In the ongoing debate (which has been great) over the extent to which environmentalism should expand beyond notions of sustainability to the welfare of individual animals, I have never once challenged the core belief that preventing species extinction is of paramount concern to all environmentalists. But once we unpack that assumption a little more, we will discover that the entire realm of environmentalism is fraught with contentious moral and value judgments.
The question arises: Why do we have an imperative to prevent species' extinction in the first place? The Earth routinely wipes out almost all living things and starts from scratch.
Of course, most of you will point to notions of human wellbeing and argue that our lives will be threatened if we allow massive species extinction.
True, but there are still probably millions of species we could live without. We humans could live perfectly fine lives without having every single species of bird, salamander, frog, deer, fish, whale, etc. In fact, we're already living proof that we can, since tens of thousands or more species have already gone extinct over the past century.
Others may simply state that we humans don't have a right to choose which species live and die. Why not? Who says? And if we don't have a right to make a species go extinct, then why do we have a right to horribly abuse individual members of that species?
Some commenters have erroneously confused making value judgments with promoting something akin to religious beliefs. I have simply laid out a series of observations and facts about the world that I think lead to certain moral conclusions about how we should treat certain animals, and which I think any movement which concerns itself with wildlife should accept. I don't claim any higher moral authority at all and anyone who agrees with me doesn't need to either.
But to those of you enamored with species preservation above all else let me throw the ball back into your court. On what principles do your claims rest? And don't you realize that they are just as impossible to "prove"? That they are fraught with moral ambiguity and strong value judgments?
The truth is that at its core environmentalism is a series of gigantic value judgments. We can and should continually argue about what those values are and why we hold them, which is what I have been trying to do. But to pretend that there is some sphere within environmentalism that is purely scientific and factual, while others somehow represent the imposition of "personal" views is flatly wrong.
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 6:49 am
25 Sep 2006
I would amend this just slightly. I would say that once you've made your basic value judgments, there is purely scientific and factual information available to you about how to act on their behalf.
But you're right, and getting at an important point, that saving whole species is no more obviously moral than saving individual animals. The notion, popping up frequently in comments, that we should refrain from value judgments because they're subjective and everybody has their own is a) self-deluding, b) impossible, and c) destructive to our political fortunes.
I happen to think that species preservation is a moral imperative, more so than saving individual creatures, but I agree that I'm not allowed simply to state that as fact. I have to make an argument. (Which, incidentally, I have no time to do right now.)
www.grist.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:54 am
25 Sep 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:00 am
25 Sep 2006
=============
The CEO says "I know that half of all my advertising money is wasted."
The other CEO says "OK, then you should cut your advertising budget by half."
"It's not that easy" says the first CEO.
"I can't tell which half is wasted."
=============
That's how it is with the species web. There may or may not be "redundant" species whose non-existence would be of no harm to us at all, but I suspect there is no foolproof way to know which ones they are.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:05 am
25 Sep 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:40 am
25 Sep 2006
Why would a species be declared redundant anyway? Probably because to prevent extinction would mean some corporation wouldn't be able to develop or mine or pollute or flood or clear cut a piece of land. It may be easy to dismiss an insect but what happens when those being dismissed are so-called charasmatic species, ones humans like or think are cute? Who's going to draw the line on what to save and what to let go?
Re: individuals. Don't individuals make up the whole, especially in populations of endangered species? So in "the perfect world" we'd work to save individuals but since it's not a perfect world, we should try and accept that sometimes we'll fail - just hopefully not so often that we lose completely.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:05 am
25 Sep 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
dwm376s Posted 12:15 pm
25 Sep 2006
This comment from Jason...
"Of course, most of you will point to notions of human wellbeing and argue that our lives will be threatened if we allow massive species extinction."
....is absolutely true. Is the reason we are ultimately interested in the preservation of the earth as it is, in its present tense, simply to ensure our own survival as a species? I mean we, humans are faring pretty well with the current environmental conditions. (note-by current I mean in context of geological time).
You are probably right Jason, that in all likelihood humans would fare just fine without the current level of biodiversity on the planet. However, we cannot be certain of how the hypothetical loss of any species will ultimately effect the balance of life in its own hypothetical ecosystem (i.e. - nutrient cycling, seed dispersal, etc.)
