That at least some aspects of nature possess intrinsic value is considered by some an axiom of conservation. Others consider nature's intrinsic value superfluous or anathema. This range of views ...among mainstream conservation professionals potentially threatens the foundation of conservation. One challenge in resolving this disparity is that disparaging portrayals of nature's intrinsic value appear rooted in misconceptions and unfounded presumptions about what it means to acknowledge nature's intrinsic value. That acknowledgment has been characterized as vacuous, misanthropic, of little practical consequence to conservation, adequately accommodated by economic valuation, and not widely accepted in society. We reviewed the philosophical basis for nature's intrinsic value and the implications for acknowledging that value. Our analysis is rooted to the notion that when something possesses intrinsic value it deserves to be treated with respect for what it is, with concern for its welfare or in a just manner. From this basis, one can only conclude that nature's intrinsic value is not a vacuous concept or adequately accommodated by economic valuation. Acknowledging nature's intrinsic value is not misanthropic because concern for nature's welfare (aside from its influence on human welfare) does not in any way preclude also being concerned for human welfare. The practical import of acknowledging nature's intrinsic value rises from recognizing all the objects of conservation concern (e.g., many endangered species) that offer little benefit to human welfare. Sociological and cultural evidence indicates the belief that at least some elements of nature possess intrinsic value is widespread in society. Our reasoning suggests the appropriateness of rejecting the assertion that nature's intrinsic value is anathema to conservation and accepting its role as an axiom.
What are the parameters that define a posthuman knowing subject, her scientific credibility and ethical accountability? Taking the posthumanities as an emergent field of enquiry based on the ...convergence of posthumanism and post-anthropocentrism, I argue that posthuman knowledge claims go beyond the critiques of the universalist image of ‘Man’ and of human exceptionalism. The conceptual foundation I envisage for the critical posthumanities is a neo-Spinozist monistic ontology that assumes radical immanence, i.e. the primacy of intelligent and self-organizing matter. This implies that the posthuman knowing subject has to be understood as a relational embodied and embedded, affective and accountable entity and not only as a transcendental consciousness. Two related notions emerge from this claim: firstly, the mind-body continuum – i.e. the embrainment of the body and embodiment of the mind – and secondly, the nature-culture continuum – i.e. ‘naturecultural’ and ‘humanimal’ transversal bonding. The article explores these key conceptual and methodological perspectives and discusses the implications of the critical posthumanities for practices in the contemporary ‘research’ university.
This article develops a wider ontology of infrastructure. It argues that infrastructures not only hasten the flow of materials but produce non-human mobilities and immobilities that radically alter ...the dynamics of life. Infrastructures become a medium of life as natural and infrastructural ecologies meld, reorienting notions of design, architecture, planning and governance. Non-human life itself can be cast as infrastructure, with biopolitical implications for anticipating and managing the future. An infrastructural ontology moving beyond anthropocentric familiars generates new analytics and critical openings for the politics of governing human and non-human life.
As a movement that has held an important position in the humanities for the past few decades, eco-criticism or environmental-oriented literature needs to promote a better understanding of nature more ...broadly. That is, ecocriticism must distinguish itself from writings on the environment in general, namely by presenting a narrative showing that humans need to have a sense of attachment to nature, as well as by presenting a narrative showing that the world of humans and the world of non-humans needs to be positioned equally. In the novel The Bear (2020) by Andrew Krivak, the voice of equality between humans and nature is the dominant issue. Using the human ecology concept from Philip J. Stewart as a key concept, this study aims to describe how human fragility and natural domination presented in the novel The Bear (2020) support the idea of human ecology, as well as how human ecologyvoiced in the novel The Bear (2020) criticizes the view of anthropocentrism which believes that humans are the center of life. This study shows that the voice of human ecology in the novel The Bear (2020) which is presented through human fragility, natural domination, to criticism of the anthropocentrism view offers the idea of a balance between humans and nature. The balance in question is a condition in which humans and nature return to an equal position, where neither one of them is harmed.
