Abstract

A rich conceptualization of the relationship between humans and the environment is largely missing from current human rights philosophy. Many canonical human rights thinkers such as Charles Beitz, Joel Feinberg, and James Griffin assume that there is a neat dichotomy between human humans and the rights of the environment. Anthropocentrism is implicit in much of this discourse, arguing that the environment is distinct from humans, meant to serve humans, and does not have rights or value in and of itself. However, nature encompasses the physical material world, including living organisms and non-living landscapes on Earth, but doesn’t arbitrarily stop at humans and social life. A deep ecological account of human rights provides an illuminating perspective that can more holistically conceptualize the rights of humans and the environment, as humans are always connected to and a part of nature in this perspective. In this paper, I seek to explore a deep ecological account of human rights that can extend existing human rights philosophy beyond the confines of anthropocentrism. Building upon human rights philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities list in Women and Human Development and Frontiers of Justice, I argue that the human-nature relation is a foundational principle underlying all of the capabilities and is insufficiently addressed by Nussbaum’s eighth capability, titled ‘Other Species.’ The principle of Being with Earth is necessary to operationalize Nussbaum’s theoretical framework and to become more holistic and applicable to real-life cases of human and environmental rights abuses. To elucidate the necessity of this theoretical extension, I will draw from the case of environmental pollution injustices in Chicago, Illinois. Ultimately, this article combines a wide array of academic literature and data into an environmental sociological framework for understanding the expansiveness of human and environmental rights. 

Introduction to Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach

In his seminal book, On Human Rights, philosopher James Griffin (2009) argued that underlying the concept of human rights is the notion of normative agency, which consists of three criteria: autonomy, minimal provision, and liberty. For Griffin, normative agency distinguishes human life from other types of life on earth, such as the lives of animals. Beings that do not fit the criteria for normative agency under Griffin’s framework, are not entitled to the same protections and rights (Griffin 2009). Problematically, this includes human beings with intellectual and cognitive disabilities alongside animals and non-human beings. For mainstream thinkers such as Griffin, humans, and thereby human rights, can be theorized about without thorough consideration of the environmental landscapes with which humans are always interconnected.

Legal philosopher Martha Nussbaum critiqued Griffin and much of the human rights canon, when she theorized capabilities sit at the core of what makes a human right, including consideration for non-human entities. Building upon the work of thinkers such as Amartya Sen, Nussbaum theorized that human rights are dependent on the combination of what she coins as “basic capabilities” and “internal capabilities,” to make “combined capabilities” (Nussbaum 2000:82). Basic capabilities describe the internal potential to develop capabilities, whereas internal capabilities are the external resources and structures necessary to develop capabilities. An example of a basic capability is the baseline cognitive ability to read, and the internal capabilities would include resources such as teachers who can teach that individual to read and readable text itself. Both the cognitive capacity and learning resources are prerequisites for an individual to become a reader. For Nussbaum, the distinction between these capabilities is not a sharp one, but rather fluid and complex (Nussbaum, 2000). The combination of these types of capabilities for Nussbaum, creates combined capabilities, which is a conceptualization that is enriched and deepened by the context of the basic and internal capabilities. Further, Nussbaum argues that this combined capability is distinct from actual human functioning. Akin to potential and kinetic energy, functioning is the actualization of combined capabilities. The act of speech is an example of functioning- if one has the combined capability and desire to speak, they will speak. Rather than judging functioning, or the exercise of combined capabilities, for Nussbaum, combined capabilities provide us with a launching point to imagine human choice in the presence of human rights. 

Moreover, in Women and Human Development, Nussbaum lists ten major capabilities that she argues are necessary for full human dignity and flourishing, delineating the categories of what Karl Marx calls “rich human need” (Nussbaum 1999). These capabilities include life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, political control, and material control (Nussbaum 2007). Notably, Nussbaum argues that the capabilities titled “affiliation” and “practical reason” are actually a foundational capability with threads through each of the other capabilities. They “both organize and suffuse all the others, making their pursuit truly human” (Nussbaum 2007:82). Nussbaum’s eighth capability, ‘other species’ describes the ability to “live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature” and is not argued to have the same nature as “affiliation” and “practical reason” (Nussbaum 2007:80). While this capability comes the closest to recognizing the underlying relationships to the environment, I argue that Being with Nature is the most foundational capability of all and a precondition for all other capabilities, consisting of the ability of humans to live in harmony within our environments- including fellow humans, non-human beings, and common resources. Deep ecological principles can help extend this eighth capability beyond its current anthropocentric frame and reveal its interconnection with all other human rights. The following investigation ultimately works to connect existing environmental science and health equity scholarship and data about the Chicago case to social scientific data, which reveals the theoretical implications of the capabilities approach and imagine an integrated social-ecological understanding of human rights. This work lays the groundwork for future grounding of environmental sociological investigations in human rights literature that moves beyond anthropocentric divisions of human social life and the environment. 

