I’ve been involved in a number of webinars and list-serve discussions recently in which certain questions come up repeatedly—points requiring clarification about me and how I see the world, about nature and spirituality and about reality itself. Since my personal ‘worldview’ informs both my Substack presence and how I answer such questions, I thought it might be worth laying out some of my responses here.
My window on the world: science, ecology, and spirituality
I was educated (some would say ‘trained’) as a scientist at the University of Toronto, ultimately emerging as a PhD biologist and population ecologist.
Along the way, I was steeped in basic physics, physical and organic chemistry, all of which are fundamental to biology. In my subsequent academic/teaching career, I picked up a working knowledge of mainstream economics and, particularly with ecological footprint analysis, have contributed to the development of what is now called ‘ecological economics’. I also developed a fascination with cognitive psychology and human social behaviour. In hindsight, however, I deeply regret not having had more formal exposure to the humanities (particularly the classics and philosophy) and social sciences, including political science, history and anthropology. I have persuaded myself that a basic degree in philosophy and history, for example, should be a prerequisite for advanced studies in science and engineering. Cultural context is crucial to interpreting the relevance and role—perceived importance—of everything else.
As matters stand, I remain a so-called ‘hard’ scientist who holds to a determinist perspective. This means I am a materialist/naturalist/physicalist who believes that everything in the universe, including mind and consciousness, arises from physical processes and chemical interactions requiring energy dissipation as governed by physical, chemical and biological laws—even if we don’t fully understand the dynamics of the processes or the subtle nuances of the laws.
This means that I live in (some would say I am ‘trapped in’) what we might call the evidential world, even while admitting that our senses and scientific instruments may well not be competent to detect all real phenomena or their consequences. This latter limitation actually reminds us that ‘hard’ or ‘normal’ science is confined to that which is, at least theoretically, measurable in time and space. It follows that anything (e.g., so called ‘supernatural’ phenomena) that cannot be so described, lies outside the domain of science.
Which brings us to frequent queries about, or personal descriptions of, spirituality and spiritual connections to ‘the environment’.
From my personal perspective, the above concepts and definition of normal science in no way deny the strength and importance of deeply felt religious or spiritual experiences, emotions, or feelings—these words describe very real phenomena. However, from where I stand, the spiritual and the emotional have physical explanations that do not rely on metaphysical or supernatural processes or fantastical entities—including gods or other ephemeral beings—or on the formal religions that have emerged to sustain belief that these feelings are somehow supernatural. No offence intended, but I believe that all religions are social constructs that have emerged to explain—and subsequently reinforce through scripture, liturgy, rituals, imagery, music, etc.—the truly profound depth and seeming mystery of people’s ‘spiritual’ experiences and emotions.
On Earth, spirit, and Ecozoic thinking
Understandably, the mysteries of ecology, spirit and theology sometimes converge. A prime example is embodied in the philosophy of eco-theologian Thomas Berry. Dismayed by the pathological, life-destroying aspects of modern techno-industrial (MTI) culture, Berry and co-author Brian Swimme wrote in The Universe Story that: “As the natural world recedes in its diversity and abundance, so the human finds itself impoverished in its economic resources, in its imaginative powers, in its human sensitivities, and in significant aspects of its intellectual intuitions”.
Berry viewed the Earth as a still-emerging sacred entity and envisioned the possibility of a new era of human-in-nature harmony. He posited that this Ecozoic Era[1] would be a period in which “humans would dwell upon the Earth in a mutually enhancing manner”. It would be birthed by the life community itself but this would require an intimate partnership with “the human” through a set of special conditions requiring novel elements of human “understanding, choice, and action”.
I certainly empathize with Berry’s conviction that “Humans in their totality are born of Earth. We are Earthlings. Earth is our origin, our nourishment, our support, our guide.” I agree also that humans have a moral obligation to cherish the Earth (recognizing that morality itself is a human construct) and, indeed, that some folks experience a spiritual compulsion to maintain the well-being of the entire Earthly community of life.
