such an ethic is that it is prone to relinquishing individual

responsibility, is too negative about moral action, and does not emphasize the relationship

between humans and the earth.

The Development of Capitalism

The origins of capitalism lie in a process called primitive accumulation. Primitive

accumulation is a phenomenon of expropriation of land and natural resources from

producers, both in cities and villages. This primitive accumulation broke the link between

producers and their means of production, so that inevitably, they had to sell their labor to

those who owned the means of production.43 As this situation developed, the capitalist

economy came into being. This process involved the expropriation of subsystem farmers'

land, which began in the 16th century.44 This process took place in Western Europe

(England), in tandem with the collapse of the feudal economy and the development of

industry in urban areas. The process was brutal and "bloody", supported by legal legislation.

Capitalism is not a moral system that can be criticized as evil, greedy, corrupt, and so

on. The moral critique of capitalism is present in the book Kenneth J. Barnes,46 also in

Hesron Sihombing.47 However, such moral criticism has been present in the arguments of

classical economists, such as Prodoun and David Ricardo. These classical economists saw

the capitalist system as unjust because wealth comes from stealing the "surplus value" of

workers. The problem is that the act, which they consider to be theft, has been legitimized

by law. Likewise, primitive accumulation resulted in the destruction of nature and the

separation of producers from the means of production until today.

Capitalism can be defined as a mode of production in which the primary motive is

profit maximization.48 The logic of profit maximization drives producers to do whatever it

takes to produce the best production and invest in the latest technology to increase

productivity, growth, and efficiency. Capitalism requires endless growth in production to

remain stable, raise living standards, and generate enough jobs for aspiring workers amidst a

growing world population. Production itself is dependent on consumption.49 Without

sufficient consumption, which creates more demand for production, the production cycle

will be paralyzed and a crisis will occur.50 Consumption and production are like two

inseparable sides of a coin. While capitalism stimulates tremendous levels of productivity, it

directs productivity towards more consumption to ensure that the production process is not

hampered. Hence, consumerism is the culture of capitalism as an economic system.

Increased consumption will result in increased production, sales and profits. All three

will be reinvested in the sustainability of the business. However, the carrying capacity of the

planet cannot sustain such endless consumption and production. Maintaining the capitalist

system on the one hand, simultaneously entails danger to the earth and exploitation of

workers on the other.51 The promised sustainable growth of capitalism (using the terms

"green" production or "green" consumption) makes no sense because the reality is exactly

the opposite.52 In the history of its development, capitalism, in a pamphlet written by Lenin

in 1916, passed through the highest stage, imperialism.53 The characteristics of imperialism

are concentration of production, monopoly, financial oligarchy, export of capital, division of

the world among imperialist countries and the signs of capitalism gone bad Imperialism also

demands the extraction of natural resources to drive the wheels of capital accumulation.

According to Mészáros, capitalism is still in the stage of imperialism or global

capitalism. He argues that we are now living in the potentially deadliest phase of

imperialism.55 Imperialism, he argues, can be divided into three distinct historical phases:

early modern colonialism, the classical phase of imperialism as described by Lenin, and

global hegemonic imperialism, with the United States (US) as the dominant power.56

Mészáros argues that US hegemony did not end in the 1970s, although by 1970 the US had

experienced a decline in its relative economic position vis-à-vis other leading capitalist

countries when compared to the 1950s. Rather, the 1970s marked the beginning of the US

attempt to build on its global economic and political superiority to establish itself as a

substitute for global governance by utilizing its considerable military power.57

The author argues that capitalism has reached a global stage of development and there

is still a dominant power of a nation-state in conducting mono-poly. Capitalism knows no

limits to its own development. There is no sufficient amount of profit, wealth, territory and

consumption. The earth is not seen as a place where humans should live, together with other

species, but as nature to be exploited in the process of unlimited economic expansion. The

author has a different argument to that of Jason W. Moore, professor of sociology at

Binghamton University. Jason W. Moore defines capitalism itself as "a way of organizing

nature".58 In his writing, it is implied that the terms capitalism and capitalocene are

synonymous. The Capitalocene is an alternative name for the Anthropocene, a new epoch on

the geological scale that replaced the Holocene. By capitalism, Moore means an Earth

System that is about 60 years old, while the author here sees capitalism as a social and

economic system that is about 600 years old. The term Anthropocene was born from the

proposal of the vice chairman of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP),

Paul Cruden.59 According to Moore, capitalism is organized on the basis of the Cartesian

dualism thought structure.60 However, the accusation of dualism contradicts the IGBP's

opinion. IGBP argues that humans and their activities are integral components of the Earth

System, from which they are impossible to separate.61 Anthropocene science does not say

that this new epoch is caused by the dualism of nature and humans, but by the phenomenal

growth of the global socio-economic system.62 Unfortunately, however, Moore does not

include a serious review of the research results of Anthropocene science the Anthropocene.

Moore's understanding of the Anthropocene also has the implication that all humans

contribute equally to increased greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and other

environmental damage.

