For almost fifty years scholars have expressed their concern for the future existence of mankind and proposed ways of securing life in the years to come.
Alongside a systemic approach by the authors of the Club of Rome have been various initiatives of the United Nations, such as the Brundtland Commission, the World Charter for Nature, the Conferences on Sustainable Development (Stockholm, Rio, Rio+10, Rio+20), the Copenhagen Summit and others. Well known, too, are the initiatives of NGOs, namely the Earth Charter, the GAIA Foundation, Caring for the Earth, the Earth Council Alliance, the People’s World Movement for Mother Earth, ‘Eradicate the Ecocide’, and ‘Planetary Boundaries’ – to name but a few.
Most of the declarations made by these movements do not, however, constitute viable instructions for change: they are rather moral discussion papers, containing much wishful thinking, or a list of flaws people are perceived to commit in their relation to Nature.
All noble sentiments and efforts to understand and resolve the current crisis while ignoring the splitting of the planet into two opposing systems – Culture and Nature – are doomed to failure. The currently prevailing anthropocentric vision of the world is incorrect, not only in its details and in its specific arguments, but also in its deepest underlying principles – in short, in its entirety.
That is why we submit this draft of a Constitution for the Earth based on the ontological assumption that human Culture is not a continuation of natural evolution by different means. Culture is an artificial system opposing Nature. If it were set as Nature is in a biophile, life-reverencing format, then Culture’s self-activity would grow in a desirable way. Culture would respect Nature and both systems would co-operate at a new level.