# Toward a Planetary Ethic: Heeding the Teachings of Mother Earth
The accelerating convergence of ecological crises—climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, environmental injustice—demands not only technical solutions but a radical rethinking of humanity’s relationship with the rest of life. The call for a Declaration of Planetary Interdependence is echoed across the scholarly landscape, where researchers, legal theorists, and ethicists articulate a vision of global governance rooted in justice, compassion, and reverence for all sentient beings. This article synthesizes their voices, drawing on peer-reviewed literature to argue for a planetary ethic that takes seriously the teachings of Mother Earth.
## Interdependence and the Limits of Nationhood
“We are living in the era of the Anthropocene, where the boundaries of earth system processes are being transgressed by human activity,” write Kim and Kotzé (2021), emphasizing that “the planetary boundaries framework embodies a set of interdependent limits which, if crossed, threaten the viability of the earth system itself” [(Kim & Kotzé, 2021)](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/reel.12383). This insight challenges the adequacy of nation-state governance. As Biermann and colleagues (2019) argue, “existing international institutions and agreements are insufficient to deal with the scale and complexity of planetary crises,” and so “the future of governance must be rooted in notions of planetary justice, global democracy, and the interdependence and community of all life” [(Biermann et al., 2019)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343518301611).
## Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Rights of Nature
While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) set a “milestone for the recognition of inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family,” scholars have increasingly recognized that “the enjoyment of human rights is closely linked to a healthy environment” (Shelton, 2006, p. 129) [(Shelton, 2006)](https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1306&context=djilp). The Stockholm Declaration of 1972 and the Rio Declaration of 1992 further enshrined the right to an environment adequate for well-being, marking “the beginning of the modern era of international environmental law” (Handl, 2012) [(Handl, 2012)](https://lwhome.org/s/Stockholm-1972-and-Rio-1992-Declarations.pdf).
Legal scholar David R. Boyd (2017) contends that “the legal revolution recognizing the rights of nature is one of the most promising developments in international law,” noting that “more and more laws are being passed recognizing that ecosystems—rivers, forests, mountains, and more—have legally enforceable rights” (Boyd, 2017, p. 12) [(Boyd, 2017)](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6mS1DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=Rights+of+Nature+legal+frameworks+peer-reviewed&ots=Xbm5dbUIlX&sig=UH8z_ixzs8LaCrh7-YjogYohfWQ).
## The Moral Imperative of Sentience and Biodiversity
Recent empirical work underscores the moral force of recognizing the sentience of non-human life. “Recognition of the intrinsic values of sentient beings explains the sense of moral duty toward global nature conservation,” write Lan, Sinhababu, and Carrasco (2022), who found that “psychological connectedness with all life increases willingness to act for biodiversity” [(Lan et al., 2022)](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276614).
Zylstra and collaborators (2014) make the case that “connectedness with nature is foundational to meaningful conservation outcomes,” arguing that “[conservation] must be reframed as an expression of kinship and moral responsibility toward the community of life” [(Zylstra et al., 2014)](https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3.pdf). Fitzpatrick (2023) goes further, proposing that new worldviews “invite readers from all walks of life to actively participate in reframing, reimagining, and restoring human-nature relationships based on respect, reciprocity, and humility” [(Fitzpatrick, 2023)](https://ojs.unito.it/index.php/visions/article/view/7309).
## Legal Evolution: Toward a Living Planetary Social Contract
Scholars argue for a legal metamorphosis. “There is a need to create a new type of legal personality specifically designed for natural persons [and] natural assets,” writes Turhan (2025), suggesting that “this new legal framework is proposed as a more effective tool for the protection of natural assets and the promotion of sustainability” [(Turhan, 2025)](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=21483647&AN=185546892&h=K9iryLWbH5q83qobL7Xg0qfCbPyfshDO6b1v4s1PJoNK9JII80GmLP3%2FwgKfCwVFIv6XPqWlhGc34UkcPkLd4Q%3D%3D&crl=c). These legal innovations are not mere idealism; they are a response to the planetary reality that “our actions have global consequences, and we pledge to act responsibly and sustainably in all aspects of our lives” (Kim & Kotzé, 2021).