Aspirations for human-nature relationships involve values that are widely embraced, yet often compete with one another. As such, there is need to understand how individuals prioritize competing ...values pertaining to human-nature relationships. To quantify individuals' affinity for those conservation priorities, we developed a survey instrument asking individuals to respond to forced trade-offs between pairs of competing values. Forced trade-offs are relevant to the extent one perceives that limited resources preclude satisfying all the values and interests at stake in human-nature relationships. We administered this survey to 459 scholars of conservation and sustainability. Factor analysis supports the acknowledgement of five conservation priorities. Two prioritizations lean toward non-anthropocentrism and are aptly labelled, orthodox conservation and organism-oriented conservation. Three prioritizations lean toward anthropocentrism and are aptly labelled, future generations, present-day fairness, and neoliberalism. In spite of the forced trade-offs, most individuals expressed strong affinity for multiple priorities. That result suggests that polarizing discourse about controversies in conservation is likely representative of a small portion of people. Also, specific cases in conservation involving competing values are often adjudicated by case-specific context, as opposed to the one priority most appreciated by an individual. The results are consistent with psychological evidence indicating that moral judgments (about human-nature relationships) are typically intuitive and subsequently affirmed by moral reasoning. Results also indicate that the five conservation priorities are not readily reducible to other basic values (utilitarianism, social justice).
Green capitalism is an approach that attempts to use free-market mechanisms to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. Its advocates argue that the market supplies the best means to innovate ...technological solutions that can compete with existing polluting practices. Using a relational, post-anthropocentric and materialist ontology, this article analyses the micropolitics underpinning the capitalist market economy in terms of production and market assemblages and the affective forces within them. This novel approach reveals previously overlooked more-than-human affects within these capitalist assemblages. These affects generate the unintended and inevitable consequences of a capitalist economic framework: growth, waste and inequalities. Based on this micropolitical assessment, the article uses the example of the electric car to conclude that green capitalism is inadequate to address the climate crisis, and offers an alternative approach.
•Nature-based solutions and ecosystem services contribute to urban resilience.•Nature-based solutions’ multifunctionality creates potential for trade-offs.•Urban planning mechanisms can support ...nature-based solutions’ implementation.•New approaches in urban planning are required for inclusion of non-human nature.
Cities face increasing environmental, social and economic challenges that together threaten the resilience of urban areas and the residents who live and work there. These challenges include chronic stresses and acute shocks, amplified by climate change impacts. Nature-based solutions have emerged as a concept for integrating ecosystem-based approaches to address a range of societal challenges. Nature-based solutions directly address and contribute to increased urban resilience. However, implementing nature-based solutions is inherently complex, given the range of ecosystem services, their multi-functionality and the trade-offs between functions, and across temporal and spatial scales. Urban planning can play a substantial role to support the implementation of nature-based solutions and to manage trade-offs and conflicts, as well as how social equity dimensions are considered. This paper presents a framework that guides the application of urban planning to nature-based solutions’ implementation, by addressing key trade-offs across temporal, spatial, functional and social equity aspects. The framework highlights the key questions, and the supporting information required to address these questions, to underpin the inclusion of nature-based solutions for urban resilience. We find that while urban planning can contribute substantially, there are continuing gaps in how the inherently anthropocentric urban planning processes can give voice to non-human nature.
People routinely give humans moral priority over other animals. Is such moral anthropocentrism based in perceived differences in mental capacity between humans and non-humans or merely because humans ...favor other members of their own species? We investigated this question in six studies (N = 2217). We found that most participants prioritized humans over animals even when the animals were described as having equal or more advanced mental capacities than the humans. This applied to both mental capacity at the level of specific individuals (Studies 1a-b) and at the level typical for the respective species (Study 2). The key driver behind moral anthropocentrism was thus mere species-membership (speciesism). However, all else equal, participants still gave more moral weight to individuals with higher mental capacities (individual mental capacity principle), suggesting that the belief that humans have higher mental capacities than animals is part of the reason that they give humans moral priority. Notably, participants found mental capacity more important for animals than for humans—a tendency which can itself be regarded as speciesist. We also explored possible sub-factors driving speciesism. We found that many participants judged that all individuals (not only humans) should prioritize members of their own species over members of other species (species-relativism; Studies 3a-b). However, some participants also exhibited a tendency to see humans as having superior value in an absolute sense (pro-human species-absolutism, Studies 3–4). Overall, our work demonstrates that speciesism plays a central role in explaining moral anthropocentrism and may be itself divided into multiple sub-factors.
PDF
