Analysis of the Relationship Between Eco-humanity in Ancient China and Its Conduct of Agriculture

  • Huaike Xu
Part of the The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics book series (LEAF, volume 27)


The major differences between the patterns of ancient Chinese and Western ecological thought are: Ancient Chinese ecological thought was an articulation of the intimations of natural instinct as intermediary for defining ecological thinking and behavior, unlike the notion of a direct ecological sensibility invoked in the West. And the ancient Chinese approach of expressing their “sensitivity” and “uses” of the natural ecology differed from Western approaches, especially in conduct of agriculture; because ancient Chinese ecological thought involved extending natural instincts to humanity independently, thus forming China’s culture-specific ecological humanity. The ancient Chinese approach involves important instinctive and values for the contemporary development of ecological ethics and working to solve the agricultural problems of today.


Ancient China Eco-humanity Nature of heaven and earth Nature of things Agriculture 


  1. Ban-gu. 1963. Book of Han. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
  2. Cheng, Changming. 2004. Exegesis, Book of rites. Hohhot: Yuanfang Press.Google Scholar
  3. Committee of Thirteen Classics. 1992. Annotation of the thirteen classics. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Guan-Zhong. 2010. In Guanxius, ed. Xiaojuan Yao and Yinfeng Wang. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Book Press.Google Scholar
  5. Guo, Qingfan, ed. 1961. Annotation of Zhuang-tse. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
  6. Guo-Yu. 2006. Exegesis, Book of changes. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
  7. He-Ning. 1998. Exegesis of Huainan Tse. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
  8. Knoblock, John. 2002. Xuncius. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kong, Yingda. 2004. In The real meaning of the book of changes, ed. Peide Yu. Beijing: Jiuzhou Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lao-tse. 1997. The spring and autumn period. In The Dao Teh King. Trans. Arthur Walley. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
  11. Legge, James, Trans. 1891. The sacred texts of China: The texts of Taoism. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. See also
  12. ———, Trans. 2014. The works of Mencius. Shanghai: SDX Joint Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  13. Li, Jingde, ed. 2013. Analects of Zhu-xi. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
  14. Lü, Buwei. 1999. In Lu’s commentaries of history, ed. Lu-Ming-Ren. Taiyuan: Shanxi Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  15. Su-Yu, and Zhong-Zhe, eds. 1992. The demonstration of the spring and autumn. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
  16. Tse-si. 2010. The doctrine of the mean. Trans. J. Legge. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
  17. Yang, Jilin. 2002. Exegesis, new explanation of scripture of great peace. Shijiazhuang: Hebei People’s Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Zhang, Wenyu. 2000. Annotation of Yizhou Shu. Guiyang: Guizhou Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  19. Zhang, Zongyou. 2010. Exegesis, Zuo’s biography of the spring and autumn annals. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Book Press.Google Scholar
  20. Zhi, Weicheng, ed. 2013. Comprehensive explanation of Mocius. Beijing: Intellectual Property Publishing House Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Zhu, Jieren, et al., eds. 2002. Zhu-xi’s books. Vol. 23. Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books House.Google Scholar
  22. Zhuangzi. 1999. The Essential Zhuang-tse. Trans. A. Hamill, & J.P. Seaton. Boston: Shambhala PublicationsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huaike Xu
    • 1
  1. 1.Anhui University of TechnologyMa’anshanChina

Personalised recommendations