Marius de geus
illustrations: anna zabdyrska
natURe
and sUstainability
in tHe eCoLoGiCaL
UtoPian
tRadition
ROWNOWAGA_1_UK_cs4-3.indd 8
13-10-30 14:38

I
n our era of large scale environmental
degradation and increasing climate problems, there is a need for counter images
of an alternative ecologically sustainable
society, one that protects and respects nature.
Often it is forgotten that in the ecological
utopian tradition one may find instructive
visions, as well as highly evocative images of
a sustainable society. It appears that society is letting an opportunity pass by, by not
fully recognizing the true value that lies in
the ‘ecotopian’ tradition. I shall investigate
whether ecological utopias are capable of providing a meaningful contribution to the quest
for an environmentally sustainable society.
More particularly: what is the significance
of various ‘ecological utopias’ for interpretations of mankind’s attitudes towards nature,
and the modern social debate about the
meaning of ecological sustainability?
huMans as partiCipants
in nature
In the work of American political philosopher Murray Bookchin (1921-2006) one can
observe the view of humans as ‘participants’ in their relation towards the natural
environment. In The Ecology of Freedom (1991)
Bookchin argues that the fundamental roots
of the present ecological crisis must be found
‘in the underlying institutional, moral and
spiritual changes in human society that produced hierarchy and domination – not only
in bourgeois, feudal and ancient society, but
at the very dawn of civilization’1. His central
thesis is that the idea that humanity must
dominate and explore nature, historically
stems from the domination and exploitation
of humans by humans.
M. Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom. The Emergence and
Dissolution of Hierarchy, Montreal: Black rose Books, 1991,
p. 44
Historically, this conception can be traced
back to a period when men began to dominate women:
‘From that point onward, human beings
were regarded as mere resources, as objects
instead of subjects. The hierarchies, classes,
propertied forms, and statist institutions
that emerged with social domination were
carried over conceptually into humanity’s
relationship with nature. Nature too became
increasingly regarded as a mere resource,
an object, a raw material to be exploited as a
mere resource as slaves on a latifundium.’2
In reaction to this development, Bookchin
argues for a more ‘holistic’ analysis of
relationships in nature and society. In his
view, natural evolution does not develop in
the direction of a simplification of forms of
life, but in the direction of growing complexity and variety. Hence, respect for nature is
paramount: ecosystems are much too variegated to be left to humans and their claim
to sovereignty and complete domination over
nature.
In essence, natural ecosystems resemble
food webs rather than stratified pyramids.
Ecosystems are organized non-hierarchically
and rely heavily on forms of participation.
What makes Bookchin’s ‘social ecology’of
the utmost importance is ‘that it offers no
case whatsoever for hierarchy in nature and
society; it decisively challenges the function
of hierarchy as a stabilizing or ordering principle in both realms. The association of order
as such with hierarchy is ruptured’3
Bookchin argues in favor of making these
principles the basic premises of a new bal-
1
ance between humanity and nature: mankind must strive for the maintenance of
ecological spontaneity and non-hierarchical
organization of the political, social and
ecological systems. It also means that in the
future agricultural and industrial practices,
urbanization and the use of technology will
have to be carefully tailored to the natural requirements of local and regional ecosystems.4
In his analysis, up to now human kind as
well as nature have been the victims of a hierarchically structured society. The individuals are unfree because of the institutions and
values of hierarchical society: citizens lack
both power and opportunity to control their
destinies and lives. These hierarchical social
relations have a direct impact on humanity’s
attitudes and behavior towards nature.
An ecologically responsible society can only
be accomplished when all the spheres of life
that are contaminated by domination are
‘decontaminated’, for instance the relations
between men and women, politicians and
citizens, as well as the relationship between
humanity and nature itself. In Bookchin’s
view the introduction of an ‘anarchist society’ is vital in ending the dominant attitude
of humans towards nature and in realizing
an equilibrium between humanity and its
environment.5
huMans as partners
with nature
English designer, writer, architect and
craftsman William Morris (1834-1896) was one
of the first utopians who gave an aesthetic
portrayal of an ecologically balanced society.
