The Earth System in the Anthropocene and the Primacy of Joint Collective Ownership

When human beings began making claims to possess the ‘bounty of nature,’ the functioning of the Earth was physically independent of our species. That this is no longer the case is a profound and shocking development. According to the United Nations, human beings have “transformed the Earth's natural systems, exceeding their capacity and disrupting their self-regulatory mechanisms, with irreversible consequences for global humanity” (United Nations 2022). Long noted by natural scientists, the extent of this transformation is often marked by the label ‘Anthropocene’, i.e. the epoch characterized by human impacts upon the Earth (Crutzen 2002).1 From a physical perspective, the Anthropocene signals a radical break with the past, “an entirely new, no-analogue state of the Earth system” (Kim 2021, 4). Might the Anthropocene also represent a conceptual break with the past? At least in political philosophy, the question has gone largely unnoticed. As Chris Armstrong (2017) showed, much political philosophy conceives of the Earth and its benefits in roughly the same way as theorists from earlier centuries, namely as useful objects available in nature uncreated by human beings.2 For instance, in Beitz’ (1975) influential account natural resources are useful objects lying under our feet, which brings to mind deposits of gold or oil. This intuitive view remains sufficiently widespread that the term ‘natural resource’ often goes undefined. Thus, cosmopolitans as well as their opponents use the term synonymously with economic or material benefits (cf. Beitz 1975; Miller 2007; Moore 2012). I believe that conceptual revision is required concerning the implicit object of such theorizing, namely the Earth as a storehouse of natural resources. As Mary Midgley already pointed out, this is the flawed ‘world-picture’ that political philosophy inherited from the social contract tradition, in which “the natural world existed only as a static background”, a mere “convenient stage for the human drama” (Midgley 2005, 350).3 This picture has recently come under attack, with some arguing that the new realities of the Anthropocene require a reorientation of theory around the interconnections between human activity and planetary functioning (Jamieson and Di Paola 2016; Dryzek and Pickering 2019; Eckersley 2017).4 Nonetheless, the intuitive conception of the Earth as a storehouse of resources remains largely intact in contemporary political philosophy, and in political thought more generally. Without denying the importance of considering fair entitlements to natural resources, the aim of this article is to begin a more general re-evaluation of categories in political philosophy in light of the new realities of the Earth in the Anthropocene. To do so, my discussion returns to one of the oldest debates in political philosophy, namely the question of ‘world ownership’ that is the starting point for theories of territory and property. Principles of world ownership include no ownership, the view that there are no moral claims upon resources in the state of nature; joint ownership, the view that the collective preferences of all determine permissible resource use; and common ownership, the view that individuals have use rights in the state of nature, but no property rights.5 A choice among these options is presupposed by all theories of distributive justice, since it must first be established that there are no justified ownership claims over resources before one can argue in favor of a particular pattern of redistribution.6 By exploring the conception of the Earth found in this tradition, we can see how it may require rethinking. Two recent accounts of common ownership provided by Risse (2012) and Blomfield (2019) have done much to render the debate about world ownership relevant for contemporary theorists. In critical dialogue with these accounts, I will advance two claims. First, that political philosophy ought to replace theorizing in relation to the Earth qua storehouse of resources with a picture of the Earth system in the Anthropocene, whose functional state is determined by human activities. Second, changing this object of theory will affect the plausibility of principles of justice meant to apply to it. I will argue that such a change supports a precautionary requirement ensuring the functional stability of the Earth system while reducing systemic risks, prior to the consideration of resource principles aimed at fairly sharing the benefits of natural resources. The reasoning that follows is situated in ideal theory, and thus abstracts from the complex problems of governance and feasibility that apply in the actual world. Nonetheless, by clarifying this goal in ideal theory, we will gain a clearer view of what justice requires in relation to the Earth system. Principles of world ownership concern the moral claims that people have to natural resources prior to property or territorial claims. The starting premises are that natural resources are not the products of human beings, and as such, no one has any prior claims to them. This establishes a basic equality in relation to natural resources, where each individual “originally has a claim to the world's natural resources that is equal to that of everyone else” (Blomfield 2019, 52).7 As Risse and Blomfield both recognize, these premises do not rule out alternatives to common ownership.8 Thus, both utilize a global original position device to model the starting conditions of justice with respect to uncreated natural resources. The considerations that shape this original position also reveal the object of world ownership. Consider Risse's original position. Risse argues that common ownership would emerge from an original position in which deliberators knew that natural resources, which he calls “original resources and spaces”, are “valuable to and necessary for all human activities to unfold, the