I'm still a bit hung over from yesterday's Oscar party. (Yes, Crash's upset victory for Best Picture is a farcical insult to all that is just and decent). But let me venture a semi-coherent observation about the clash of values that keeps breaking out here.
Environmental ethics, as a subfield of philosophy, has been around for over three decades. (See our interview with environmental ethicist [and, full disclosure, former professor of mine] Andrew Light). The most fundamental division within it is between those who argue that nature has intrinsic value -- that is, value in and of itself -- and those who argue that its value is instrumental to human ends. Biocentrism vs. anthropocentrism. Deep ecology vs. shallow ecology. Gaiaism vs. humanism. (My apologies to actual practitioners of environmental ethics, who know the full story is far more complicated.)
It's probably no secret at this point that I'm squarely in the latter camp. It's not even clear to me what it would mean for something to be valuable apart from beings capable of valuing.
But I don't want to argue the philosophy here. I have a purely practical point to make.
Setting aside what I suspect is an extremely small core of radical biocentrists who want humans removed from earth, the goals of biocentric and anthropocentric environmentalists overlap more than they diverge. We all want restoration of water tables, reduction of CO2 emissions, more renewable energy, political accountability, stabilized population, major efforts to preserve biodiversity, green architecture, and all the rest of it. There are plenty of battles to fight together on behalf of both humans and the rest of nature. These are practical challenges, and it is in the interests of all environmentalists to help meet them.
We could walk together for 90% of the road. Perhaps we'd diverge on the last 10%, but if we got that far we'd all have cause to celebrate.
It's just not important to settle the philosophical question any time soon.
What's important, in the face of global environmental problems, is concerted action. We will be judged by how quickly we generate sustained motion, not by our motives or metaphysics.
Comments
View as Flat
jdhlax Posted 6:08 pm
06 Mar 2006
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
yankee Posted 4:44 am
07 Mar 2006
yankee (http://www.theoildrum.com)
Permalink
birdboy Posted 5:19 am
07 Mar 2006
I'm afraid that humanity CAN survive the death of Nature- it would be an ugly, cold world (to me), but If we are to line up behind an 'index card' (and I think we should), then we must reach an agreement about our motivations- do we value Nature in and of itself- in effect, does wilderness, with no human presence, have any right to exist if humanity needs the space or 'resources'? Couldn't we just build a big air and water purifier that would serve the same purpose for humanity? Is it just because it's pretty to look at? Here- try this hologram- you won't know the difference. Or will you?
Absolutely, we must act together with unified force. But that requires doing things that satisfy both goals, and as Jeff points out, sometimes they DO conflict. Perhaps we should look into the places where they conflict and work out our differences (or better yet, define our parallels).
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Tim Abbott Posted 6:01 am
07 Mar 2006
There is not a square inch of planet Earth - air, land or sea - that is not affected by human values and the choices they inform. That is different from saying that the existence of the planet and all the organisms it sustains matters only to the extent that humans place some worth on them. Nor do I subscribe to the value system that believes in a divinely reordered New Earth regardless of human intention. However, treating humanity as somehow separate from and distinct from the environment is neither ecologically sound nor sustainable.
Remove pastoralists from nature preserves in East Africa and watch, as David Western recounts, overall wildlife health decline as grasses, unpalatable to antelope and elephant but browsed for at least two millennia by cattle, proliferate. Act in self-interest only, and prove Garrett Hardin right not only about the Tragedy of the Commons, but of the Private as well.
Human behavior reflects our values, and this is true for the choices we make as individuals and as groups. The range of constraints and resources available to us defines our arena of choice. If we wish to change our behaviors, and the repetitive patterns of behavior that comprise our institutions, then we need both to understand the values that inform our problematic actions and broaden our arena of choice.
Conservation is entirely about values. One of these is a belief that we can and should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions for the rest of the environment. Another is that simply letting "nature take its course" will nonetheless result in human-influenced outcomes. Conservation is about making informed choices and recognizing the value in maintaining and promoting value-laden attributes of our environment: wilderness, biodiversity, the view from the back porch, sustainable rural economies, dark skies, community character, finite resources.
Quantifying ecosystem services, while statistically interesting, has not been a universally convincing argument for conservation. The invisible hand of the market has neither created just and equitable human societies nor safeguarded shared environmental resources. It takes intentionality to achieve these values-based ends.
How resource users feel about their environment, their relationship with it and to other stakeholders in its conservation, is a critical determinant in how they perceive their area of choice and what outcomes they will support. The broader lesson of the Intelligent Design controversy may be that values can trump science, but values can change.
Permalink
eeprincess Posted 7:45 am
08 Mar 2006
This post reminds me of George Carlin's bit about "save the earth". Nature is precious to us because it sustains us, and we should respect it for that reason. Beyond that, nature has much more power than we do. It could purge us from the planet in a heartbeat. So to presume that we are the "keepers" of nature and its inherent value is tres fou.
Permalink