Ibidem, s.41
M. Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, Montreal: Black
rose Books, 1990, p.19-32
4
2
3
Ibidem
Ibidem, p.37
5
autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 9
ROWNOWAGA_1_UK_cs4-3.indd 9
13-10-30 14:38

In his News from Nowhere (1891) Morris first
provides a critical analysis of 19th century
English capitalist society and the natural
environment in his days which, as he put
it, have grown ‘ugly’. He then sketches an
extremely detailed alternative, where society
and the natural environment are relieved of
their ugliness and the world is once again
‘beautiful and harmonious’.
In his work, Morris provides an even more
nature friendly and far going view
on the relationships between human kind
and nature than Bookchin. William Morris
had an extremely sharp eye for ‘modern’
problems such as large scale industrialization, environmental degradation, waste of
natural resources, ongoing urbanization, and
the destruction of valuable, traditional landscapes. According to him, the capitalist industrial system had deeply affected people’s
attitudes towards nature. He describes how
in general people led lives in which humans
and nature were separated from each other,
and nature was even treated as a slave:
‘…a life which was always looking upon
everything, except mankind, animate and
inanimate – “nature”, as people used to call
it – as one thing, and mankind as another. It
was natural to people thinking this way, that
they should try to make “nature” their slave,
since they thought “nature” was something
outside them.’6
In his interpretation, the industrialized 19th
century society lacked a sense of nature and
the Earth as a comprehensive whole. The
natural surroundings were viewed by the
inhabitants ‘ as an ugly characterless waste,
6
W. Morris, News from Nowhere, London: Kegan Paul,
1983, p. 154
with no delicate beauty to be guarded’. 7In
reaction to this, Morris describes the need for
a social, political and ecological revolution.
The country would be divided in small scale
decentralized unit (a commune, a ward, a parish), which would be self-governing. Private
property of the means of production would no
longer exist: large-scale factories, heavily polluting the natural surroundings and wasting
energy and materials, would be replaced by
environmentally friendly cottage industries
and small scale workshops where products are
made under safe working conditions.8
Morris accentuates that parallel to these
drastic political and economic changes, an
ecological revolution has to take place to
ensure the people’s complete happiness. The
perfect starting point of this ecological revolution was a completely different attitude of
humans towards nature. Morris indicates in
News from Nowhere that the inhabitants of this
new society felt a deep ‘affection’ for their
natural surroundings, for the landscape
where they lived, and for everything that
grows and blooms.
In his utopian society many people would
move from the cities to the countryside.
There would be a dispersion of people and
gradually city and country would flow seamlessly into one another. The result would
be an exemplary and crucial ‘partnership’
between human kind and nature. In this
ecotopian society people lived in a carefully
managed garden landscape, where nothing
was neglected or wasted, as the following
passage indicates:
and wastes, with a few towns interspersed,
which were fortresses for the feudal army,
markets for the folk, gathering places for
craftsmen. It then became a country of huge
and foul workshops and fouler gambling
dens, surrounded by an ill kept, poverty
stricken farm, pillaged by the masters of the
workshops. It is now a garden, where nothing is wasted and nothing is spoilt, with the
necessary dwellings, sheds and workshops
scattered up and down the country, all trim
and neat and pretty.’ For indeed, we should
be too much ashamed of ourselves if we allowed the making of goods, even on a large
scale, to carry with it the appearance, even,
of desolation and misery’. 9
Morris most vividly describes how the
people would live in simple yet solid homes
with well-kept gardens and allotments, in
harmony with their natural surroundings.
