Let’s start by posing a couple of questions. First, what is humanity’s relationship to nature? Second, what is capitalism? If you stop and think about it, there is something odd about the first question. At first glance it appears to be similar to asking “what is your relationship to your car?” This is a question we might ask of somebody who spends too much time customizing his or her car. And the question is reasonable. But what I want you to see is that the question is reasonable not only because of a value system, but also because the car exists apart from the person. In order to ask about the relationship, we have to first assume that the two are intrinsically separate. We wouldn’t, for example, ask what somebody’s relationship to their hand is. We might ask why they tattooed their hand or why they wear so many rings, but we wouldn’t (and almost couldn’t) form the question in terms of a relationship: relationships can only exist between two separate entities. That’s why the first question is odd: to ask the question we must first assume that nature and humanity are different entities. Our second question isn’t really odd, but it is one that many people in Western society don’t think about. Or, at least, they don’t think about the ramifications of the character of capitalism. The basic definition of capitalism is the use of capital to obtain profit, the bulk of which is reinvested to obtain more capital. Now, let’s pose a third question: what is intrinsic to capitalism that determines a particular kind of relationship between capitalism and nature? This is James O’Connor’s question. To get to his answer, we must initially consider our first question: what is humanity’s relationship to nature? The basic (and not very well publicized) fact is that by its nature, capital is bad at preserving things, whether the social well-being of people, land, community values, urban amenities, rural life, nature, or private fixed capital,…
