Nature: The Dehumanization Of Nature By John Stuart Mill

The Dehumanization of Nature

I propose that in modern environmental ethics there lies two distinct forms of the the phrase “dehumanization of nature” that have lead to the environmental problems that we have face today. First, we have the “dehumanization of nature” in which humans are perceived as separate from nature. And the second definition in which nature is stolen of its human-like or natural qualities. Both cause an emotional disconnect between human nature and nonhuman nature.

“Nature” and “wilderness” have had many distinct definitions and connotations. John Stuart Mill describes, in his essay “On Nature,” his first definition of nature: “nature in the abstract is the aggregate of the powers and properties of all things… not only all that happens, but all that is capable of happening: the unused capabilities of causes being as much a part of the idea of Nature as those which take effect” (Mill, 1). In other words, Nature is everything. By Mill’s second definition, nature is

everything that “takes place… without the voluntary and intentional agency, of man” (Mill, 2). Basically, definition two bases nature on its separation from humans. This second definition of nature is more generally meant when people discuss our environment.
Some other Nature connotations affect our treatment of the earth.

Mill described how acting according to nature is a plausible argument for an object’s “goodness.” Since God made nature and man, and God’s choices are of his perfect design, then “God intended, and approves… all that they do being the consequence of some of the impulses with which their Creator must have endowed them”(Mill, 2). Thus, man has no responsibility over his actions. What Nature does, does not give reason for man to commit the same act. Furthermore, Nature has “the improvements in which the civilised part of the mankind most pride themselves consist in more successfully warding off those natural calamities which, if we really believed what most people profes to believe, we should cherish as medicines provided for our earthly state by infinite wisdom (God)” (Mill, 6). On the flip side, the word “”unnatural” has not ceased to be one of the most vituperative epithets in the (English) language” (Mill,

2).
We all know that “the language one uses mirrors and reflects one’s concept of oneself and one’s world” (Warren, 61). For example,
“The view that land with no ownership or property is “uninhabited” wilderness is familiar in the United States as well. Wilderness is often conceived as “wild,” “idle,” worthless “frontier” until “tamed” and “cultivated” through the white settler’s agriculture. Land that just lies there, “barren,” “useless,” “uncultivated” (for example, “untouched” “virgin prairie”), has no value until “domesticated” by the white man’s plow” (Warren, 60).
These depictions of desirable and undesirable land are deeply intertwined with the western conceptions of identity. In “Linking Sexism and Speciesism,” Wyckoff details how traditional Western thought elevates “rational” and “civilized (masculine) over the “emotional” and “natural” (feminine) (Wyckoff, 2).

Humans have separated themselves from nature but also unwilling denizens of third world countries. As Karen J. Warren entails in her first chapter in Ecofeminist Philosophy, first world farmers replace native forests with monoculture which destroys the botanical diversity. Since many families depend on the forests for extra income they must suffer. Another way that they suffer, women especially, is the lack of access to water. The women must travel much farther to get water and bring it back to their home.
Some humans elevate themselves above nature. As is the case with Eric Waggoner’s, an internet blogger, hometown overrun by the coal processing plant owned by Freedom Industries and the overwhelming scent of licorice. Freedom Industries employed many on barely above income wages and kept them in a endless cycle of debt. These people were exploited for their lack of education and desperation for employment. The elected officials of Charleston, West Virginia exchanged the health and safety of the people and the environment for money and political prowess. These unmindful politicians placed a coal processing plant upstream the West Virginia-American Water company which provided nine counties with clean water. Unsurprisingly Freedom Industries’ faulty containment measures caused a 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol spill, 7,500 gallons worth, to be exact. Waggoner had to drive two hours down to bring his family clean water. These businessmen and politicians felt the money in their pockets was more important than the people they serve and the beautiful state they call home. But what’s it matter to them? They now have enough money to escape the mess they’ve made while others suffer.
Another delineation of the “dehumanization of nature” would be the disconnect between human and nonhuman nature. Jonathan Safran Foer, a recently converted vegetarian, described in his book “Eating Animals” the horrific consequences of factory farming and the divide between humans and nature. The customers, butchers, and factory farmers have three very disparate disconnections with the animals slaughtered.
Factory farm owners replace these naturally occurring organisms with selected mutants. The farmers breed the animals with desirable traits for many generations compiling and enhancing these traits. “Some traits matter more to the producer, like the ever-important rate of feed conversion; some matter more to the consumer, like how lean or fat marbled the animal’s muscles is; and some matter more to the pig (for example), like susceptibility to anxiety or painful leg problems” (Foer, 157) These pigs are bred in such a way that they are physically incapable of reproducing themselves without artificial insemination. Nowadays many factory farm animals are bred so intensely to satisfy the producer and consumer, the animals cannot live without human aid of antibiotics. These animals even if we wanted to set them free, could not survive on their own.
Consumers have their own purposeful deviation from the animals they eat. Honestly, would you eat meat so frivolously if you had to slaughter the animals yourself? When your food doesn't have a face staring at you, it’s a guilt-free meal. You are not directly confronted with the thought of your meal’s origin and the suffering that took place so that you could satiate your unquenchable desire for flesh.