Moreover, there would be abundant space for
untouched landscapes and exist large pieces
of wild nature. In his vision, when people assume an attitude of ‘partnership’, friendship
and closeness with regard to nature, they
consider humans and nature as ‘partners’
in the sense that the needs, interests and
preferences of both sides must be taken into
account and be weighed harmoniously.10
In this vision nature is observed as an alliance of different life forms, in which human
and other life forms are not adversaries but
are working together in order to achieve
common purposes.11This requires a respectful
Ibidem, p. 61
Ibidem, p.63
11
See also: P. Kockelkoren, Ethical Aspects of
Plant Biotechnology In Plants – Report to the
Dutch Government Commission on Ethical Aspects
Biotechnology in Plants, Appendix I, [in:] Agriculture
and Spirituality – Essays from the Crossroads
Conference at Wageningen Agricultural University,
Utrecht: International Books, 1995, part.5
9
10
‘This is how we stand. England was once
a country of clearings amongst the forests
7
8
Ibidem, p.162
Ibidem, p. 83
autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 10
ROWNOWAGA_1_UK_cs4-3.indd 10
13-10-30 14:38

relationship with nature and an emphasis
on various forms of cooperation and balanced relations between life forms on earth.
Overall, humankind is allowed to make use
of natural resources, but without having the
right to dominate or exploit nature. 12
As ‘partners’ humans will tend to draw more
radical consequences than as participants.
Being a partner implies an increased consciousness of being a part of nature and of
feeling closely associated with the natural
surroundings. In general, an intimate, close
and friendly partner will set more stringent
restrictions on man’s interventions in nature
than a participant. Moreover, partners will
systematically act in ways which stimulate
nature to develop and realize itself, as in a
flourishing and healthy human partnership.
huMans eXperienCing a fundaMental ‘union’ with nature
The most radical interpretation of the
relationship between human kind and nature can be found in the ideas of American
political philosopher Henry David Thoreau
(1817-1862). Thoreau has become well-known
as author of Walden, or a Life in the Woods (1854).
In this most wonderful and still widely read
book he meticulously recounts the greatest
experiment of his life.
As a matter of fact, he lived alone in the
woods from July 1845 until September 1847, in
a self- constructed cabin on the shore of Walden Pond, near Concord Massachusetts, his
birthplace. In his writings Thoreau presents
his general view of a radical simplification
of life and develops an alternative vision on
the relationship between human kind and
nature.
12
Ibidem
Strikingly, in Walden Thoreau continuously
writes ‘Nature’ with a capital letter. He also
consistently describes nature as a female
figure, as can be seen, for example, in the
following: ‘But there was dawning Nature,
in whom all creatures live, looking in at my
broad windows with serene and satisfied
face, and no question on her lips’. 13
In his view, nature is the mother of humanity, a creator of life and beauty. Like the
native Indians, who in his time had already
largely been driven onto reservations, he saw
the Earth as ‘a living being’, and approached
nature as a ‘living entity’, of which humans
only make up a small part.14
To a larger extent than Bookchin and also
Morris, Thoreau emphasizes the greatness,
grandeur and benevolence of nature. He
consistently writes with deeply felt reference and great awe about the ‘dignity’ of
nature and the vital importance of preserving nature’s equilibrium. In his view nature
was not created to be a possession of man,
but has ‘ intrinsic value’: it exists in and of
itself, and deserves to be treated with love
and affection. Actually, he considers it his
moral responsibility to protect the wild and
preserve the forests.15
Thoreau shows how profoundly he enjoys
the landscape, and talks with the deepest affection about pine, birch and oak trees, with
which he appears to carry on entire conversations. His Walden is like a hymn to the
nature around his simple forest hut. When
Thoreau meditates he repeatedly experiences himself as being part of nature, and
H.D. Thoreau, Walden, czyli życie w lesie, przeł. H.