Deep Ecological Lens

Deep ecology is a philosophical perspective that takes a holistic approach to understanding human-environment relationships, and “emphasizes the intrinsic value of all members of the biotic community, as well as the need to nurture the diversity of ecological, cultural and knowledge systems” (Akamani 2020:3). Relating deep ecology to human rights, political economists Kent Buse et al. argue that “the right to a healthy environment provides a foundation to realise a raft of other human rights, including the rights to health, water and sanitation, and energy” (Buse et al. 2022). These are the two key principles from deep ecology that are necessary to extend Nussbaum’s eighth capability: the dissolution of the human/nature dichotomy, and the inherent value of nature outside of its utility for human use. 

Firstly, the deep ecological perspective rejects the dichotomy between humans and the environment because bodies (human and otherwise) are always in process and in relationship to their surroundings. The oxygen that humans breathe in is taken from the air around us and circulated around our bodies, and our bodies give off heat to the surrounding air. There is no doubt that bodies are always in movement, whether it is always perceptible or recognizable to the human senses. In this way, it is very difficult to draw a distinction between where nature begins, and humans begin. Does water start as nature when it flows through a stream, but becomes human when it’s ingested? Humans are a part of the water cycle just like other organisms, and privileging humans as exceptions ignores the larger context in which we operate. Historian and philosopher M. Murphy illuminates this when they write that “what happens to the water is what happens to its relations,” and “we are part of the water, [and] we are part of its tributaries” (Murphy 2017). Thus, when I use the words environment, Earth, and nature, I mean them to encompass human beings and social life alongside all non-human entities. 

Secondly, there is a tendency for thinkers such as Nussbaum to conclude that because the environment is vital for human life and flourishing, its value becomes dependent on human standards of utility. This is a central claim in anthropocentrism, which views the human-environment relation as one of stewardship and rights on the side of humans to the environment rather than a reciprocal relationship. In Frontiers of Justice, Nussbaum warns us about what she refers to as “nature worship,” criticizing the idea that “nature as harmonious and wise, and of humans as wasteful over-reachers who would live better were to get in tune with this fine harmony” (Nussbaum 2007:367). Nussbaum is generally skeptical of notions of deep ecology and instead calls for “supplanting the natural with the just” (Nussbaum 2007:367). This perspective renders nature as a passive thing to be used and shaped by humans without respect to our own dependence on and reciprocity with nature. There is an implicit hierarchy and arrogance to this position that will prove to be problematic in the application of the following case study.  Beyond the right of individuals to a healthy environment is the right for the environment itself to be healthy.

Case Study: Heavy Metal Pollution and Socio-Spatial Disparities in Chicago, Illinois 

To demonstrate the utility of extending Nussbaum’s capabilities list towards Being with Nature, I aim to put each capability in conversation with the case of environmental pollution in Chicago, Illinois. In Chicago, the distribution of heavy metal pollution is exceedingly unequal, with the South and West Sides being the most overburdened on effectively all measures of pollution, including heavy metals (White and Gala 2022). Inequality in the distribution of heavy metal pollution is not significantly due to any natural geographic factors but is the result of a long history of oppressive social systems that influence where pollution is socially and politically acceptable or not. Neighborhoods on the South and West Sides—which consist of majority Black and Brown communities—are the most overburdened by pollution from sources such as roadways, pipes, and industrial runoff, which results in Chicago’s communities of color experiencing the effects of pollution at much higher rates than predominantly white communities (Esie et al. 2021; Watson et al. 2022). Figure 1 shows the regional breakdown of white populations, with the highest concentrated on the North Side of the city:

Figure 1: Demographics of Non-Hispanic White populations from 2018-2022. This data is collected from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Source: Chicago Health Atlas 2025.