most important of which is to secure survival” (2012, 113; 121–22). Risse's deliberators know that original resources and spaces are “materials that exist independently of human contributions (air, soil, raw materials such as minerals, coal, water)”, along with “how biophysical factors such as climate endow regions with value for humans” (2012, 108). What makes an object commonly owned is its status as having “come into existence without human interference” (2012, 114), which implies that it is not properly subject to special claims based on improvement or attachment.9 Risse's account is supposed to apply to the Earth as a whole, which he describes as “a closed system of resources everybody needs for survival” (2012, 113). On this view, “what is originally owned is three-dimensional space of differential usefulness for human purposes, regardless of era-dependent economic relevance” (2012, 109). It is striking that Risse does not think deliberators need to know anything about the risks of Earth system change, although they are supposed to be considering principles of world ownership. We will return to this issue shortly. First, there is a problem in trying to identify natural resources that are free from “human interference” or “human contributions”. This intuitive conception is inapplicable in the Anthropocene. Many relevant objects, such as the global carbon sink, terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, land use, and so on, cannot be said to exist in a state unaffected by human activities. Indeed, very little of the Earth could be said to be free from human interference. According to one estimate, 77% of land and 87% of the oceans have been modified by human activity (Watson et al. 2018). Insisting upon causal independence from human activity will rule out far too much, aside from undiscovered mineral resources. Causal independence from human activities may imply that Risse's common are not to or to their basic would not be to use of any of the products of which as pointed out have account the more resource conception provided by Armstrong the objects of common ownership as from human this all as resources that to the natural world and that or claim rights of or ownership a natural on this view, any individual or collective claims rights over or According to resources do not from but only to the of upon them. This one to that resources that have some are in the relevant no individual moral for this Blomfield 2019, particular Blomfield deliberators of common resources which are and such as which is since one does not the of A of about is that any of may not affect at the but it could have an on or be with of in a of that out to be these a the of the Anthropocene that some important are deliberators are not provided with relevant about the Earth and its interconnections to human and come these about resource and the of to resource that may not be This already some way the noted at the of an of conditions out some of the most important about the functioning of the Earth as a or its this is necessary before considering what principles of justice be at a more world picture requires the of Earth system Earth system the stability and of the Earth system as a and the that it et al. and between are in complex and are to and which at such as the conditions in which human beings first as a species. contemporary in Earth system on how human impacts are critical or one system from The Anthropocene label that the of the Earth system has been by the of human it from conditions into an the Earth system on a that may not be with the of et al. 2018). The of is an important aim of the et al. which a for by biophysical that the stability of the Earth The planetary are to a precautionary upon Earth system The of a planetary does not imply that a biophysical point has been such are of et al. The aim of this is to a precautionary of Earth system The most recent this found that of the planetary have been in a of of system change et al. et al. conditions in contemporary on the Earth system and on global is justified by that reasoning in the original position be by “the and of not Thus, and are relevant of from Earth system which upon how human and systemic and since they a account of how the Anthropocene economic or Without it is to our deliberators as about the problem they are supposed to be these considerations are to we will be theorizing about world ownership in relation to a namely the Earth system in the Anthropocene. political theory at this object the on natural resources, we would to new As Dryzek and Pickering the Anthropocene the of by at the of causal in the Earth system” of justice would not in relation to a of planetary but in relation to an Earth system whose functional state upon and was by human activities. This also implies that of justice have to functional of the Earth in the Anthropocene, since are of planetary I have that political philosophy has been to this object as from the world there have been important account is theory of which already a more view of the Earth and the of material the from resource use, upon the and space to that human beings in and upon these there is a in the of accounts, such as are to between or between The of the view it as an for resource use the of for making do not the of and upon the state of the Earth do they aim to do a view is what we gain by of discussion about justice in relation to the Earth system in the Anthropocene. This not only that the use of available is and well in also that the of the Earth system is for the of of our The that the Earth's functional state has a at is new to Nonetheless, our conception of the object of theory is with the aim of which is not to but to for “a particular way of that how human beings have come to the This is the view that in Earth system has a without a of the of the risks upon this change in or an of the how to its collective this new object in we can the for common ownership. I will both on their