Cieplińska, Poznań, Rebis, 1999, s. 293
14
Idem, The Annotated Walden, edition by P. van Doren
Stern, New York: Bramhall House 1970, p. 186-207
15
Idem, Walden…
13
perceives the essential connection between it
and humans. He experiences a salutary sense
of ‘union’ and ‘kinship’ with nature, and is
surprised that he never really feels alone in
the vast forests where he roams.16
He expresses total admiration for nature’s
sublime beauty, which he treats with utmost
care and deep respect, rejecting each human
encroachment on nature. Accordingly, his
priority is not to bring land under cultivation in order to make it productive, but
rather to ‘maintain’ the wilderness and to live
as the original Indian tribes: in an unspoiled
land, in complete harmony with nature,
without significantly changing the earth.17
iMpliCations for theory and
praCtiCe
This short survey of three different views on
the relationship between human kind and nature found in ecological utopianism, leads to a
number of relevant insights and noteworthy
consequences for both theory and practice. In
the analysis of Bookchin, Morris and Thoreau,
an ecologically sustainable society assumes a
set of completely different attitudes towards
nature. A shared insight of these ecological utopians is that until now humans have
shown an excessive tendency wanting to rule
over nature. For many centuries humans have
attempted to dominate nature and approach
it as a means, an instrument completely at
their service. However, this authoritarian and
hierarchical way of thinking is absent from
the principles of the three ecological utopians
which were explored.
As they note, in an ecologically sound society
nature will need to occupy a key position,
16
17
Idem, The Annotated…, p. 88-93
Ibidem, p. 209-210
autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 11
ROWNOWAGA_1_UK_cs4-3.indd 11
13-10-30 14:38

and people will need to treat the natural
environment with dignity and respect.
Despite the specific differences between the
views of ‘humans as participants in nature’,
‘humans as partners with nature’, and
‘humans experiencing a fundamental union
with nature’, their arguments are pointing in the same direction. These ecotopian
thinkers accentuate that, until humans have
developed an attitude of respect, equality
and deep concern for nature, an ecologically sustainable society will remain a very
distant prospect. Admittedly, there are some
quite serious problems with their visions.
For instance, despite my ongoing sympathy
for Thoreau’s reflections, his approach of
achieving a union, unity and identification
with nature is highly individualistic and
remains too subjective. On the whole, it does
not seem a ‘necessary condition’ that every
individual citizen must be able to identify
with for example trees, bushes, landscapes
and so on, in the way Thoreau is proposing
to effectively protect and maintain mother
Earth. It seems not everyone will be capable
of (or interested in) experiencing this highly
personal and subjective kind of ‘spiritual and
sublime’ unity with the natural elements.
Additionally, such a revolutionary sociocultural change cannot be expected in the
foreseeable future and in fact does not seem
feasible. In my view, it is more important
that citizens gain sufficient understanding of existing ecological relationships. For
instance, people should become fully aware
of the high complexity of our climatic and
atmospheric systems, and understand the
risks of possibly irreversible forms of damage
to nature, as in the modern case of global
warming and climate change.
Besides, there is the logical problem which is
inherent to the approaches of participation
and partnership. In a literal way it is impossible to be a participant in relation to nature
or a partner with nature, since nature is not
able to speak or communicate in any reasonable and sensible way with us, nor can it act
as a rationally thinking ‘moral agent’. Only
figuratively speaking, humans may possibly
attain to a role of being a participant, or for
example a partner in relation towards nature.
The critical remarks made above lead to
the question how to choose for one of the
three approaches mentioned. Why would
one prefer either the attitude of participation in nature, opt for a partnership relation
with regards to nature, or favor the idea of
experiencing a fundamental union or unity
with nature? Obviously, this is not the main
theme of this paper, but let me provide a
short commentary here.
What could be the main criteria for making this kind of decision? For instance, one
could look at the degree of realism and the
level of practical feasibility. In that context,
it seems the attitude of participation comes
first, followed by the one of partnership,
and lastly the attitude of realizing union or
unity with nature.
However, it can be defended that it is more
rational and appropriate to evaluate the
three ecotopian attitudes towards nature on
basis of a different criterion: the degree to
which they can inspire people to environmentally responsible behavior, individually
and collectively, or to policies that effectively
contribute to solving the current ecological
crisis, global warming and climate change
included. 18
W. Achterberg, Samenleving, natur en duurzaamheid,
Assen: Van Gorcum, 1994, p. 161-164
18
Another controversial issue is whether a
change of human attitudes towards nature
will in any way be sufficient to achieve an
ecologically responsible society. The obvious
answer is negative. A change in attitudes and
dispositions among citizens will not directly
and automatically translate in different
environmental government policies. Nor will
changes in attitudes of citizens mean that
they will actually change their daily environmental behavior in terms of transportation choices, food habits, housing habits and
all other acquired pattern of behavior. As a
matter of fact, these are exactly the deeply
engrained routines and actions that tend
to produce a larger individual Ecological
Footprint.