Where we diverge is over the source of human spirituality. While Berry argued that human spirituality is derived of Earth and that if there is no spirituality of Earth then there is no spirituality in human beings, I think that human spirituality (the capacity to experience profoundly the seemingly inexplicable wonder and mystery of life) is an evolved and probably crucial attribute of innate human nature. I do not believe that rocks or mountains, the Earth or the universe are, per se, spiritual entities or that they are imbued with spiritual attributes. Some other species do seem to exhibit aspects of ‘spirituality’ but on the whole, people project spiritual qualities onto the external world.
As an aside and off the top of my head, I also don’t subscribe to the related notion advanced by various scientists and philosophers that humans are the universe becoming self-aware.[2] Why should a frail naked ape be so especially privileged? Seems to me this notion leans toward exceptionalism; is it not at least a bit hubristic and certainly anthropocentric?
It is true that humans are made of stardust but then so are all other species from aardvarks and bacteria, through jellyfish, pangolins and slugs, to zebras. I do think that humans are a singularly unique species (for many reasons good and bad),[3] and that Earth is a hugely fascinating planet. But that planet is revolving around a middling star on the edge of a modest galaxy comprising billions of such stars. Moreover, it seems that our particular star is to the Milky Way galaxy as the galaxy is to a universe of an untold numbers of galaxies, i.e, it is an insignificantly infinitesimal speck. Thus, Earth to the universe is comparatively less than a single molecule in a single grain of sand on all the world’s beaches. Isn’t it a touch arrogant to think of humans, just one of Earth’s millions of species (and who knows of how many billions elsewhere) as the emerging consciousness of such a universe?
This might be a good point to comment on a question asked by one recent correspondent: “Can things not be just the way things are and part of the mystery of ongoing creation at the same time?” I would say that many things are, indeed, “just the way they are” (whether we like it or not) and that they are that way because the process of “ongoing creation” is actually the universe unfolding according to physical laws, particularly the laws of thermodynamics and bio-evolution (natural selection). For example, one quirk of the Second Law states that things—including evolution—can happen, and will continue to happen spontaneously, as long as there is potential, particularly accessible energy (negative entropy), for something to happen. To my mind at least, there is an infinity of room for wonder, mystery and flexible creativity in this without resort to faith-based or other mystical forms of creation.
Which is one reason why I resonate with Berry’s argument that humanity (particularly the modern techno-industrial [MTI] version) needs a new story (read “cultural narrative”) that sees our species as an integral, commensal part of the Earth community. In The Dream of the Earth he wrote that we need “A sensitivity that comprehends the larger patterns of nature, its severe demands as well as its delightful aspects, and is willing to see the human diminish so that other life forms might flourish.”
In particular, there is no room in the new cosmology for an extractive/depleting economic system that treats ‘nature’ as a mere backdrop or substrate for human affairs. Instead, we should dedicate ourselves to creating in ourselves, and imbuing in our youth, a profound sense of participating consciousness (my concession to ‘spirituality’?) in the ongoing, unfolding evolutionary process of life creation, to developing a whole new way of being in nature. We especially need an economy that is not only compatible with, but actually reinforces, the life-support functions of the ecosphere.
I am also attracted to Berry’s vision of the Great Work which he defined as the primary mission of our era: moving from a period of human devastation of the planet to a mutually enhancing, sustainable relationship between humanity and the Earth. This is an aspirational clarion call: it asks that humanity purposefully engage in the effort to rewrite our MTI cultural narrative as the first step in an unprecedented, conscious civilizational transformation. The goal (my words here), is to devise a way to thrive on Earth that makes of H. sapiens less an extractive parasite on, and more a mutualistic participant in, the living and diversifying ecosphere.
I should note that none of this means adopting a romantic view of the natural world. Nature is infinitely intriguing and complex, and, in many ways, a thing of breathtaking beauty to humans. That said, it is also a roiling world of continuous cycles of production, consumption and decay; of necessary violence and death by grazing, predation, parasitism and disease, things that humans have strived mightily to deflect or soften (at least as they affect ourselves and our domestic plants and animals).