There is a double motion at play here: 1) neighborhoods on the South and West Sides have been historically- and to this day- the most accessible places to live in Chicago for low-income individuals and communities of color, especially Black and Latine communities; and 2) these same neighborhoods are unsurprisingly the sites of pollution and have become environmentally ‘wastelanded’ (Voyles 2015). I use the term ‘wastelanded’ as Traci Brynne Voyles does in Wastelanding: Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Country, to mean a racial and spatial signifier that renders ecosystems and populations pollutable. The social and political process of wastelanding in the Navajo nation is mirrored in the Chicago case. I do not mean wasteland as an empty space devoid of value, but quite the opposite. The areas of Chicago that are ‘wastelanded’ are socially and culturally rich areas with strong significance to the city. Communities that are wastelanded are always resisting this process and finding ways to create beautiful and safe communities in the face of violence and injustice. 

Furthermore, heavy metals are a particularly concerning group of pollutants that have severe health consequences and uneven distribution throughout Chicago. Heavy metals such as lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) are considered ‘xenobiotic,’ (Rahman et al 2022) because they are not naturally present in an ecosystem and do not have any benefits for humans or ecosystems, and in the case of lead and mercury, they are tremendously toxic at even trace amounts (Rahman et al 2022). Many heavy metals are associated with cancers and birth defects and even impede plant growth and reproduction (Kim 2015). Because Chicago remains one of the most racially segregated and environmentally unjust cities in the United States (Esie et al. 2022) the histories of racial discrimination in Chicago continue to shape our bodies, health, and social lives.  

With this socio-ecological context in mind, this next section describes each of Nussbaum’s capabilities and puts them in conversation with the case study of heavy metals pollution in Chicago through the two deep ecological principles: dissolution of the human/nature dichotomy, and the inherent value of nature outside of its utility for human use. Ultimately, each capability is enriched through the deep ecological perspective in attending to the human rights concerns present in the case study. 

Capabilities Applied: Life, Bodily Health, Bodily Integrity

Nussbaum writes about the capability for life that one should be “able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely, or before one’s life is so reduced as to be not worth living” (Nussbaum 2000:78). The life expectancy of Chicagoans in the South Side neighborhood of Englewood is 30 years lower (60 years old), compared to the downtown neighborhood of Streeterville (90 years old), which is the largest life expectancy divide in the United States (Schencker 2019). Pollutants contribute to disparities in life expectancy in Chicago, as many heavy metals are carcinogenic (Kim 2015), though they are one of many factors that drive health and illness. 

Figure 2 shows life expectancy rates in Chicago. Darker shades of blue indicate higher life expectancy, with the maximum reaching 88 years. Lighter shades represent lower life expectancy, with the minimum recorded at 63.4 years. The highest life expectancy is concentrated on the North Side, while the South and West Sides have clusters of the lowest life expectancy

Figure 2: Life Expectancy rates in 2022, with data collected from the Illinois Department of Public Health’s death certificate database. Source: Chicago Health Atlas 2025. 

Moreover, Figure 3 shows Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL), which shows how many years are lost in each community area from individuals who died before the age of 75, which is the overall average life expectancy in Chicago. YPPL is a public health metric that is used to measure premature mortality on a population level, revealing health disparities. The map is calculated at the community area level and is weighted per 100,000 residents. This map shows a range of shades of blue that demonstrate wide disparities in YPPL on the South and West Sides, from 22,295- 2,537 years of potential life lost per 100,000 population. 

Figure 3: Years of Potential Life Lost, with data collected from the Illinois Department of Public Health’s death certificate database. This measure is calculated from the “total number of persons who died before age 75 (ICD-10 codes: All causes) divided by the total population under 75 during a specified time period expressed as years of productive life lost per 100,000 population” (Chicago Health Atlas 2025). 

Furthermore, residents of the South Side have been shown to die of cancers at twice the rate of the U.S. national average (Bartosch 2023). Figure 4 shows data from the Chicago Health Atlas, displaying cancer diagnosis rates for all invasive cancers per 100,000 population, with darker areas having higher rates. This map signifies wide disparities in the diagnosis of cancer amongst populations in Chicago based on geographic location. While heavy metals and other types of pollutants cannot be entirely attributed to these health disparities, the literature shows that many cancers contribute to the development of some cancers. 

Figure 4: Cancer Diagnosis Rate per 100,000 population. Data are collected from the Illinois Department of Public Health’s Illinois State Cancer Registry. According to the Chicago Health Atlas, “cancer cases are collected through mandated reporting by hospitals, ambulatory surgical treatment centers, non-hospital affiliated radiation therapy treatment centers, independent pathology labs, dermatologists and through the voluntary exchange of cancer patient data with other (mostly nearby) states” (Chicago Health Atlas 2025). 

