NURTURING THE EARTH AS A MORAL IMPERATIVE BY RUTH M. LUCIER, PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION, BENNETT COLLEGE, GREENSBORO 27401 We live in troubled times. Even for those interested only in the survival of their own species and "cultural kind" the threat of destructive violence is everywhere, and palpably real. One might, therefore, ask, "Why should we take time now to attend to the basic needs of earth (as, for example, expressed in the Earth Charter of 2000-composed in Costa Rica)? Shouldn't we first focus on Alleviating human suffering and on building Better systems for the protection of human life? In this paper I will suggest that the connection between humans and earth is such that human well being must be dealt with in the context of valuing the earth. The intimate and enduring connections between human and natural environments must be taken into consideration - for these connections provide the justification for giving precedence to environmental concerns (in the way the Earth Charter does). I will discuss three such connections (or links) which provide reasons for viewing the nurturing of earth as imperative (rather than as optional) for those who would encourage non-violence and the living of worthwhile, moral, lives. The first of the three links I will discuss is the metaphorical link which exists between human love/hate relationships to non-human residents of natural environments and human love/hate relationships to human "others." The second is the link that exists between the grasping of great human-protecting truths and the love of nature; and the third is that link which acknowledges the natural environment's foundational value for present inhabitants of earth and for future generations. My overall aim will be to clarify conceptual connections that mandate earth-focused activities which foster the preservation of self-sustaining and balanced natural environments. Part I: The Metaphorical Link In a recent address by Robert Sternberg (President of the American Psychological Association)on the topic of "Hatred", Sternberg explored the methods used by charismatic leaders to provoke the mass hatred that leads to genocide. Sternberg's research indicates that genocidal episodes are made possible by phenomena that are rooted in a series of recurring story types, namely, (1) "stranger" stories, (2) the controller story, (3) the careless aggressor story, (4) the enemy story, (5) the "God hates them" story, (6) the death (they aim to kill us all) story, (7) the power crazed story, (8) the infiltrator story, (9) the garbage story. One striking form of the first type of story requires that the "other" (namely, whatever group it is that the charismatic leader is trying to get us to hate) be cast as essentially revolting. The way of attaching the "revolting" tag is to describe the target group as being like a revolting class of beings in the natural environment which are "not like us"-where "revolting" is a taught descriptive. Hence Johnathan Edward's "loathsome spider" metaphor for a sinner (pictured as being lowered by a single strand of its web into hell-and as eminently worthy of the death that would get it there), Bush's "We'll smoke them out" used to describe actions against El Cida an obvious hunting metaphor for a technique employed to exterminate bears and foxes; or recently the comment by a serial killer of prostitutes in Islamabad, that killing the women was "like stepping on cockroaches," are all examples of the utilization of this kind of metaphor. Now suppose after adopting a comprehensive view of earth, where we humans saw spiders, bears, foxes and, yes, even cockroaches as good and worthwhile components of a balanced natural environment (which, indeed, they all most certainly are), we were approached by the charismatic leader who advocated hate. Would the metaphors have their intended effect? I think not. For example, if one were approached by someone who wanted to "smoke out" a whole lot of folk, and what we thought of were cruelties toward animals we liked (rather than hated), we would be definitely repelled by, and definitely not encouraged by, the suggestion. Therefore, by inspiring a nurturing stance toward earth and its creatures we could undercut metaphors that make some human groups hate other human groups in blindly vicious and irrational ways. Part II The Inspirational Link The second link has to do with the relationship between natural environments and the human experience of grasping in such contexts the great human-uplifting truths. Such events of wholeness and inspiration are commonly reported in the history of the human moral quests. The saints of all faiths go into the wild and natural areas to seek their visions. Natural environments are good for the propagation of moral insights. This stand's strength is somewhat diminished by claims by some individuals that natural environments do nothing for them-and that natural environments are not, for them, conveyers of any inspirations at all. Douglas Macleon (UNC-Chapel Hill, USA) has suggested, for example, that while he wishes that all might appreciate natural environments and find significance therein, we must take into account the fact that quite a few persons simply do not experience natural settings in this way. Macleon suggests that to be fair to the facts we must adopt a pluralist outlook that acknowledges that for some humans inspiration and feelings of transcendence may be found only in viewing man made environments - such as city skylines of New York. If this is so, natural environments may have no indisputably intrinsic and universal moral significance or value based on their power to inspire. My response to this "argument from pluralism "is as follows. While some may not find inspiration in nature, this fact does not arise from any truth about the natural environments' status. Rather it shows that for a variety of reasons people can have moral blind spots - maybe even a quite forgivable ones that they are unable to overcome. What a person with such a blind spot is valuing when she or he values only the grandeur of manufactured objects is, however, clearly the derivative rather than the original. The derivativeness of the city towers is evident in the fact that the tower could and cannot be the beautiful thing it is without its parts being found and taken from the natural environment. And the city environment could not be what it is and could not be present without being based and sustained by the natural environment. The reverse is not so. The towers can come tumbling down but the natural inhabitable enduring earth can continue to exist. For those who find no inspiration in nature, the good that comes from its being both the source of what, for them, does inspire, as well as a the source of worthwhile inspiration for others, would ground, even for them, a moral imperative for participating in and encouraging the nurturing of earth. Part III: The Foundational Link Insofar as it is a moral virtue to value the essential and enduring, it is the natural earth, not the man made tower that should be most basically valued. And insofar as it is in our power, it seems morally appropriate to nurture the things that we value in this very basic way. Since the valuing of the derivative should not and cannot reasonably take precedence over the valuing of the foundational, the moral point of view directs us toward encouraging the nurturing the natural environment as a primary foundational obligation. The awareness that the natural world is Foundational, entails a respect for nature that rules out using the natural environment insensitively for any human purpose. This in turn entails that we acknowledge that our natural environment is fragile in spite of its great size. Thomas Berry suggests that "nature abuse" will destroy the moral ground that sustains the human species and that the human species must see the curbing of the abuse as the GREAT WORK of the world in the modern era. The challenge is to fit into rather than to reshape nature; only by doing this can humankind survive. Concern for the natural earth as foundational, encompasses our obligations to future generations. For just as adults can abuse small and apparently helpless children simply to obtain their and not the child's own ends---it is nonetheless morally wrong for them to do so. Indeed it is certainly immoral to exploit even children who are legally one's own. Children's lives are very much longer in the moral community than those of their abusers; and the abuse is often passed on by those abused in ways that harm those who are yet to come. Similarly, abuse of even a thin slice of the natural environment for human purpose alone can pass on the environmental degradation into extended times, and so can continue to affect in the most wide spread way, all of the lives on earth. If ongoing sustainability is irreversibly altered, the very foundation of worthwhile futures for earth's creatures is clearly at risk. Conclusion My suggestion that the nurturing of the Natural Environments of earth is an unwaiveable moral requirement, and hence a moral imperative for all who would support rational strategies, has rested on these considerations: (1)The appropriate valuing of the inhabitants of natural environments has the potential to reduce the metaphors that support human on human hate-metaphors that can bring on the evils of genocide; (2) The appropriate valuing of natural environments provides a resource for uplifting inspiration that helps humans live more significant lives; (3) The foundational status of natural environments makes it clear that we must avoid their abuse and their degradation if we hope to survive as a species and provide an environment that is supportive of future generations. Within the scope of the need for nurturing the powerless and providing shelter for the defenseless in the totality of the natural environment, there rests possibilities for a sustainably good life for all and a more comprehensive sense of wholeness and purpose for humankind.