The Impact of Global Capitalism on Ways of Production and Consumption

John Bellamy Foster asserts that imperialism or global capitalism has an ecological

impact in that resource extraction has often devastated poor countries, with the (unequal or

expropriation) of "free gifts of Nature to capital" by rich countries.63 One example is what

happened in Ghana. Gyekye Tanoh, Head of the Political Economy Unit of the Ghana-based

Third World-Africa Network, points out that of the $5.2 billion worth of gold exported for

foreign-owned mining interests in Ghana (from 1990 to 2002), the government received

only $68.6 million in royalty payments and $18.7 million in corporate income tax.64 In other

words, the government received a total of less than 1.7% share of global returns from its

own gold. In fact, according to a Bank of Ghana analysis, the share of wealth going to

communities directly affected by mining was 0.11%.

Capitalism has also produced the consumptive culture of people today. This culture has

made the purchase and possession of material goods (other than basic human needs) an

integral part of one's life.66 Not only that, material goods also seem to be a source of

happiness beyond basic human needs.67 Capitalism is based on capitalist ownership of the

means of production, which is absolute formal. Formal because there is legal legality and

absolute because it is legalized through formal law. In addition, factors of production such as

land, labor, and machinery are controlled by business interests in order to maximize profits.

The driving force behind the economic activity of this system is profit.

The risks of globalization of the current mode of production are not seen as

"sustainable".68 As Pope Francis said in his address to social and ecological movements in

2014: "An economic system centered on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain

the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it. Climate change, the loss of

biodiversity and deforestation, are already showing their devastating effects in the great

cataclysms we witness."69 An economic system that deifies money certainly points to the

current economic system of capitalism. The Oikotree movement sponsored by the World

Council of Churches also explains that the capitalist empire paradoxically eliminates and

severely destroying the fertility and sustainability of creation.70 The capitalist empire casts a

shadow of ecological destruction that is becoming more massive by the day. Likewise,

Duchrow and Hinkelammert, two theologians from Germany, emphasized that a change in

the political economy system is one of the important changes that need to be made

immediately because humanity and nature are in danger.71 The current economic system

works with the motive of maximizing profits without considering humans and nature.72

According to Giddens, economic capitalism is one of the four dimensions of globalization.73

This fact implies that the main power center of the world economy is in the First World

countries. That is where transnational business corporations are based. These companies

have networks in various countries. They can wield economic power and have the capacity

to influence political policies in different countries various places.

The problem is that these companies have a significant impact on climate change. One

example is oil companies. While the United Nations (UN) drafted a treaty to reduce

greenhouse gas levels by 2050, and eliminate the presence of emissions between 2060 and

2080, Mitchell, a political theorist, notes the complex ways in which fossil fuel use is so

embedded and articulated in politics, modern ways of life, and powerful corporate

interests.75 The promised changes will be met with difficulty, even with companies denying

the science of climate change. American historians of science, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M.

Conway, point out that Fred Seid, Fred Singer, and several other science-denying scientists

joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the

scientific consensus on many contemporary issues including climate change.

Drilling down further, a number of leading global fossil fuel companies have a record

of promoting their political objectives in order to maintain profits. They engage in

disinformation practices designed to distort science findings, deceive the public and block

policies designed to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy.77 Their tactics

range from collusion to covert funding of supposedly independent scientists.78 This reality is

in line with Duchrow and Hinkelammert's analysis that the current system is supported by

the ruling political class and even on the basis of academically justified ideologies that are

then disseminated, consciously or not, by much of the media.79 Other global environmental

treaties designed to bind developed country governments in Kyoto 1997, Copenhagen 2009,

and Paris 2015, have proven less effective. Short-term calculations of national and corporate

interests have prevailed and prevented the development of effective forms of cooperation.

In addition, the consumerist culture born out of capitalism plays a role in environmental

damage. By 2030, the middle class is expected to reach 5.6 billion people. This means more

than 2 billion additional people with increased purchasing power compared to today).81 Most

of this growth will occur in Asia. Changes in consumer behavior and consumption patterns

will increase food, water and energy consumption by about 35%, 40% and 50% respectively

by 2030.82 Growth in consumption will go hand in hand with significant growth in carbon

dioxide emissions and exacerbate the problem of climate change. This is supported by

research showing that consumption has a positive effect on carbon dioxide emissions in

United States.

The culture of consumerism is not a natural human trait where values are hardwired or

passed down through generations. It was created out of systemic necessity for the economic

growth of capitalism.84 This was evidenced in the 19th century when America experienced

chronic overproduction. Goods were being produced, yet people tended to be frugal and

self-reliant.85 By the 20th century, businesses were looking for ways to get people to spend

their earnings. They went down the road and created a set of symbols, signs and enticements

that appeared in shop windows, fashion shows, advertisements and billboards.86 No wonder

companies spend trillions on marketing and advertising every year. Advertising creates the

urge to consume and creates new "needs". As Naomi Klein writes that successful companies

must primarily produce brands, not products.