This trend of greater pollution and health disparities on the South and West Sides compared to the North Side continues for other conditions. For instance, Chicago’s lead poisoning rate for children ages 1-5 is much higher on the South and West Sides compared to the North side. This phenomenon is demonstrated in Figure 5: 

Figure 5: Lead Poisoning Rate, calculated as the percent “of children aged 1-5 with peak annual blood lead level (bll) 5 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter (µg/dL) blood, venous draw” (Chicago Health Atlas 2025). 

Lower life expectancy, greater lead poisoning for children, and higher cancer rates on the South and West Sides would be a clear and indisputable violation of this capability for life and health. However, without a respect for the human-Earth relationship, which is fraught in the case of pollutants and causing harms to health, one might conclude that better medicines and greater access to healthcare could solve this issue rather than a fundamental reimagining of Chicago without the sources of pollution themselves that cause human and environmental illness. Better healthcare to deal with this situation is undoubtedly necessary, but a holistic and ecological perspective is necessary to deal with the root causes of pollution-related illness rather than a superficial solution. 

Furthermore, local public policy is in harmony with a root-causes approach to pollution mitigation, citing an intent to “preserve, protect and improve the air, water and land resources of Cook County (which includes Chicago), so as to promote the health, safety, welfare and comfort, prevent injury to human health, plant and animal life, and property” (Cook County Code of Ordinances 30-2; see Appendix A). In this text, humans are situated alongside other stakeholders such as animal and plant life, demonstrating the inseparability of our fates in our shared ecosystem. Therefore, because human life is always conditioned upon a healthy environment to live in, the human/nature dichotomy cannot be maintained in this capability. And for this capability to be fulfilled, environmental health and wellbeing must also be sustained.

For the bodily health capability, for Nussbaum includes the ability to “have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter” (Nussbaum 2000:78). As stated previously, pollutants such as heavy metals are carcinogenic, compromising the ability to live a long and healthy life for those exposed to the pollution. Further, some heavy metals such as arsenic (As), selenium (Se), and lithium (Li) are also teratogenic, meaning they cause birth defects with exposure to pregnant people (Evans 2020). This has reproductive justice implications, as pollutants subvert control over our bodies and their reproductive capacities. Therefore, polluted landscapes are inherently a reproductive and gender justice concern, and a threat to this second capability. Viewing human health, including reproduction, as distinct from environmental health ignores the deep interconnectivity demonstrated in the science of this case study. 

Lastly, bodily integrity describes the ability to “move freely from place to place; having one’s bodily boundaries treated as sovereign, i.e. being able to be secure against assault, including sexual assault, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction” (Nussbaum 2000:78). Ecofeminist scholars such as Fred Besthorn and Diane Pearson McMillen also argue that the oppression of nature and women are ‘twin oppressions’ (Besthorn and McMillen 2002). This oppression is argued to be the result of hegemonic masculinist logics of domination over the environment and other non-human beings alongside women and gender minorities. Masculinist domination is also present in other systems of oppression, such as racism and queerphobias. Consistently throughout Nussbaum’s work, she is deeply concerned with the equitable and just treatment of women, and her work is situated within a distinctly feminist worldview. 

Therefore, an extension of this feminism ought to recognize our interconnection with the natural environment, which has undergone degradation through the same logic that oppresses women and gender minorities. This logic is also present in the case of heavy metals, where neighborhoods on the South and West Sides are deemed pollutable, whereas the North Side is not. Further, the concerns for gendered sovereignty that Nussbaum presents in this capability should extend to the freedom of non-human beings to move from place to place, to be treated as sovereign, to prevent assault, abuse, and violence, and to have the opportunity for pleasure beyond the human experience. And, just as women have intrinsic value outside of what we can provide for men, nature also has value beyond human use. Thus, without an ecofeminist perspective, and especially a deep ecological feminist perspective, the capabilities approach ignores oppressions of nature and perpetuates the same logic of gender oppression. 

