MINDING NATURE 8.1 THINK HERE 4 bruce jennings To acT eThically—when we do so not simply out of habit or by accident—human be- ings draw upon concepts, values, and norms that we have inherited from philosophical thought, among other sources. We relect and evaluate with and through these concepts. We also relect crit- ically upon them, re-interpreting, enriching, and extending them in response to changing knowl- edge and the possibilities that the world presents to us. since the enlightenment at least, the focus of normative philosophy has largely been about right recognition and right relationship between and among human beings. The interactions between humans and other forms of life, ecosystem ser- vices and functions, and material resources—in a word, the relations between humans and nature— have not been held to the same, or even analogous, standards. norms of right recognition and right relationship—rights, the good, and justice—do not apply; nature has not been given full moral con- sideration. Here i want to pose a question about the guid- ance moral and political philosophy offer for envi- ronmental and conservation affairs. Are the core concepts of these discourses part of the problem, or can they be part of the solution? can their an- thropocentric heritage be given an ecological re-interpretation? if right recognition and right relationship were norms covering the treatment of non-human na- ture—if we were to speak cogently about rights and justice in human dealings with the natural world and the creatures (in addition to ourselves) who dwell within it—then much of our scientiic understanding and practical activity regarding nature in the modern era would have to be seen as misrecognition and wrong relationship. This would be a shift of historic proportions and sig- niicance in the gestalt of our moral perception—a fundamental re-orienting and enlarging of the hu- man moral imagination. The possibility of such a shift is not idle specu- lation. History provides many examples of precise- ly this expansion of the moral imagination in the evolution of relationships among diverse human groups. it is a record of the inclusion of certain forms of previously forbidden indi- vidual human behavior with- in the zone of moral and legal protection in particular societ- ies, and the banishment of oth- er behaviors—owning slaves, for instance. still, shifting the norms of human to human in- teraction is one thing, shifting them radically for humans and nature interaction is another. is it beyond the limits of moral learning, beyond our ken as a species? At the root of both envi- ronmental pessimism and neo- liberal triumphalism lies the belief that such a moral imag- ination is beyond us. it had better not be. naomi Klein’s recent book, This Changes Ev- erything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, essentially warns us that a gestalt shift in the moral imagination guiding humans and nature interactions on a global scale is no longer merely an option, it is a necessity. Why? Klein, like many oth- ers who address global climate change, properly focuses on the dire consequences for bi- ological resilience and social stability if we do not change our perception and the logics governing our institutions. i believe that we should also at- tend to the moral consequenc- es of such a millennial human BRUCE JENNINGS ECOLOGICAL SOLIDARITY THINK HERE