In earlier work, I have noted that changes
in political, economic, financial and cultural institutions will be needed in order to
achieve an ecologically sustainable society. 19
Changing human attitudes versus nature will
indeed have to be constitutive element of a
new green society, but will most definitely
not be a sufficient condition.
The role played by our contemporary attitudes towards nature is no doubt detrimental
to our planet, but so are for example continuous economic growth, ongoing population
increase, reliance on centralized and large
scale energy production primarily based on
fossil fuels, general food habits and consumption pattern in the rich countries, and
so on. Another decisive issue concerns the
ways people think about the broad and often
elusive concept of ecological sustainability, to
which I shall now turn.
19
M de Geus, The End of Over-consumption, Utrecht:
International Books, 2003; M. de Geus, Utopian
Sustainability: Ecological Utopianism, [w:] The Transition to
Sustainable Living and Practice, ed. L. Leonard, J. Barry,
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2009, p. 77-101
autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 12
ROWNOWAGA_1_UK_cs4-3.indd 12
13-10-30 14:38

pragMatiC versus utopian ConCepts of eCologiCal sustainability
In the decades following the publication of
the UN report Our Common Future (Brundtland
report 1987), the great majority of governments in the world have (at least in words
and statements) accepted the concept of
‘sustainability’ as a general guideline for
economic and environmental policy. In practice, however, the specific meaning given to
the concept by the countries involved, varies
considerably according to the importance
which is attached to facts, uncertainties and
risks in relation to environment and society.
At least three interpretations of ecological
sustainability have come to the forefront in
western politics, which differ with regard to
the robustness of the definition of sustainability (‘strong versus weak’), the general
perception of existing and future environmental risks (high versus low), the expectations regarding the development of technological solutions for environmental problems
(highly probable, versus not probable at all),
and the answer to the question whether a
‘general consumer austerity’ is inevitable or
preferable in order to achieve an ecologically
healthy and responsible society.
In the first line of thought, ecological sustainability is equated with the Brundtland
approach of ‘sustainable development’ and
‘ecological modernization’. The general starting point of this essentially ‘liberal’ concept is
that ecological sustainability can actually be
‘combined’ with economic growth, a strengthening of economic competitiveness, better
management of urban planning, nature and
biodiversity, and a decrease in absolute terms
of environmentally hazardous emissions.
In this line of reasoning again and again a
general argument is made for so-called ‘creative and intelligent growth’ of the economy,
provided that the overall pressure on the environment diminishes. Environmental policy
is basically seen as a necessary, welcome
impulse for change, for technical, economic or
cultural renewal. The challenge of sustainable
development and ecological modernization’ is
considered as a decisive cause of innovation
and improvement of the economic structure. 20
In this pragmatic ‘liberal’ political vision the
environmental risks of continuous economic
development are estimated to be relatively
low. It is assumed that a prolonged exploitation of the earth will reveal new stocks of
natural resources and that, if needed, the
exploitation of alternative raw natural resources is possible. In addition, the expectations with regard to the contribution of new
technologies to the improvement of energy
efficiency and realization of environmental
goals are very high. In this pragmatic view it
is expected that the ‘integration’ of environment and economy will be accomplished by
future technological revolutions and innovations. In line with this, an overall decrease
of the level of production and consumption
is not considered necessary. The main goal
is to induce citizens to develop inherently
friendly environmental behavior, without
the need for austerity or of radical changes
in lifestyles. Hence, the general aim is
‘greener’ or ‘sustainable’ consumption, not
‘reducing’ consumption.