Senses, Imagination, Thought, Emotions, Control over Environment, Play

Nussbaum writes that the fourth capability for senses, imagination, and thought is the ability “to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason- and to do these things in a ‘truly human’ way… being able to use one’s mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression… [and] being able to have pleasurable experience, and to avoid non-necessary pain” (Nussbaum 2000:78-79). Following philosopher Abraham Maslow’s famous Hierarchy of Needs, physiological needs of humans are the existential preconditions for higher-order needs, such as self-actualization (Maslow 1943). In the case of heavy metal pollution in Chicago, full sensory, imaginative, and expressive abilities depend greatly on foundational conditions of health and wellness. The same can be said about the eighth capability, which describes play. The time, resources, and physical and mental energy that are required internal capabilities for this combined capability, which are complicated greatly by the negative health consequences of heavy metal pollution. I mean to say that all people regardless of circumstances have the basic capability for senses, imagination, and thought (though it looks different between people). The internal capability, meaning the infrastructure to support the capability, is what I argue is not afforded equally to all people, especially in the case of health inequities caused by pollution. Dealing with the health and social consequences of heavy metal pollution takes up space in many Chicagoans’ lives, which can subtract from physical and mental bandwidth in other aspects of life. Cook County has recognized the financial, social, and psychological impact that pollution disparities cause in Chicago. For instance, the County cited concerns for environmental injustice in their Policy Road Map, which describes a series of goals and visions for the County from 2024-2027. Objective 1 of the goal for more “sustainable communities” aims to “advance environmental justice by means such as investing equitably across the County to address historic disinvestment and inequitable pollutant overburden” (Cook County Policy Roadmap 2024; see Appendix B). One of the strategies deployed for this objective is to “increase awareness of and financial support for environmental benefits to ensure access to services and resources” (Cook County Policy Roadmap 2024). Attention to environmental and economic disparities on the South and West Sides of Chicago are strategic ways that local governance is addressing the impact that pollution has on the capabilities of Chicagoans to live and thrive. 

While the internal capability for this section—or the infrastructure and resources necessary for a full capability—is hindered by pollution disparities, marginalized communities are always resisting their oppression. Art is a particularly useful medium to convey the impacts of social and environmental issues through the senses, imagination, thought, and emotion, and is a tool of many local environmental justice organizations. Earth Chicago, for instance, is a local organization that aims to bring “attention to issues such as climate change and environmental justice in non-traditional ways [which] can drive people to think, feel, and act” (Earth Chicago 2024). Ultimately, pollution disparities in Chicago threaten Nussbaum’s capabilities for senses, imagination, thought, and emotion because they threaten the very health and lives of individuals and communities in Chicago. Nevertheless, communities wield these capabilities as mechanisms of knowledge sharing, emotional release, and ultimately, resistance. 

Furthermore, polluted environments can disrupt our human/Earth connection because it can be unsafe and unpleasant to be in outside spaces that are polluted. This has serious implications for the ability to be creative because natural environments have the ability to evoke a creative way of thinking by making us more curious, allowing us to think of new ideas, and facilitating flexibility in our way of thinking (Van den Bosch et al. 2015). The higher-order needs that these capabilities describe depend on the foundational physiological needs, which are virtually always mediated by our environmental landscapes. 

Control over one’s environment is split into two sections: political and material control. The political dimension concerns participation “effectively in political choices that govern one’s life; having the right of political participation, protection of free speech and association” (Nussbaum 2000:80). The material dimension described the ability to “hold property (both land and movable goods)… having property rights on an equal basis with others,” and other basic property concerns (Nussbaum 2000:80). Similarly to the concern for senses, imagination, and thought, this capability depends on foundational physiological needs and the maintenance of a clean and healthy environment. Democratic rights are much more difficult to exercise when the basic necessities for survival, all of which depend on the environment, are not met. The case of heavy metals pollution in Chicago is a fantastic example of a violation of the right to material property’s entanglement with the environment. Property owners on the South and West Sides face lower property values due to a multitude of factors including neighborhood disinvestment, de facto discrimination, and also the presence of pollution sources such as highways and industrial plants (Shelton 2022). The capability to hold property equally in the city of Chicago is complicated by the sources and effects of pollutants. Thus, this capability is always situated within a context of an environment in which politics and property are always existing. 