plausibility and their plausibility in relation to the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Risse's account (2012, a to use the resources and spaces to basic needs or to in a that does not one the to basic needs in in which it could have been done original resources and The of about how natural resources to and this is supposed to any from out of the original position (2012, Risse to and theory of basic but he is only with a of the most needs in this namely physical and the to The thought is that these needs are sufficiently that there can be no about their (2012, Blomfield 2019, as Blomfield Risse's account is it only for claims to these to the contract would that on the of they represent to a in which they can only use natural resources as these are necessary to physical and the to Risse's view is more in an This is in of the use of natural resources. Risse claims that view requires “a of resources in to equality as a (2012, This implies that resource use ought not to critical which basic needs (2012, A for this is the precautionary that natural and do so As such, is a for about natural This to in a fairly view of and justice, in which the of the do not the needs of the Risse's view is that can only but not justice from the in their use of resources (2012, Thus, Risse claims that would not be to rights and about a in which people ought not as they ought not their cannot (2012, a view the in equality of to Risse's original which meant to on of and their Many theorists would it as the natural resources in such a way that they into existence a so that not Indeed, the of common ownership is that what is commonly owned is and to What deliberators are is a that their claims and of their in and thus that such an from the claims of people is not a of such more conception of common ownership also a use in light of the moral of basic but a system of resource rights which political the entitlements over natural resources that are necessary for in the of collective relevant options are principles of territorial resource and of resource Blomfield argues that the would be while resource would be as necessary to collective such a its to by The for a of basic needs Risse's use so, this of the use and principles does not the that deliberators would be As we deliberators would know that it is necessary to change the status of such from to to a of the in which each resource their to the system the some are of the Earth they require governance and governance deliberators are about common resources and their they can be to know governance of common resources, that are of the Earth is not a requirement of justice on view that may on to such to the point of they may global is not a to it would not be This that equal deliberators would be with an in which no over This the of subject to Without some governance required as a of justice, would be to and of for are we how resource use the functioning of the Earth system as a As I in the deliberators would to be that the principles they would be to to Earth system the of the and use principles would not be to the they with some between Blomfield that a an over the natural resources, and thus the of an of resource for use with to global may be in which this is although it to the of a of resource without some of global Nonetheless, there is a problem with this of namely that it is and and governance such as on that governance are to systemic risks and that governance is The of is also as in the of climate change, where individual to do not on their but over and in with the activities of and have a profound on the climate system. This makes it to an resource use a of a problem has Thus, all resource use be at and thus would not such a world could in global at some A more general issue is that that of remains at natural resources and only the natural that them. This there is to what be required to impacts upon the Earth system or the between its functional state and human activities. has a but that does not our collective upon the Earth the of must and This is the of some of planetary is found in Earth system et al. 2018). This implies a world of with no of their activity required at the of the Earth system. some of the of the Anthropocene can be governance of natural resources, upon natural resources does not Earth system risks, which are on a conceptual that this remains the case one to the of natural resources to as Armstrong the intuitive view of natural resources noted at the also to important systemic of the this a improvement over intuitive of resources. As the of and to the of functioning to with the economic to of is with this as or of the Earth such as the climate system or the are as the Earth and its are for in the of or contributions to human or economic The discussion thus far has that these accounts of common ownership do not to the by resource use and in relation to the risks to Earth system functioning in the Anthropocene. In the I will argue in favor of a of collective aimed at these risks, based upon a of world ownership, namely joint collective ownership. deliberators in our original position would have to the of joint collective ownership. ownership is to that the collective preferences of all determine permissible resource According to is “what each may do with it is subject to collective For we can determine any is “the device of also claims that joint ownership upon everyone “a over joint ownership have the claim in For instance, Blomfield claims that all individuals with a over resource use would be both and individuals with permissible over their This is it that joint ownership must apply to any use of resources It also implies that joint ownership must be as a resource The view of joint ownership upon the conception of joint ownership by joint ownership to that at any are of the and ought to it on in at least no shape they found it the view of joint ownership is only to the of activities that affect Earth system This the that joint ownership