Heidegger and the Environment

Casey Rentmeester

• Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield International
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781783482344
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Filosofía
• Subtopic: Fenomenología en filosofía

In the past few decades, it has become clear that the Western world’s relation to nature has led to environmental degradation so wide-ranging that it threatens the existence of human civilizations as we have come to know them. The onset of anthropogenic climate change and the increasing threats of resource depletions are the most obvious signs of an environmental crisis. This book attempts to examine the metaphysical underpinnings of our current environmental crisis, thereby viewing it from a philosophical perspective. Using Martin Heidegger’s writings on the history of being as its lynchpin, it examines how humans have come to view nature as a giant array of mere resources to be maximally exploited. Following Heidegger, Casey Rentmeester argues that this understanding of nature is rooted in the understanding of what it means to be that came about in ancient Greece. Rentmeester then utilizes elements of Heidegger’s post-metaphysical later philosophy and aspects of early philosophical Daoism to create an alternative way to think about the relation between humans and nature that is environmentally sustainable.

Chapter One

Components of the Climate Crisis

Among the many legacies that Martin Heidegger’s philosophy leaves is an emphasis on the proper meanings of words. In fact, in his magnum opus, Being and Time, Heidegger argues that “the ultimate business of philosophy is to preserve the force of the most elemental words in which Dasein expresses itself, and to keep the common understanding from leveling them off to [an] unintelligibility.”¹ For Heidegger, words have a force or charge that requires respect, and Dasein—the human being in its openness to being [Sein], that is, in its openness to the significance of beings—has a responsibility not only to defer to the meanings of words but also to maintain the forceful nature of words. Above all else, Heidegger stresses the importance of asking the right questions with the proper words. In fact, Heidegger claims “questioning is the genuine and the right and the only way of deeming worthy that which, by its highest rank, holds our Dasein in its power.”² It is fitting for humans to question not only the world around us, but also our relation to the world. Such questioning does not happen in a vacuum; rather, Heidegger repeatedly emphasizes that human beings are fundamentally social in nature. Since “the world of Dasein is a with-world,”³ i.e., since humans always share the world with others and thereby question with others, it is important to be open to the proper questions we face as human beings.

As Fried argues, “the principal challenge of Heidegger [is] . . . to respond to questions that arise from the pressing concerns of the world within which we live.”⁴ Heidegger’s corpus includes an impressive array of such questions, including novel interpretations of the experience of technology, science, art, language, and poetry, among others. Importantly, Heidegger argued that all questions arise historically. Since human beings have “facticity,”⁵ that is, since human beings are situated in a certain place at a certain time in a certain context, and so forth, the questions that arise are contingent on this place, time, and context. I argue that the fundamental question that we humans need to ask is as follows: “What is our proper relationship to the natural world?” Heidegger would say that deep questions such as these emerge in situations of breakdown.⁶ When things are not going right, fundamental questions arise that there is no point in asking when things are going smoothly. To use one of Heidegger’s famous examples, we don’t recognize that the hammer we are using is unfit for the job until a problem arises as we use it.⁷ Similarly, for most of human history, there was no need to question the human relationship with the natural world since we did not come across breakdowns that initiated basic questioning. Now, however, climate change is an obvious sign of a breakdown concerning the human relationship with nature. Consider recent statements from climatologists and climate philosophers: Lonnie G. Thompson, a world-renowned climatologist, explains the issue of climate change in the starkest of terms: “Global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization”⁸; Dale Jamieson, one of the first professional philosophers to analyze climate change, argues that climate change requires a paradigm shift in our philosophical approach to the issue⁹; indeed, Martin Schönfeld, a contemporary philosopher who specializes in climate issues, argues that, due to climate change, “culture as we know it must be reinvented, identity as such must be redefined, and reality in its entire environmental gestalt must be reappraised.”¹⁰ These are not hyperbolic, apocalyptic ramblings; rather, they reflect the sobering reality of our situation. Put simply, climate change is a sign of a breakdown regarding the human relationship to nature.

With any such breakdown, we do right to find the proper words to understand the situation. The most fitting word that captures our predicament is the ancient Greek word κρίσις [krisis], from which we derive our English words “crisis” and “critical.” The ancient Greeks understood κρίσις as an unstable pivotal situation that required a decision.¹¹ For instance, the Greek historian Thucydides speaks of the κρίσιv ἔχειν [krisin exein], i.e., the event to be decided, regarding the fate of the Peloponnesian War.¹² As in pivotal situations like wars, human beings have come across a critical juncture regarding our relation to nature, and such a juncture requires a decision as to the appropriate way forward. In his late-1930s work, Contributions to Philosophy, among the “decisions” humans have in modernity that Heidegger lists is “whether nature is degraded to the realm of exploitation by means of calculation and ordering”¹³ or whether we can embrace a new understanding of the human–nature relationship. If we update this to our present situation, we can say that climate change forces us to make a decision as to the proper way forward: do we continue to exploit the natural world in accordance with the calculative and ordering tendencies of natural science and industry as we have done since the Industrial Revolution or are we able to open up a new relation between humans and nature that is not built upon a conqueror– conquered model?