Regarding emotions, Nussbaum argues for the capability to “have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger… [and] not having one’s emotional development blighted by overwhelming fear and anxiety, or by traumatic events of abuse or neglect” (Nussbaum 2000:79). The distinctly humanistic language is notable in this capability alongside the fourth capability, especially when Nussbaum qualifies that capability as being able “to do these things in a ‘truly human’ way” (Nussbaum 2000:78). This is correct in the sense that a ‘truly human way’ is to be in deep interconnection with the Earth. Similarly, the ability to “have attachments to things and people outside ourselves” can certainly include non-human beings and objects. This language is quite consistent with a deep ecological view of human relations. While connections of love do occur between humans (romantic, friendship, familial, etc.), there are also a wide myriad of other love relations beyond humans. Many Chicagoans feel love towards Lake Michigan, for example, and the indigenous peoples of this area have been in loving relation to Michigami for tens of thousands of years. When our relations, human or otherwise, are harmed through processes such as pollution, feelings of ‘solastalgia’ can emerge. Solastalgia is a concept developed by Australian philosopher Glenn Albrecht to describe “the pain and longing we feel as we realize the world immediately around us is changing” (Albrecht 2023). Albrecht specifically recognizes this feeling as a response to the effects of disasters from climate change and industrial mining and the ensuing dread, grief, and powerlessness of its witnesses. Thus, to view this capability as distinct from the interwoven human/Earth connection is to ignore the various dimensions of emotion beyond human-human relationships. 

Practical Reason, Affiliation

As stated previously, Nussbaum theorizes that the practical reason and affiliation capabilities are interwoven throughout the other capabilities. Following philosopher Immanuel Kant, Nussbaum posits that practical reason is the ability “to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life” (Nussbaum 2000:79). Planning of one’s life is always going to be in relation to the environment where one is located. Where one lives, works, plays, etc. is going to be a physical location that is a part of a larger ecosystem. We cannot ever escape our interconnectedness with the environment because we too are a part of it. Thus, the environment is always at least in the background, though often in the foreground of human thought and life. 

Moreover, the capability for affiliation is twofold: 1) the ability “to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another and to have compassion for that situation or another and to have compassion for that situation; to have the capability for both justice and friendship;” and  2) “having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others” (Nussbaum 2000:79). This conceptualization of affiliation is not unique to human beings, as non-human beings also show emotions, witnessed through subjective, behavioral, cognitive, and physiological indicators (Neethirajan et al 2021; see more examples in ‘Other Species’ section). Treatment as a dignified and equal being is also something that should be afforded to non-human beings. No animal is deserving of indignities and humiliation just as humans also deserve respectful treatment. Nussbaum unnecessarily narrows the language of this capability (and others) to exclude non-human beings that have these combined capabilities, though they often look different. For the case study of heavy metals pollution, exposure to pollution is of concern for the ecosystem in and around Chicago beyond just human beings. For instance, metal accumulation in Lake Michigan’s species of prey fish is very concerning to some biologists (Conard et al 2021). This research demonstrates a concern for other species, notably even species that are not typically eaten by humans, such as prey fish. Beyond simply concern for humans eating contaminated fish, these fish ought to be able to live in a clean environment. Otherwise, masculinist domination of nature prevails in this capability, with numerous downstream social effects reproduced. 

Other Species 

Nussbaum writes that the capability for ‘Other Species’ encompasses the ability to “live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature” (Nussbaum 2000:80). In Frontiers of Justice, Nussbaum roughly articulates a counter argument towards a deep ecological critique of this capability. She writes that some may view this capability “from both the human and the animal side, [which] calls for the gradual formation of an interdependent world in which all species will enjoy cooperative and mutually supportive relations” (Nussbaum 2006:400). However, she concludes, “nature is not that way and never has been” (Nussbaum 2006:400). Nussbaum is quick to dismiss the reciprocal potential of this capability, arguing that nature is not ‘just.’ This argument would imply the human/nature dichotomy, that human thought is outside of the natural world. Systems of justice are not unique to humans. Primate researcher Frans B. M. de Waal, for instance, has found in his study of chimpanzees that they demonstrate social regulation of equality and inequality through their social norms and interactions (de Waal 1991). Many species have intricate social systems that are not incomparable to human society. If humans are deserving of this capability to live in relation to nature, and humans are not entirely dissimilar socially from other types of social animals, then the application of this capability to only humans is incongruous. Again, living in “concern for and in relation to” non-human beings while also reproducing the logic of species hierarchy that “supplants the natural with the just” (Nussbaum 2006:367) is just another form of masculinist domination.

