Gratude and Alterity in Environmental Virtue Ethics Nathan Wood Rachel Carson begins her revoluonary book Silent Spring with a quote from E.B. White that reads “I am pessimisc about the human race because it is too ingenious for its own good. Our approach to nature is to beat it into submission. We would stand a beer chance of survival if we accommodated ourselves to this planet and viewed it appreciavely.” Two issues arise from this quote. The first is that it’s meaning is mul-layered. One layer of meaning is that we ought to adopt an appreciave perspecve because our survival depends upon the health of the planet to sustain us. This reading focuses upon the planet’s instrumental relaonship to its inhabitants by which environmental protecon policies are jusfied as ulmately human protecon policies. This is certainly one of the intended meanings of this statement, but to only understand this dimension of meaning for the quote is to think too narrowly about the relaonship between humanity and the environment. White also makes the recommendaon that we would take up a more appropriate relaon to the environment “if we accommodated ourselves to this planet and viewed it appreciavely.” The locus of change is surprisingly reversed from a modern perspecve interested in shaping the world to fit human needs; rather than connuing on blindly developing technologies that dramacally change ecosystems and the environment to adapt to our human needs, White suggests we consider changing ourselves to adapt to the planet and be grateful about it! Here adaptaon becomes an important concept and it is somewhat tricky to understand in this context. On a very broad understanding of adaptaon all living creatures adapt the planet to their needs: Predators use their prey as a source of connued biological survival, chameleon’s use the camouflage of