Ruth Irwin argues that climate change is precisely the sort of breakdown that necessitates a reorientation towards reality. She states, “Backed into a corner by climate change, it is impossible to retain the same ways of doing things that have characterized the last epoch.”¹⁴ In facing the real possibility of a collapse of human civilization, Irwin argues that the proper response is to reflect on the finitude of civilization. As she puts it, “In the face of the utter finitude of our world and the concurrent complete loss of meaning, Heidegger draws ultimate strength.”¹⁵ Heidegger’s philosophy provides us with a lens from which to understand the crisis of climate change insofar as his thought offers an analysis of the conceptual underpinnings in the Western world that have sanctioned environmental destruction. His thought also provides the scaffolding for a new understanding of the proper human–environment relationship. Before we can understand this analysis and Heideggerian framework, though, we need to get a sense as to what the crisis entails.

CLIMATE CHANGE AS A SIGN OF THE CRISIS

While Heidegger would certainly be wary of couching our understanding of climate change in a purely scientific perspective, an elementary comprehension of the science of climate change is essential.¹⁶ Despite the enormity of the problem of climate change, the basic science underlying the phenomenon is simple. Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through their use of fossil fuels and land-use practices. This has resulted in the natural blanket of greenhouse gases that helps keep the earth habitable to thicken, which thereby traps more energy in the climate system, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and, ultimately, climate change. Basically, shortwave radiation from the sun enters the earth’s atmosphere as it has since the planet has been hospitable to life, but less of the long-wave radiation that is reflected from the earth is able to escape the atmosphere due to the increased thickness of the blanket of greenhouse gases, leading to a more energetic climate. As the human population on the earth increases, so does the use of fossil fuels, the primary means of energy since the Industrial Revolution, which thereby increases the amount of greenhouse gases, further exacerbating the problem. Moreover, more people means more mouths to feed, which requires clearing forests to make way for agriculture, thereby depleting natural carbon sinks. Therefore, the two primary drivers of climate change—fossil fuel use and land alteration—are intensified by an increase in population, much of which is possible due to the scientific and industrial progress resulting from the Industrial Revolution. While it is undeniable that the Industrial Revolution has provided human beings the opportunity to thrive in certain obvious spheres such as medicine and technology, industrial progress has also sparked the climate crisis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is not only the world’s most reputable authority on climate change but also “the largest peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in the history of the world,”¹⁷ states that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “human influence on the climate system is clear.”¹⁸ In other words, there is no longer any serious debate among scientists that climate change is happening, and it is clear that climate change is an anthropogenic, i.e., a human-induced, phenomenon.

The impacts of climate change listed by the IPCC are far-reaching and highly destructive. Among the changes that have already come about are as follows: global warming, rising global sea level, ocean acidification, melting glaciers, lessened crop yields, and an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires.¹⁹ This chronicled devastation has led Bill McKibben, perhaps the foremost environmentalist in the United States, to declare that we rename the planet from Earth to “Eaarth,” since it is simply not the same one that our ancestors took for granted. As he puts it, “We’re moving quickly from a world where we push nature around to a world where nature pushes back.”²⁰ Fellow environmentalist Lester Brown argues that the world is “on the edge,” noting that “no generation has faced a challenge with the complexity, scale, and urgency of the one that we face.”²¹ Simply put, anthropogenic climate change means a more energetic climate, which is harsher to live in for not only human beings but also the resources and ecosystems that we rely upon. And, as the IPCC reminds us, when we look to the future, the situation will likely only get worse without a drastic change in human behavior: “Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”²² One of the most obvious effects of climate change on human beings is the impact on the basic necessities humans require in order to live: water, food, and forests. We will therefore begin with an analysis of the impact on resources and then move on to the wider effects of climate change.

RESOURCE DEPLETIONS AND TERRA-TRANSFORMATION IN THE ANTHROPOCENE

Despite the impressive mastery over the natural world that humans have displayed since the Industrial Revolution, it is a simple fact that all humans rely upon the earth’s resources to survive. Therefore, substantial deterioration of the resource base is critically problematic for the human species. Climate change can be viewed as a catalyst in that it incites change in our resource base at a fundamental level. The increase in the amount of energy in the atmosphere that thereby leads to global warming has an overall negative effect on the water resources available for human consumption.²³ With warming comes melted ice sheets, which means freshwater that was stored glacially often turns into saltwater as it melts into the oceans. Shrinking mountain glaciers also reduce the availability of freshwater for humans to drink. While the amount of water on the planet basically stays the same, less and less is readily available for human consumption due to climate change.

Since food requires water to grow, water scarcity leads to an overall decrease in crop yields. Other effects of climate change are also detrimental to food supplies: heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires that result from global warming significantly lessen crop production in general. Trees are affected in the same negative fashion, and deforestation is especially problematic in regard to climate change since deforestation causes carbon dioxide—the deadliest greenhouse gas—to be released from the trees into the atmosphere, which only intensifies the enhanced greenhouse effect since it turns a natural carbon sink into a source of greenhouse gas. In all, the essential resource base that humans rely upon for survival is depleting quickly, thereby leading scientists to question the long-term stability of human civilizations as we have come to know them. James Hansen, perhaps the most eminent climatologist in the world, states, “Life will survive, but it will do so on a transformed planet. For all foreseeable human generations, it will be a far more desolate world than the one in which civilization developed and flourished during the past several thousand years.”²⁴ If climate change can be viewed as the catalyst, resource base deterioration can be seen as one of the resultant effects.

Since nonhuman animals are also dependent on these resources for survival, the deteriorating resource foundation is clearly detrimental to nonhuman animal species. In fact, we are currently experiencing what scientists are calling “the Sixth Extinction.” In categorizing extinctions, scientists use the term “background extinction rate” to refer to the rate expected given natural variations. Mass exti...