Philosophical Extension: Being With Earth

Given the limitations of an anthropocentric approach implicit in Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, an extension of the theory to incorporate the human/nature connection is vital.  Environmental philosopher Christian Diehm (2014) argues that “Western society has become alienated from nature and due to false ideas about humanity’s place in the order of things.” To address this alienation, Diehm astutely calls for us to make amends with our ‘ecological Self,’ which “will catalyze an existential affirmation of our embeddedness in and belonging to the natural environment” (Klemmer 2020). In order to develop and expand this ‘ecological Self,’ I draw from Indigenous botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer, who insightfully writes about the concept of a ‘grammar of animacy.’ A grammar is a system of meaning that guides and structures a language, and animacy is the state of being alive. Kimmerer noticed that in their language of Potawatomi, there is no grammatical distinction between the personal pronouns such as she, they, and we, and the object pronoun it, which are typically reserved for non-human beings and objects in English and other Germanic languages. Kimmerer argues that “the arrogance of English is that the only way to be animate, to be worthy of respect and moral concern, is to be a human” (Kimmerer 2013:40). While largely unintentional by Nussbaum, this same arrogance underlies the capabilities approach and its anthropocentric grounding.

To move beyond this arrogance, Kimmerer imagines whole new ways of living in the world where other species are respected as sovereign, there can be a world democracy of species rather than a tyranny of one, “with moral responsibility to water and wolves, and with a legal system that recognizes the standing of other species” (Kimmerer 2013:40). This is the very core of what Being with Earth adds to the capabilities approach. Further, Canadian historian and philosopher, Murphy, theorizes about a concept they call ‘alterlife,’ which “requires bursting open categories of organism, individual, and body to acknowledge a shared, entangling, and extensive condition of being” (Murphy 2017). Alterlife is “a state of already having been altered by environmental violence that is nonetheless a capacity to become something else… [and] is forged in recognition of the realities of large-scale and everyday environmental violence (Murphy 2017). Heavy metals pollution is an example of environmental violence that reveals the insufficiency of an anthropocentric conception of human rights and leads us towards the promises of ‘Alterliving’ beyond the domination of nature. Thus, it is through the building of the ecological Self by the means of a grammar of animacy, that we can imagine becoming something else—a world of species living in harmony. 

Conclusions

It is through the case study of heavy metal pollution in Chicago that the capabilities approach to human rights become visibly dependent on the foundational claims of deep ecology- that humans are inextricably connected to the Earth, and that the Earth itself has value independent of human beings. Nussbaum’s capabilities list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of human rights, but rather an iterative exercise in theorizing what a just vision of human flourishing could require. Thus, I argue that Being with Earth is the next iteration of this list as an underlying principle for all capabilities. In conceptualizing this capability of Being with Earth, I do not mean to reduce all species to the same existence because there are a wide variety of differences between beings in our ecosystem. Just as the capabilities approach is not prescriptive of choice, but rather a champion of the existence of choice in the first place, Being with Earth does not prescribe a certain practical outcome to this philosophy other than the dissolution of masculinist systems of domination. 

Lastly, Being with Nature is a starting point for future explorations about what integrated human-environmental rights policies can entail. Rather than viewing human rights and environmental rights as competing or adversarial interests, Being with Nature can serve as a launching point for policy that embraces the deep overlaps between human and environmental flourishing. While the scope of this paper does not allow for an extended list of policy recommendations that would support the capability of Being with Earth, this analysis ultimately leads to a recommendation of a rethinking of human systems and the ways in which non-human beings and common resources are respected, and reciprocal relationships can be re-established. Kimmerer puts it well when she writes that “we are all bound by a covenant of reciprocity: plant breath for animal breath, winter and summer, predator and prey, grass and fire, night and day, living and dying” (Kimmerer 2013:230). All our fates are bound with each other- human and non-human. Being with Earth means embracing our interconnectedness and moving forwards toward a more just relationship with our environment- for a better future for all. 

Works Cited 

Akamani, Kofi. 2020.”Integrating Deep Ecology and Adaptive Governance for Sustainable Development: Implications for Protected Areas Management.” Sustainability 12(14):5757. 

Albrecht, Glenn. 2023. Solastalgia: An Anthology of Emotion in a Disappearing World. Edited by Paul Bogard. University of Virginia Press. 

Bartosch, Jamie. 2023. “UChicago Medicine Breaks Ground on State’s First Freestanding Cancer Center.” UChicago News. Retrieved May 1, 2025 (https://news.uchicago.edu/story/uchicago-medicine-breaks-ground-states-first-freestanding-cancer-center). 