is since it is as a aimed at Earth system which are for the and of natural resources, and the of from resource are not as of for without 2012). this conception of joint ownership has for permissible resource use, this is only as of resource use affect the Earth system. ownership, on this would not rule out particular of or use they are by it a to systemic risks to the Earth system as a whole, and its This requires the of global governance that the functioning of the Earth and to return to the of Thus, this view of joint ownership the of by the but its to claims over of the Earth system that are necessary for the and of We can would equal world to such a conception of joint This implies collective concerning the governance of Earth system to common that the of natural resource The in favor of joint ownership to a of with planetary risks that we have the conditions of the As we in a world without over at least some global cannot their This would risks upon This upon a claim about the nature of Earth system risks that be It is that the Earth's can change from one to as a of there remains a of about would be both particular and at the of Earth's most important such as the climate system. also remains about the of Earth system As such, one that a precautionary would only be on a of the relevant of According to a for and to be The first two conditions are by the of the Anthropocene, in which the are to the of the that would in such are well in Earth system and it is well that the conditions required for to be are we It is is so The of the of the Anthropocene may be since they to imply to the global and to political to concern relevant to basic needs or human which may not be to economic As we in the moral of an Anthropocene Earth system in which of resource use would be As a conditions This supports a precautionary to Earth system Thus, deliberators would not be with any of world ownership that to the risks with Earth system that the Earth system is in a of and on a change, and that human beings are the of in its we require a that our and to return to a Earth risks upon a to a point of of in the of by the would favor a precautionary to global the only planetary conditions that we know for can human these planetary conditions an of the the of deliberators upon in the original they would first upon a for the stability of Earth system As a joint ownership that there are to the permissible of natural resources which system can Indeed, discussion of joint ownership this the that an of makes to world ownership. on of that are owned in in the that all have of to or that they are not owned at since that no their use are is a their use are The of the Earth as a that the Earth as a is by the but on of The is in the accounts of common ownership its in governance and in on the of of in which is in the same natural The for this is a implies a of ownership, while common ownership implies that the Earth as a is the Earth is in is owned in a That while the over the Earth and its natural resources, these are on of are of between conception and that view that we ought to on a in at least as a state as we inherited it. This is human beings an and would be with and intact two global do not the Earth is very to into a new and more As we have such a change may be irreversible for of human and would not human in anything no longer to be any of on the Earth in as a as we found or more as our found it a joint ownership requires that the planetary conditions necessary for to are not of the as a as a this in the of a debate about claims over natural resources. The of the debate also to which out what may to be a of resources by the (cf. there are important between the and joint ownership of the As has conception of the to individual making it inapplicable to problems of global as this by the to the global it would the that resource and must justice may require the to its resource Second, all of the on resources. On the joint ownership is not a resource but a stability that to in the Earth or not these affect the use of resources they are often to do The by the on of the is not a of natural resources, but a of planetary conditions human and as I have the by joint ownership is with the that resource use and must joint ownership requires that the upon the Earth system must in view of the risks in along this is also a issue by the to think in of natural resources, the Earth is in are human beings both the and the The of the object of theory to be in from natural resources, which are by of value to human beings, to the Earth we may be secure in the that we are only with The question of where a theory of justice requires far more discussion can be provided that already that a conception would the consideration of human a new with the of the of argue in of it by of the value of nature and value as in and In most political have not For instance, Risse (2012, and Blomfield to one considering what justice A is often in of climate justice (cf. 2016; Dryzek and Pickering 2019, view we on a theory of justice, there is no conceptual to such the conception I have we to a on the Earth that we that it is both the of and of all of We also that the Earth system does not to as a object but that we to it. This would imply that the precautionary required by joint ownership would not be to human we that each the Earth not as but as and we would it on not only to our but to of it with This discussion of world ownership has how the of the Anthropocene can upon global justice and natural resources. I that contemporary accounts of common ownership do not to the by resource use, the risks to Earth system I have in favor of a of collective aimed at these risks, based upon an of the of joint collective ownership. this is it the the plausibility of common ownership in to a world but resources. this in relation to an Earth that independently of human it to be so in relation to the Anthropocene whose functional on I to and my for on an earlier The no of