Moral Considerations Confronted with Reality

With such a reality, it is certainly difficult to imagine a philosophical framework that allows

giant corporations not to destroy forests. It is certainly difficult to expect a businessman to

close his company because he reads the ecocentrism of an ethical philosopher. It is also hard

to expect a CEO to explain to shareholders that profits are down because a philosopher has

explained the intrinsic value of non-human entities.

Today's environmental agenda is not defined by such ethics, not even science. There is

clear and unequivocal scientific evidence of the impacts of global warming. The UN

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), attended by representatives of 195

countries in Incheon, South Korea on October 8, 2018, warned that world destruction is

imminent if national leaders do not immediately make radical, rapid and widespread changes

to stem the rate of global warming. The world's scientists who are members of the IPCC said

that there are only 12 years left to prevent global temperature rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Various scientific evidence has explained the environmental damage caused by the

production of gasoline-fueled vehicles, greenhouse gas emissions, and deforestation.

However, it is the profits made from these industries that set the agenda for the environment.

Excessive timber extraction, forest land conversion, hydroelectric blockages, mining,

and so on, continue not because of philosophical considerations, but because they are highly

profitable for the industry. Moral considerations have nothing to do with the decisions of

policy makers. As long as it is profitable, and there is no counterforce to stop it, it will

continue, even if it makes the earth unlivable.

It may be too much to hope that moral considerations overhaul the mode of production.

What if moral considerations affect the mode of consumption? Of course, we are faced with

several problems, such as: How much impact can individual behavior have at a time when

companies are massively exploiting nature? How many people can be sensitized when

advertisements appeal to emotional and social needs? How much of an impact is it when the

top capitalists are always using their private jets, limousines and yachts?

This does not mean that environmentally destructive behavior should not be morally

condemned. In Jewish theology of nature, and land in particular, land is not a commodity

that can be used as a tool to gain maximum profit. Land is the seat of God's government and

is therefore required to carry out God's agenda through human beings, namely justice

(Deuteronomy 16:20; Psalm 37:10-11).89 The book of Isaiah also sounds a warning against

large-scale ownership of land (latifundium) in order to accumulate as much wealth as

possible (Isaiah 5: 8-9), so that behavior legitimized by the economic system to control and

exploit land must be challenged and resisted.

Morality is humane, but argues that non-anthropocentric ethics is the root cause of

environmental degradation will be trapped in moralism. Therefore, a thorough analysis is

needed to include the social, economic and political causes of environmental degradation.

John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff see that most environmental problems are caused, or

exacerbated, by the operation of the economic system.90 Environmental problems are not the

result of human ignorance or innate greed. Environmental problems do not arise because a

manager of a large company is morally deficient. Rather, it must look at the workings of the

economic and socio-political systems to solve them.91 It is precisely this reality that makes

these problems so difficult to solve.

This struggle against destructive systems certainly cannot come with a gift. The Bible

teaches a history of grassroots struggles for justice by challenging military rule,

governments, and economic systems that stretch from ancient times to the first century

AD.92 Therefore, the church and civil society need to work together for social movements.93

The church today needs to take a stand, take sides, and be ready to bear the consequences.

Duchrow and Hinkelammert provide demands for the church to call for and end

neoliberalism policies. If the government persists, then legal action needs to be taken.94 In

addition, these environmental problems cannot be effectively addressed until we find

another way for humans to interact with nature, certainly not just on a philosophical level,

but also changing the way we make decisions about what and how much to produce.

Humans must take into account meeting basic human needs, and creating just and

sustainable conditions for current and future generations (which also means caring for the

preservation of other species). Churches, schools, social media, and discussions can also be

a means for awakening people to the current reality. Even in a democratic context, people

need to help build or support alternative political parties that support changes to society's

current unsustainable ways of production.

Conclusion

Therefore, environmental problems do not simply stem from someone's bad ethics. The

abstract debate on environmental ethics will never end and building a non-anthropocentrism

ethic is an unrealizable hope. Capitalism's mode of production and mode of consumption are

the main actors of environmental destruction. With this in mind, it does not mean that we no

longer need to consider morality. We can certainly condemn anti-ecological behavior on

moral grounds. However, what needs to be avoided is a moralism that assumes that the

course of history can change because of changing moral views. To go beyond the debate

abstract environmental ethics that often lead to the action of picking up trash, planting trees,

using metal straws, there needs to be a question of how the formulation of existing ethics

will lead to the action of resistance to the system and culture of capitalism. In this way,

ethics does not just become a tool to obscure reality and the problems that are happening.

Outrage over the destruction of the natural world by capitalism is entirely appropriate,

but it is also necessary to concretely analyze the social, economic, and political causes of

environmental destruction in order to pinpoint solutions. The view that environmental

problems and crises are caused by wrong ideas and can therefore be addressed by promoting

alternative philosophies, can only lead to a "built on sand" perspective. We need to look at

the workings of the economic and political systems in order to solve the problems of

environmental degradation. The church can play a role in speaking the truth rather than

obscuring reality and supporting alternative modes of production in the current context of

global capitalism.