What truly constitutes a good life

The two chairmen of the German Environmental Foundation, Pierre L. Ibisch - biologist and professor of nature conservation at the Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development - and Jörg Sommer- political scientist, sociologist, journalist, and author - analyze global problems in their book Das Ökohumanistische Manifest (The Ecohumanist Manifesto). They propose a philosophical approach that can be seen as a further development of the ecocentric perspective of the 1980s and call for a radical rethinking of humanity’s role in relation to the Earth’s natural resources. Jessica Knall, Communications Office for Values & Society, spoke with the two authors about their recently published book.

Knall Seemeyer: With your book, you seek to inspire a fundamentally different inner attitude toward humanity’s role in nature in order to overcome the current ecological crisis. Could you briefly explain the core of this approach?

Sommer: Human beings emerged from nature; they are a product of evolution, and human culture is the continuation of that evolution by other means. Crucially, despite all our achievements, we remain entirely dependent on the global ecosystem and its functioning. However intelligently we may reflect upon ourselves, within the ecosystem we are - and remain - a social primate. Our understanding of humanity and the world should reflect this appropriately.

Ibisch: We must shape our thinking and actions in accordance with our situation: we need to stand with both feet firmly in the biosphere - our thinking must be grounded. Even if this thinking focuses on humans, it must begin with the ecosystem. That is where ecohumanism starts.

Knall Seemeyer: In your view, it is a misconception that humans can rule over and protect nature. What concrete examples illustrate this?

Ibisch: We humans have the ability to imagine ourselves outside of nature and to behave as if we were not part of this world, as if the laws of nature did not apply to us. We can destroy ecosystems and biodiversity that evolved over millions of years. But we cannot recreate or control this diversity and its functions. So far, nature conservation has meant little more than trying to mitigate our own destructive power. In the 150 years since the invention of conservation and modern protected areas, we have been only moderately successful. We still attempt to restore past conditions - an endeavor that is, of course, futile. Nature is not a static state but the capacity for development. The climate crisis now clearly shows that we have miscalculated. Around the globe, we can observe that strong interventions in ecosystems inevitably require ever-increasing management efforts afterward.

Knall Seemeyer: Recently, Die ZEIT published an interview with Luisa Neubauer and Nobel Prize winner Klaus Hasselmann. In contrast to Neubauer, Hasselmann argued that new technologies alone can solve the climate crisis. Your view?

Sommer: Nobel laureate Klaus Hasselmann has made invaluable contributions to our understanding of climate change. However, his technology-based optimism represents the old way of thinking that has driven us deeper into crisis. All technical solutions ultimately mean mobilizing ever more energy and resources to address new problems that we would not have had without the technology - and often did not anticipate. Technology can help, but only if we simultaneously revise our concept of development, recognize the laws of nature and planetary limits, and reintegrate ourselves into nature. If we are unwilling to question our lifestyle, technology will not save us. It becomes truly troubling - indeed dangerous - if we reach a point where we believe we can no longer help ourselves and instead entrust the task to artificial intelligence to control and steer humanity.

Knall Seemeyer: What role can religious institutions play in this ecological crisis?

Sommer: Religious institutions that are part of the solution rather than part of the problem can help people experience and cultivate values and attitudes. If this attitude means believing in the good in humanity without placing humans above nature - of which they are a part - that is highly significant. Many religions encourage humility, which, even from a scientific perspective, may be the most important basic disposition given the complexity of the systems that sustain us. Solidarity, justice, and a willingness to help must undoubtedly regain importance in this crisis.

Knall Seemeyer: You describe the main root of failure as the absence of ecosystem-compatible values and principles. What would these look like?

Ibisch: The decisive principle is ecological primacy. Only if the global ecosystem functions and is viable for the future can humanity have a future. At the very least, we must respect that ecosystems require time and space to do their work. Those who use land and consume resources become ecologically accountable: ideally, through our very existence, we contribute to the functionality of nature. Sustainability does not mean consuming everything that happens to regenerate in the short term. Nature continually invests part of its production in reserves and in maintaining its own capacity to function. It practices unconscious risk prevention and, above all, manages with sufficiency - without a compulsion for permanent growth in everything.

Knall Seemeyer: In the afterword, Ecuadorian economist Alberto Acosta expresses hope that the pandemic may prove to be a historic event that restores humanity’s sense of being “embedded in nature.” Do you share his optimism?

Ibisch: Many people somewhat naively believed that the pandemic would suddenly trigger a shift in lifestyle. It has already become clear that this will not happen automatically. Just because people could not fly for two years does not mean they will give it up forever.

Sommer: Only if we do not waste this crisis might we truly learn something from the uncertainty it has created. Indeed, discussions have gained importance about how pandemics and our health are linked to the health of nature.

Ibisch: We absolutely should now talk much more in our societies about what truly matters - and what constitutes a “good life,” or, as Alberto puts it, a “good coexistence.”