In the second view – which is often (but not always) associated with Christian religious ideas
– ecological sustainability is looked at from the
general perspective of ‘stewardship’. Here the
basic point of departure is that human kind
20
A. Giddens, The Politics of Climate Change,
Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009, p. 70
is morally obliged to cultivate and conserve
the natural environment as a responsible and
effective steward of the natural environment.
Accepting responsibility in order to maintain
the natural environment for future generations is a characteristic idea: humanity is held
accountable for its share in the conservation of
the ‘wholeness of the Creation’.21
In western democracies this Christiandemocratic idea of stewardship has remained
influential in politics. Most Western-European Christian-democratic parties who are
defending this position, do not perceive the
environmental risks of economic growth as
insurmountable and show an overall optimism about the future availability of natural
resources. Their presumption is that, in the
end, technological solutions for most current environmental problems will be found.
In general, in this vision a need for more
austere consumption patterns or lifestyles
is rarely expressed. The emphasis is not on
a radicalization of environmental goals and
objectives, but on achieving the goals of
already existing environmental policies.
A third interpretation of ecological sustainability can be linked to radically green political
parties in Western liberal democracies. The
foundation of this idea can be traced back to
utopian ecological thinkers such as William
Morris, Bernard Skinner, Aldous Huxley, and
Ernest Callenbach. In this ‘green-tainted’
interpretation, ecological sustainability is
considered to be closely related to the idea of
a ‘steady state economy’.22
P. Kockelkoren, op.cit, part 5
See, H.E.Daly, The Steady State Economy: toward a Political
Economy of Biophysical Equilibrium and Moral Growth, [w:]
Toward a Steady State Economy, San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman and Company, 1973; T. Jackson, Prosperity without
Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, London: Earthscan,
2009
21
22
autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 13
ROWNOWAGA_1_UK_cs4-3.indd 13
13-10-30 14:38

Their ‘ideal utopian society’ incorporates
both an economic and an ecological state of
equilibrium. The just mentioned utopians do
not think in terms of growth, increase, and
expansion, but in terms of equilibrium, stability, and balance. They argue that a large
share of environmental pollution and damage to nature is caused by society’s unlimited
tendencies towards growth in production
and consumption.
They emphasize that society should break
away from these growth tendencies, and advocate a society that is not based on the ideal
of continuous economic development. Their
focus on a so-called ‘steady state’ reflects
itself in their principles, in particular the
proposition of a so-called ‘stationary state’,
as well as in their views on policy, where the
‘stable state concept’ is the decisive criterion
upon which social decision-making needs to
be systematically based.
It is fair to say that up to now in western
liberal democracies this specific ecological vision of green political parties has not gained
much attention and support. Only the green
political parties in for example Belgium,
Germany, France, the Netherlands and
the United Kingdom have (at least to some
extent) indeed been inspired by these radical
utopian ideas. As a matter of fact, their preference for (some version of) a ‘steady state
economy’ is demonstrative of the fact that
they estimate the risks of ongoing economic
development as very high. In the same vein,
they tend to be pessimistic about the future
availability of natural resources.
Generally, the green parties are opting for
risk evasive strategies and are reticent about
the possibilities of the so-called ‘technological fix’: technological strategies to solve
large scale environmental problems. In their
perspective today’s high material standard
of living will have to be replaced by a ‘high
quality of life’, involving a decrease of general production and consumption levels.
ConseQuenCes of the struCtural rejeCtion of the steady state
notion
In this final section the following question
will be raised: What are the main consequences of the fact that in modern western
liberal democracies governments are still
relying on two - above mentioned - basically
pragmatic interpretations of ecological
sustainability, and are systematically rejecting the third and principled ‘steady state’
notion?
By primarily relying on and referring to the
two pragmatic visions of ecological sustainability, the key concept has been deprived
of its foundational character. Ecological
utopian thinkers as William Morris, Bernard Skinner, Aldous Huxley and Ernest
Callenbach have underlined that ecological
sustainability is intended as a foundational
notion that aims at both an economically
and ecologically stable situation. From their
point of view, it is a ‘principled and normative’ concept in the sense that in this line of
reasoning the aim of nature conservation,
the preservation of scarce natural resources
and intra- and intergenerational justice are
quintessential, and must systematically be
given priority over growth of production and
consumption.