Besthorn, Fred, and Diane McMillen. 2002. “The Oppression of Women and Nature: Ecofeminism as a Framework for an Expanded Ecological Social Work.” Families in Society 83:221-32. 

Buse, Ken, Hesselman Marlies, and Meier Benjamin Mason. 2022. “The Human Right to a Healthy Environment—Time for the Public Health Community to Take Urgent Action.” BMJ 378:o2313. doi: 10.1136/bmj.o2313.

Conard, Whitney M., Brandon S. Gerig, Lea M. Lovin, David B. Bunnell, and Gary A. Lamberti. 2021. “Metal Accumulation in Lake Michigan Prey Fish: Influence of Ontogeny, Trophic Position, and Habitat.” Journal of Great Lakes Research 47(6):1746-55. 

de Waal, Frans B. 1991. “The Chimpanzee’s Sense of Social Regularity and Its Relation to the Human Sense of Justice.” American Behavioral Scientist 34(3):335-49.

Diehm, Christian. 2014. “Darwin and Deep Ecology.” Ethics and the Environment 19(1):73–93. 

Earth Chicago. n.d. “About E(art)H Chicago.” Retrieved February 28, 2025 (https://earthartchicago.org/about/).

Esie, Precious, Madeline Daepp, Asta Roseway, and Scott Counts. 2022. “Neighborhood Composition and Air Pollution in Chicago: Monitoring Inequities With a Dense, Low-Cost Sensing Network, 2021.” American Journal of Public Health 112(12):1765-73

Evans, Tim J. 2020. “Reproductive Toxicity and Endocrine Disruption of Potential Chemical Warfare Agents.” Pp. 641-657 in Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents, edited by R.C. Gupta. Academic Press. 

Griffin, James. 2009. On Human Rights. OUP Oxford. 

Kim, Hyun Soo, Yeo Jin Kim, and Young Rok Seo. 2015. “An Overview of Carcinogenic Heavy Metal: Molecular Toxicity Mechanism and Prevention.” Journal of Cancer Prevention 20(4):232-40. 

Kimmerer, Robin W. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Editions. 

Klemmer, Cary L., and McNamara, Kathleen A. 2020. “Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism: Social Work to Address Global Environmental Crisis.” Affilia 35(4):503-515. doi: 10.1177/0886109919894650.

Maslow, Abraham H. 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Martino Fine Books. 

Murphy, Michelle. 2017. “Alterlife and Decolonial Chemical Relations.” Cultural Anthropology 32(4). 

Neethirajan, Suresh. 2021. “Happy Cow or Thinking Pig? Wur Wolf—Facial Coding Platform for Measuring Emotions in Farm Animals.” Ai 2(3). 

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2007. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Harvard University Press. 

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press. 

Rahman, Mostafizur, Kaniz Fatima Binte Hossain, Sadia Afrin, Takeshi Saito, and Masaaki Kurasaki. 2022. “Effects of Metals on Human Health and Ecosystem.” Pp. 81-119 in Design of Materials and Technologies for Environmental Remediation. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, edited by S. Tanaka, M. Kurasaki, M. Morikawa, and Y. Kamiya. Singapore: Springer. 

Schencker, Lisa. 2019. “Chicago’s Lifespan Gap: Streeterville Residents Live to 90. Englewood Residents Die at 60. Study Finds It’s the Largest Divide in the U.S.” Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 1, 20259 (https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-chicago-has-largest-life-expectancy-gap-between-neighborhoods-20190605-story.html).

Shelton, Deborah L. 2022. “Chicago Communities Wage Environmental Justice Battles.” Crain’s Chicago Business. Retrieved May 1, 2025 (https://www.chicagobusiness.com/equity/chicago-communities-environmental-justice-battles). 

Van den Bosch, Cecil C., and Trine Plambech. 2015. “The Impact of Nature on Creativity – A Study Among Danish Creative Professionals.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14(2):255–263. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.006. 

Voyles, Traci B. 2015. Wastelanding: Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Country. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

Watson, George P., Nicolas F. Martin, Zachary B. Grant, Sarah C. Batka, and Andrew J. Margenot. 2022. “Soil Lead Distribution in Chicago, USA.” Geoderma Regional 28: e00561.

White, Deidre, and Tekleab Gala. 2022. “Environmental Injustice? Disparities in the Exposure to Environmental Lead Poisoning and Risks Among Children in the Chicago Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Public Health 10(3):124–133.

---