Issue link: https://read.uberflip.com/i/1151399
30 2 What Is nature? systems that included earlier ideas along with new ones; reformers who taught the oneness of life, including humans and nature; and monotheistic religions that made humans God's stewards. Within the first group, that includes beliefs such as Hinduism and Shinto, systems tend to gather symbols and practices of ances- tral human-gatherer, agrarian, and pastoral societies, often retaining the worship of natural entities and teaching practices that encompass conservation (although the related taboos, such as the caste system in India, that limits the use of spe- cific resources to designated hereditary groups, were not always effective). More interestingly, a second group of world systems originated in the ancient world taught the oneness of life and an ethic of respect that seemed to have encouraged the preservation of nature: Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, as well as the Pythagorean doctrine. Let us remember that the first principle of Buddhist ethics is "do no harm", whereas the Jainas defended a doctrine of non-violence to any living thing. Life should be kept simple, happiness lie in the suppression of every desire. Finally, monotheistic religions—such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—tend to preach a doctrine of stewardship, although their foundational texts are such a layered compilation of parables and rules that some other interpre- tations are possible too. On his part, Callicott (1994) surveys a wide range of environmental ethics throughout history and around the world, adding to the oft-cited Asian alternatives some reflections on South-American (mostly Amazonian), African, and Australian indigenous views on nature. Predictably enough, they do not differ much. Their respective myths and parables reflect the different environmental conditions they live in, but, although some surprises arise (such as discovering that African reli- gions tend to be both monotheistic and anthropocentric), their belief systems regarding nature underline the need to respect natural limits, finding some sort of spiritual unity with the environment. Notwithstanding the apparent diversity of nature's conceptions, two points should be made. On the one hand, variations are not infinite, but rather limited. There cannot exist endless versions of nature—nor endless different ethics derived from them. Some basic cleavages may be identified: animism/materialism, imma- nentism/transcendentalism, dualism/holism, male-oriented/female-oriented, appro priationism/conservationism, separateness/relatedness. In turn, they lead to just a number of basic attitudes, ranging from bare dominion to responsible stewardship and a peaceful dominion. Diversity, thus, is limited; the nuances of that limited diversity are countless. Interestingly, though, the majority of those ethics (including the monotheistic ones) command the protection of nature and natural resources. No clear statement of boundless use and domination can be found in these world systems. But then something is missing. The societies in which those world systems reigned did not show any remarkable record of environmental protection, just a different pace of human colonization according to the different degree in which material practices evolved in the direction of the currently hegemonic Western capitalistic model. As Hughes acknowledges: "the fact that environmentally positive teachings can be found in ancient religions and philosophies does not always surely indicate that