Of course the above is all hypothetical, but it makes me think of another topic, and that is Altruism. Does it really exist?
Several researchers/scientists have investigated this concept, and the one that immediately comes to my mind is Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene.
Its a very interesting concept. Applying it to this conversation, I would like to think that I am interested in species/environmental conservation for the good of the species or environments concerned. However, is this some deep-rooted, subconscious, manifestation to preserve myself, and my species?
Personally, I'm not sure I know!
Whats your take?
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:30 pm
25 Sep 2006
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:48 pm
25 Sep 2006
I admire your patience with Jason, after he so harshly dealt with JMG and SMLowry, giving them an utterly undeserved super-duper slap-down treatment.
(Cranky after a date gone all wrong? Tofu a` la turquoise con fungi spilled intentionally in his lap? Suit ruined? Poveretto Giasonuccio!)
It is a pity that he feels he must snarl and snap like that, because the final paragraph of his initial post is especially well written, and on that evidence alone, he obviously has a lot to offer, and a lot to present for us to discuss.
On "redundant" species: Curiously, it is the "highest" species that we tend most to identify with, which are perhaps among those that seem most expendable. E.g., those four white rhinos in DRCongo. Would that ecosystem really miss them, were they to die off and leave no replacements? Or is the point of preserving them, just to keep around some DNA that might be useful for the southern population?
Perissodactyls -- rhinos, horses, tapirs -- used to be much more prominent in fauna globally. The largest land mammal was a perissodactyl, not an elephant-relative: Indricotherium, an immense rhino that lived in Baluchistan, and we have no idea how it brought water to its mouth. Subsequently, though, they have been diminishing. Save for zebras, who seem to be doing OK. So one could argue, the extinction of rhinos is in the cards.
Being a great batrachophile, though, I am worried about the plight of frogs, and believe we all should be worried. They are situated toward the middle of the food chain, and are apparently extremely sensitive to environmental pressures that probably are going to affect us all. And probably have already started to affect us, whether or not we are aware of it.
On "altruism": I do not know what Richard Dawkins' take is. If it is that altruism etc. is just an adaptive, DNA-inscribed feature that helped hominids evolve to the wonderful creatures we are, then obviously he has not yet got color TV.
SMLowry understands what I mean.
You ask an excellent question, DWM, at the end of your message. To put it in my own words: Do we consider the conservation of biodiversity something valuable, for our own sakes? I.e., for our own personal benefit? Or for people that we care for? Or, do we in fact care for the interests and well-being of animals, outside our species?
Young Jason, unfortunately, with his harsh style, perhaps misses an excellent opportunity to get a really good discussion going.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:51 am
26 Sep 2006
David, you're raving. Please stop.
It's clearly true that "earth" or "nature" can survive the elimination of nearly all lifeforms and bounce back over the course of millions of years. This has, of course, happened many times.
But it's also clearly true that humanity relies heavily on the ecosystem services provided or enabled by other species all up and down the scale of complexity. These connections are subtle and difficult to document, so we cannot exhaustively prove each and every connection, nor should we have to. But if we break down the functioning of complex ecosystems, our own welfare will suffer. At the very least, humans would then have to expend vast resources to do things (e.g. purify water, build soil) that have historically been done for "free".
The interlinked questions of "animal rights", "animal welfare", species perservation are complex and difficult to unpack. They are certainly fascinating and important subjects for discussion.
However, I don't think it is necessary to go very far into these subjects in order to arrive at a moral basis for ecosystem preservation. The anthrocentric viewpoint may not be ideal, and is certainly not complete, but it does provide sufficient basis for a moral mandate against despoiling the natural world.
To quote David Orr:
No generation and no nation has the right to alter the biogeochemical cycles of Earth or impair the stability, integrity, and beauty of natural systems, the consequences of which would fall as a form of intergenerational remote tyranny on all future generations.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:57 am
26 Sep 2006
The raving in question, if raving it be, is from our friend Jason, not me.
www.grist.org
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:25 am
26 Sep 2006
Permalink
willa Posted 11:11 am
26 Sep 2006
David,
I still don't see where your camp and mine have anything major to argue about here.