Anthropocene · Common ownership · Earth (classical element) · Earth system science · Environmental ethics · Joint (building) · Political science · Climate Change and Geoengineering · Engineering · Geology · Global Energy and Sustainability Research · History · Law · Philosophy · Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life

• St Thomas Aquinas Political Writings

  Thomas Aquinas, R W Dyson•St Thomas Aquinas Political…•2002

  Add to list

• The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics

  Stephen M Gardiner, Allen Thompson•Oxford Handbook of Environmental…•2015

  Add to list

• Justice and Natural Resources

  Christine Armstrong, Chris Armstrong•Justice and Natural Resources•2017

  Add to list

• An Ecological Approach to International Law

  Prue Taylor•An Ecological Approach to…•1998

  Add to list

• The Commons in the New Millennium

  Bonnie J McKay, Nives Dolšak et al.•Commons in the New Millennium•2003

  Add to list

• A Perfect Moral Storm

  Stephen M Gardiner•A perfect moral storm•2011

  Add to list

• Earth System Governance

  Felix Biermann, Frank Biermann•Earth System Governance•2014

  Add to list

• Identifying a Safe and Just Corridor for People and the Planet

  Open Access•Johan Rockström, Jagdish Gupta et al.•Earth's Future•2021

  Add to list

• Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth

  Open Access•Iago Otero, Katharine N Farrell et al.•Conservation Letters•2020

  Add to list

• Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points

  Open Access•David I Armstrong Mckay, Arie Staal et al.•Science•2022

  Add to list

• Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene

  Open Access•Will Steffen, Johan Rockström et al.•Proceedings of the National…•2018

  Add to list

• The emergence and evolution of Earth System Science

  Open Access•Will Steffen, Katherine Richardson et al.•Nature Reviews Earth & Environment•2020

  Add to list

• Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

  Open Access•Katherine Richardson, Will Steffen et al.•Science Advances•2023

  Add to list

• Beyond Markets and States

  Elinor Ostrom•American Economic Review•2010

  Add to list

• Planetary boundaries

  Open Access•Will Steffen, Katherine Richardson et al.•Science•2015

  Add to list

• Geology of mankind

  Open Access•Paul J Crutzen, Sheldon A Zabel•Nature•2002

  Add to list

• The Entropy Law and the Economic Process

  Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas Georgescu‐roegen et al.•Entropy Law and the Economic…•1971

  Add to list

• National Responsibility and Global Justice

  David Miller, David Leslie Miller•National Responsibility and…•2007

  Add to list

• The Global Fund

  Hillel Steiner•Journal of Moral Philosophy•2011

  Add to list

• In Fairness to Future Generations

  Edith Brown Weiss•In Fairness to Future Generations•1989

  Add to list

• A Theory of Justice

  Open Access•John Rawls•Theory of Justice•1999

  Add to list

• Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy

  Bernard Williams, Adrian Moore•Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy•2006

  Add to list

• Capital

  Open Access•Karl Marx•On Violence•2020

  Add to list

• The Essential Mary Midgley

  James Lovelock, David Midgley•Essential Mary Midgley•2004

  Add to list

• Our Ecological Footprint

  Luca Marazzi•Our Ecological Footprint•2017

  Add to list

• Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality

  Open Access•G A Cohen•Self-Ownership, Freedom, and…•1995

  Add to list

• Planetary justice

  Open Access•Clifford Hickey, I Robeyns•Earth System Governance•2020

  Add to list

• Taming Gaia 2.0

  Open Access•Richard E Kim•The Anthropocene Review•2021

  Add to list

• When affected interests demand joint self-determination

  Open Access•Cara Nine•International Theory•2014

  Add to list

• Rawls and climate change

  Stephen M Gardiner•Critical Review of International…•2011

  Add to list

• Ecosystem services

  Open Access•Richard B Norgaard•Ecological Economics•2009

  Add to list

• Natural Resources, Territorial Right, and Global Distributive Justice

  Open Access•Margaret Moore•Political Theory•2012

  Add to list

• Justice as fairness

  John Rawls•Justice as fairness•2001

  Add to list

• Climate of Risk

  Lauren Hartzell-Nichols, Lauren Hartzell‐Nichols•Climate of Risk•2017

  Add to list

• Geopolitan Democracy in the Anthropocene

  Open Access•Richard Eckersley, Robyn Eckersley•Political Studies•2017

  Add to list

• Global Justice and the Distribution of Natural Resources

  Open Access•Timothy Hayward, Tim Hayward•Political Studies•2006

  Add to list

• Justice, Territory and Natural Resources

  Open Access•Avery Kolers•Political Studies•2012

  Add to list

• A Theory of Human Need

  Open Access•Len Doyal, Ian Gough•Theory of Human Need•1991

  Add to list

• Planetary Boundaries

  Open Access•Johan Rockström, Will Steffen et al.•Conservation Ecology•2009

  Add to list

• Life on Earth is hard to spot

  Open Access•Timothy M Lenton, Sébastien Dutreuil et al.•The Anthropocene Review•2020

  Add to list