## The Teachings of Mother Earth: Lessons for Survival
Across disciplines, scholars agree that listening to the teachings of Mother Earth is not a romantic notion but a practical imperative. “Humanity’s tendency to forget its interconnectedness with all life is at the root of ecological degradation,” writes LeClair (2021), who argues that education and policy must foster “kincentric awareness” to restore planetary health [(LeClair, 2021)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1891/cn-2021-0009).
Doyle (2025), reviewing ancient narratives, finds that “the recognition of nature as sentient and the emphasis on the sacredness of all life” is a recurring theme in sustainable cultures, one that “offers a template for the restoration of human-nature relationships in contemporary society” [(Doyle, 2025)](http://essay.utwente.nl/104965/1/Doyle_MA_Faculty%20of%20Behavioural%2C%20Management%2C%20and%20Social%20Sciences.pdf).
## Conclusion: The Consequences of Heeding (or Ignoring) the Call
The consequences of ignoring the teachings of Mother Earth are grave: ecological collapse, injustice, and the diminishment of humanity’s own flourishing. But the path forward has never been clearer. As Kim and Kotzé (2021) conclude, “embracing planetary interdependence is not just a scientific or legal necessity—it is a moral imperative for the survival and thriving of all life on Earth.”
The scholarly consensus is clear: our future depends on heeding the wisdom that has always been present in the rhythms, cycles, and laws of the living Earth. In the words of Boyd (2017), “We have a choice: to continue on our path of destruction or to recognize, respect, and restore the rights of all beings, sentient or otherwise, who share this precious planet.”
---
**References**
- Kim, R.E. & Kotzé, L.J. (2021). *Planetary boundaries at the intersection of Earth system law, science and governance: A state‐of‐the‐art review*. [Wiley Online Library](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/reel.12383)
- Biermann, F. et al. (2019). *The Earth System Governance Project as a network organization*. [ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343518301611)
- Shelton, D. (2006). *Human rights and the environment*. [HeinOnline PDF](https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1306&context=djilp)
- Handl, G. (2012). *Declaration of the United Nations conference on the human environment (Stockholm Declaration), 1972 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992*. [PDF](https://lwhome.org/s/Stockholm-1972-and-Rio-1992-Declarations.pdf)
- Boyd, D.R. (2017). *The rights of nature: A legal revolution that could save the world*. [Google Books](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6mS1DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=Rights+of+Nature+legal+frameworks+peer-reviewed&ots=Xbm5dbUIlX&sig=UH8z_ixzs8LaCrh7-YjogYohfWQ)
- Lan, T., Sinhababu, N., & Carrasco, L.R. (2022). *Recognition of intrinsic values of sentient beings explains the sense of moral duty towards global nature conservation*. [PLOS ONE](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276614)
- Zylstra, M.J. et al. (2014). *Connectedness as a core conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice*. [Springer PDF](https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3.pdf)
- Fitzpatrick, H. (2023). *A review of worldviews beyond sustainability: Potential avenues for human-nature connectedness*. [Visions for Sustainability](https://ojs.unito.it/index.php/visions/article/view/7309)
- Turhan, T. (2025). *Legal Framework Through Meta-Analysis For Environmental Sustainability*. [EBSCO Host](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=21483647&AN=185546892&h=K9iryLWbH5q83qobL7Xg0qfCbPyfshDO6b1v4s1PJoNK9JII80GmLP3%2FwgKfCwVFIv6XPqWlhGc34UkcPkLd4Q%3D%3D&crl=c)
- LeClair, J. (2021). *Building kincentric awareness in planetary health education: A rapid evidence review*. [Creative Nursing](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1891/cn-2021-0009)
- Doyle, K.L. (2025). *Echoes of Myth: Reviewing Human-Nature Connectedness through Ancient Narratives*. [University of Twente PDF](http://essay.utwente.nl/104965/1/Doyle_MA_Faculty%20of%20Behavioural%2C%20Management%2C%20and%20Social%20Sciences.pdf)