The crucial point here is that the ecosphere is a massive autopoietic (self-organizing, self-producing) integrated system of producers, consumers and decomposers. Green plants are the primary producers: they feed on the sun, carbon dioxide, and trace elements to photosynthesize the biomass that sustains themselves and virtually all macro-consumer (animal) and decomposer (bacteria and fungi) species; the subsequent decomposition of dead (and sometimes living) plant and animal biomass enables the release and reuse of carbon dioxide and all the nutrient elements essential to life which continuously circulate throughout the ecosphere in biogeochemical cycles. (Degraded energy—entropic ‘waste’—dissipates off the planet as infra-red radiation.) These and numerous complementary biophysical processes drive evolution and function systemically to produce and sustain the living components of the ecosphere. In other words, the dynamic relationships among components of the ecosphere embody processes necessary for the continued production of the components themselves. Life produces life, including human life. This is the Gaian way, an entirely natural miracle which we disrupt at our peril.
(Sorry, Elon, but Earth as we know it is the best possible place for life as we know it.)
Change is possible—in theory
Berry (and many others) are correct in arguing that the articulation of a new global cosmology or worldview is at least theoretically possible. Humans by nature ‘socially construct’ their perceived (subjective) realities and then live out of those constructs as if they were real and true.[4] In effect, humans are biologically hard-wired to develop the social soft-wiring in particular environments/circumstances by which they run their lives. All our tribal myths, political ideologies, religious doctrines and even scientific theories are social constructs that may or may not accurately reflect aspects of objective reality they purport to represent.
This means that humans, particularly in ideologically definable cultures, do not cognitively occupy the real world. Human societies function as if in a socially-constructed parallel universe (or several cognitive universes simultaneously!) But all social constructs are not created equal—in the long run, a successful cosmology will be one that faithfully mimics core properties of the de facto biophysical system of which its adherents are a part.
Humanity’s contemporary predicament derives from the fact that MTI society is living in a fantastical parallel universe that is cognitively abstracted from, and hostile to, bio-social reality. The modern human enterprise sees the human economy and the ‘environment’ as separate, independent systems, and asserts that human ingenuity is the greatest resource. From these crucial elements we have constructed a near-universal cultural narrative of perpetual economic growth propelled by continuous technological development.
This mainstream vision treats the ecosphere—Berry’s ‘Earth’—in strictly instrumental, utilitarian terms. It is an eco-destructive anthropocentric vision that assumes other species (and even lesser humans), ecosystems and material resources exist exclusively to satisfy the needs, wants and preferences of the MTI world. Unfortunately, this mythic construct is difficult to dislodge. Like the ecosphere, MTI culture exhibits many qualities of a self-referencing autopoietic system; it continuously (re)produces itself despite the destruction it visits on its host system which just happens to be the ecosphere itself.
This is almost all you really need to know to understand the origins, and persistence of, our contemporary eco-predicament.
References
[1] Ecozoic means ‘home for life’.
[2] For example, Carl Sagan wrote that humans “…are way for the cosmos to know itself”; we are “star stuff contemplating the stars”.
[3] Humans have not exactly honoured our alleged special role as the self-aware universe.
[4] Consider the Trump administration’s on-going effort at socio-political (re)construction. For example, President Trump’s speech to the US Nation on 16 July ‘26, and numerous follow-up statements by administration officials, condemned any opposition to, or questioning of, their emerging eco-destructive, socially abhorrent, quasi-Fascist, agenda as radically leftist—Communist, even—and hostile to US interests. Trump and his acolytes are attempting to entrench a new American narrative under which most US citizens reading the present note would be condemned as anti-American, as enemies of the state.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
William E. Rees is a population ecologist and ecological economist. He is Professor Emeritus and former Director of the University of British Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning; a founding member and former President of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics; a founding Director of the One Earth Initiative; and a Fellow of the Post-Carbon Institute. Professor Rees' research focuses on the biophysical requirements for sustainability and the policy implications of global ecological trends. He is perhaps best known as the originator, and co-developer with his graduate students, of Ecological Footprint Analysis (EFA). EFA shows that the human enterprise is already in ecological 'overshoot' and that we would need 4.4 Earth-like planets to support just the present world population at Canadian material standards. Such findings led to a special focus on cities as particularly vulnerable components of the human ecosystem and on psycho-cognitive barriers to ecologically rational behavior and policy. Professor Rees has authored hundreds of peer-reviewed and popular articles on these and related topics.
|
|Back to Title|
LINK TO THE CURRENT ISSUE
LINK TO THE HOME PAGE
