The Metaphysical Implications of Ecology

J. Baird Callicott takes the comprehensive, historical approach in interpreting ecology’s relationship with metaphysics. Though I don’t necessarily agree with ecology being labeled a “newcomer” science, as the paper mentions it being an area of focus since late 18^th century (402), Callicott nicely integrates it with the hard sciences. Influential historical background is reviewed, from atomic materialism of the ancient Greeks (providing mechanical basis for today’s physics, chemistry, and everything that occurs) to monadic moral psychology, explaining how humans have come to develop applicable rules and manipulations in relation to the external world. Still, the notion of what it is to be a living thing is shown to be disputed. First, the essence of a given living thing is explored as an individual association with one’s form or as a placement in established hierarchies and orders, raising questions over what really influences what a being does and, ultimately, is. External relationships and individual niches are also discussed as proposed defining factors of a being’s essence, further suggesting that one’s environment shapes not only the lifestyle but its form as well. Even consciousness is described as an extension of the environment, explaining it as an adaptation in a long line of developed feelings and neural processes stemming from the mechanical stimulation of the outside world. Considering the larger scale, Callicott discusses nature as an economy, a symbiotic system that trades gases, organic compounds, and energy. Furthermore, the notion of the entire surface of the Earth as a comprehensive organic being is also touched on. Callicott takes one more step by bringing concepts from mass energy equivalence, suggesting that not only are we constantly influenced by and trading parts with the outside, this flow of energy as well as the components and us are all forms of the same thing; this would, fundamentally, define everything as one, explaining Callicott’s notion of ecology as “enlightened self-interest” (407).

Throughout the paper, Callicott builds on the mechanical facts of hard sciences yet clearly stretches laws of physics to complex biospheres. I suppose my question is how much do you buy the concept of the Earth’s surface as a symbiotic organic being? To be honest, this had me playing Avatar in my head half the time. They played on a similar concept yet pseudo-synapses between different living things are clearly fictional. Furthermore, things in a given ecosystem eat each other and clearly have different self-interests, placing the relationship closer to dependence than symbiosis and promoting monadic self interest. As far as the metaphysical equivalence of matter and energy, what did you think? The theory is clearly functional (nuclear energy) but can this uniform composition of things serve as basis for them to operate harmoniously? Still, I thought the point that the environment develops the mind was fairly strong, explaining why we must protect it, if only for our own good.