A POSTCAPITALIST PARADIGM: THE COMMON GOOD OF ...

Changing economic practice and the cultural system that justifies it is
now an ethical imperative. The criticism of the ‘anthropocentrism’ of
modernity means nothing else but rejecting the view that promotes
growth (unequal) without taking into account the damage to the life of
nature and therefore human life (externalities, for capitalism). One might
wonder if this is, in this case, genuine ‘anthropocentrism’,when a system
leads, not only to the destruction of the planet, but also to a terrible
social inequality and the hunger and destitution of hundreds of millions
of human beings.
This logic leads us to declare that nature is the subject of rights (Eduardo
Gudynas, 2011, 14). It would be the right to its own existence, outside
human mediation, as the earth does not belong to the human species.
Mother Earth has the right to regenerate its own bio-capacity, that is to
a dignified life (David Choquehuanca, 2010, 73); it has the right to have
guardians and defenders (Esperanza Martínez, 2010, 114-115). The
Ecuadorian Constitution recognizes the right of nature, “the comprehensive
respect of its existence, the maintenance and the regeneration of
its cycles” (Article 72). It involves the duty, on the part of human beings,
the only living things that are capable of destroying the equilbria of the
ecosystem, to affect the symbiosis between man and nature, including
climate change. These are obligations to respect and repair Mother
Earth.
Another way of looking at the problem is to speak of the right of human
beings to a healthy environment. This is what we see in the ‘third generation
rights’ of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved
by the United Nations Organization. Nevertheless, for the protagonists
of buen vivir, it is not enough. Without necessarily rejecting this position,
they think that it denies the character of nature as a subject and thus,
subjects ‘Mother Earth’ to human mediation for the recognition of its
existence. It would be to fall once again into an anthropocentric position,
or worse still, adopt a Hegelian stance, affirming that men are the creators
of nature, just through the act of thinking about it (Jean Luc Cachon,
1999, 798).
221