Written by Iqbal Hafizhul Lisan - Research and Development ISAFIS
Speaking of the environment, it must be spontaneous in everyone's head about the discourse of ecological crisis that is felt to be happening lately. So, what really happened? Why is technological advancement and development precisely a paradox in human life---on the one hand bringing convenience and on the other hand bringing destruction? To answer that, the first thing to criticize is the very reductionist human thought and the use of the Cartesian dualism logic, which is perceived as dominantly used today.
It is this thought that was first criticized by Vandana Shiva (1993), who felt that reductionism provided an efficiency logic that aimed only at the pursuit of profit. This is certainly very dangerous because everything that is actually complex will be simplified on the basis of material benefits alone, such as forest complexity that is often seen as a resource for the timber industry.
Coupled with the existence of Cartesian dualism logic---in which the body is considered superior to the soul, fact is more important than the myth (values), and the knowledge is better than the feeling---has made humans prioritize their rationality to conquer nature over the proposition of survival. In this case, environmental ethics and morality are not given place, and are perceived as a barrier to development. This is what Shiva considered to be the obscure boundaries between "knowledge" and "ignorance", which gave rise to an ecological crisis.
Therefore, what must be done is to change the paradigm of thinking about the environment. The dynamics of the paradigm itself has long been thought of by experts. Many emerging ethical theories seek to change the view of anthropocentrism, toward biocentrism, ecocentrism, to the alternative view that is now being discussed, namely ecofeminism. Anthropocentrism is the view that centralizes human beings as the only creatures that have power over nature. This view evolved since the time of the philosopher Aristotle.
Then, the view evolves into biocentrism, which begins to see that non-human beings like animals and plants also have morality. An expert, Peter Singer (1979), feels that all living beings have equal rights and morals because they all have "sentience". In addition, long ago, Christopher D. Stone in 1972 issued a phenomenal article, entitled "Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects". His writing seeks to make natural objects as "a holder of legal rights". He himself admitted at the beginning of his writings that this effort is something unthinkable, which requires hard work and critical thinking to be able to apply it.Â
Furthermore, the idea developed into an ecosentrism view that seeks to incorporate the abiotic element as one of a holder of legal rights. This view succeeded in transforming what was once seen as "natural rights", into "the rights of nature" which is considered to be more environmentally sustainable. As an example of this view, The New Zealand Herald newspaper on 30 August 2012 published a news entitled "agreement entitles Whanganui river to legal identity", and then in 2017 on March 16, Aljazeera news reported that New Zealand river is the world's first 'legal person'. This is the real form of ethical application of ecosentrism environment.
After that, there is also an alternative view of the environment which includes gender elements into its analysis, that is ecofeminism. This alternative view was first initiated by Karen J. Warren who seeks to eliminate all forms of logic of domination that exist, including in the gender aspects that look at the relations between men and women and nature. One important thing taught by this view of ecofeminism is to encourage everyone to change their "ethics of care"-oriented view into "ethics of care", which makes man no longer seen as a greedy creature, but as a wise and compassionate being. This view of ecofeminism is one of the most radical views that re-questioned both the bad and good behavior between subsistence and development in human life.
Based on the explanation above, it is clear that the progress of ethics has been encouraging for the better human behavior. It is just that human beings themselves are still stubborn to move from the perspective of anthropocentric, because it is more profitable to exploit nature rather than to preserve it. So many cases concerning the exploitation of nature because of the preference of the human ego have been happening everywhere, for example in the case of Kendeng which has recently happened.
This case of peasants who defend their land sovereignty over the large companies is nothing new in Indonesia. Since the New Order era, counted already many companies that tried to invest their capital for natural exploitation. This is evidenced by the statement of Emil Salim, the environmentalist and former Environment Minister from 1978-1993, quoted in National Geographic Indonesia news on December 20, 2015. He said that karst ecosystem in Gombong, Central Java, since 1983 was repeatedly targeted by cement factories.
In 2011 also, again recorded the existence of a business conducted by PT Sahabat Mulia Sakti who planned the establishment of a cement factory in the district of Kayen and Tambakromo, Pati regency, Central Java. And until the latest case in mid-March 2017, one company named PT Semen Indonesia insisted to do mining in the mountains of Kendeng which is known to have a large supply of cement. This is an example of the application of views that are still oriented to anthropocentrism