In line with the arguments given above, the
rejection of the value and relevance of the
third perspective on ecological sustainability
has led to a de facto acceptance and legitimization of the assumption that humans have
the right to rule over nature.
Ultimately, both within mainstream political
liberalism with its preference for sustainable
development and ecological modernization,
and Christian religious political visions
which are building on the idea of stewardship, human kind is still having the right to
dominate over nature and approach it as a
means. This is not surprising, as John Locke,
the religiously inspired founding father of
political liberalism, wrote the following
words in his Second Treatise:
‘God, when he gave the World in common to
all mankind, commanded Man also to labor,
and the penury of his Condition required
it of him. God and his Reason commanded
him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it
for the benefit of Life, and therein lay out
something upon it was his own, his labor. He
that in Obedience to this Command of God,
subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it,
thereby annexed to it something that was his
Property, which another had no Title by, nor
could without injury take from him.’23
Arguably, the right to property is a pivotal
element in Locke’s theory, and nature is
explicitly to be ‘subdued’’ and made productive. 24 This creates a clear contrast to
utopian ecological thinkers as William
Morris, Bernard Skinner, Aldous Huxley
and Ernest Callenbach, who argue that in an
environmentally sustainable society, nature
will occupy a central position, and people
will need to treat their natural surroundings
respectfully and responsibly.
A last consequence of the fact that modern
western liberal democracies are primarily
J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1965, p.
24
R. Eckersley, Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward
an Ecocentric Approach, New York: State University of New
York Press, 1992, s.23
23
autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 14
ROWNOWAGA_1_UK_cs4-3.indd 14
13-10-30 14:38

relying on the first and second interpretation of ecological sustainability, is that still
no empirical, physical side-constraints or
limits to the carrying capacity of the earth
are accepted. Both from the perspective
of liberal political and Christian political
considerations, it is predominantly assumed
that nature can be compared to a ‘spring’
that flows abundantly. Both in the Bible and
in the work of John Locke it is noted that the
Earth provides the rich material humankind may make use of. In his Two Treatises of
Government Locke speaks of ‘the Plenty God
had given to him’. 25 In his theory nature is
a perpetually productive generator of foods,
natural resources and so on. Locke views
the commons as an unlimited and incessant
source of riches, goods and services. The
underlying assumption is that the earth will
present us with new harvests and catches,
new trees and plants in endless variations.
There will always be enough food and
natural resources to fulfill the incessantly
growing human needs. This optimistic idea is
systematically reflected in the two pragmatic
visions on ecological sustainability analyzed,
but is evidently at odds with the growing
scientific insight that sustainability unavoidably implies the setting of specific physical
limits to the growth of our economy and
presupposes the acceptance of well-defined
ecological boundaries.
could be established. In various ways ecological utopias are capable of providing a valuable contribution to our ongoing quest for an
environmentally sustainable and ecologically
responsible society.
As a consequence, a legitimization and acceptance of the assumption that humans
have the full right to rule over nature has occurred. Apart from that, in the debates there
has been no room to discuss the far broader
and more integrated ecotopian visions on
ecological sustainability. Moreover, the existence of physical boundaries or limits to the
ecological carrying capacity of the earth has
not yet been recognized in modern politics.
All in all, there are still very good reasons to
continue studying ecological utopianism and
to critically reflect on the many worthwhile
lessons which can be learned from this tradition about the vital role of attitudes towards
nature and the deeper meaning of ecological
sustainability.
This paper has explored the value of ‘ecological utopianism’ for interpretations of
mankind’s attitudes towards nature, and the
modern social debate about the meaning of
the much debated and influential concept
of ecological sustainability. By developing
this analysis, an increased understanding of
the significance of ecological utopias for our
modern environmental problems and debates
25
J. Locke, ibidem, p.
autoportret 3 [42] 2013 | 15
ROWNOWAGA_1_UK_cs4-3.indd 15
13-10-30 14:38