The vast majority of animals who are individually abused by humans are domesticated species, mostly farm animals but certainly plenty of pets too. While I happen to love horses, dogs, etc (and even less cute/personable species--chickens, for example, are hysterically funny, personality- filled little critters, for the most part, despite being viewed by most people as too dumb to regard as individuals), environmentalists--including me--are not concerned about the extinction of horses, dogs, or chickens. In fact, domesticated animals contribute greatly to the problems faced by wild species.
There are all kinds of reasons to preserve wild species, from the "who knows what we might need them for" approach to the "we already use more than our share of the earth's resources, so let's try to share with other species" one, to, well, whatever everyone's reasons actually are.
Every one of those reasons that I know of leads, eventually, to eating less meat, wearing less leather, etc.
There might come a day, if we live so long as a species, where we no longer raise and kill domesticated animals for meat and other products. At that time, the question would arise of whether the moral case for animal rights/welfare was enough by itself.
We're not even headed that direction.
Right now, the biggest source of animal suffering in the world is human exploitation of farm animals. It's such a huge problem, both from the point of view of the farmed animals and from the point of view of every other living thing in the world (including us) that it doesn't even merit debate. There is no question that the planet would be healthier, and sentient beings of all kinds would suffer less, if we reduced the consumption of farm-animal derived products.
On a philosophical level, of course it merits debate, but on an action level, it's a complete no brainer.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:15 pm
26 Sep 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:45 pm
26 Sep 2006
Right now, the biggest source of animal suffering in the world is human exploitation of farm animals. It's such a huge problem, both from the point of view of the farmed animals and from the point of view of every other living thing in the world (including us) that it doesn't even merit debate. There is no question that the planet would be healthier, and sentient beings of all kinds would suffer less, if we reduced the consumption of farm-animal derived products.
This is unquestionably correct, and I suspect everybody in the debate agrees about it. I said as much here, and Jason said so here. The ongoing debate is about more peripheral cases where, though they are not as significant in the grand scheme of things, the problem shows up more clearly.
It's an intellectual exercise. Your reminder about the enormous overlap of all our goals is, of course, welcome. I hope no one forgets it.
www.grist.org
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:52 am
27 Sep 2006
The argument of
again, your reasoning is largely suspect and factually untrue. Not every single species is necessary for ecosystems nor is every single niche ecosystem necessary for the survival of larger ecosystems. The concept that "everthing is connected" sounds nice (and may be true on some level) but as far as the survival of humanity and most species it simply is irrelevant. This is something environmentalists have a hard time with- we and most creatures can and DO get along fine without the perpetuation of every single species. In fact, the history of the Earth completely disproves this thesis since 99.9% OF ALL SPCECIES THAT HAVE EVER LIVED ON EARTH HAVE ALREADY GONE EXTINCT.
is faulty for several reasons. '99.9% of all species extinct' is tantamount to arguing that making it to the meeting on time does not matter since a half an hour is much much less than 1x10^-20 of all time that has elapsed. Try using that one, see how far you will get. Basically, it's a ridiculous argument even in a purely hypothetical discussion.
The question of species redundancy is another one. There are empirical studies in ecology that question how important is biodiversity (see much of Peter Vitousek's work). And the answer is that there is a level of species redundancy that exists for a continued ecosystem function (nutrient cycling, biomass gain, trophic level support), and the amount of species required is lower than the amount available. However, at the threshold, the ecosystem functions reduce drastically. This is not to say that ecosystems are perfect assemblies, they are merely a result of convergent tolerances for biophysical gradients (I am not a Clemensian follower for anyone who is an ecologist out there).
The loss of any one of those redundant species (except for keystone spp.) is not dangerous to ecosystem functions, but the continual loss or even a threat of loss (for example due to global warming or unregulated hunting) may throw the system off-balance and reduce or eliminate some of those functions.
So that brings us to the question of why we care. I guess the answer is not so much that we should specifically care about any one particular spp. but the overall system functions as a result of the presence or lack of those spp. And while we may not be able to prevent every extinction out there, the continued extinction of every 'niche' spp. is dangerous to ecosystem functions that actually ARE our life support system.
P.S. Once again, I struggle to understand why J.S. attempts to argue ecological subjects from a philosophical/(economical?) perspective. While there are certain value judgements (objectives, if you will) made from the start in ecology (continued ecosystem functioning is important), this does not mean that the results and conclusions are not worthy of merit or scientifically rigorous.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:32 am
27 Sep 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor
Monterey Institute of International Studies
http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink