1

PublishedinBiologicalConservation200,August2016,140-148FromBiodiversity-basedConservationtoanEthicof

Bio-proportionality

Keywords:conservationethics,anthropocentrism,bio-inclusiveness,bio-proportionality,eco-modernism,humanpopulationWordcount:9774Author:FreyaMathewsProfessorofEnvironmentalPhilosophySchoolofHumanitiesandSocialSciencesCollegeofArts,SocialSciencesandCommerceLatrobeUniversityVic3086AustraliaCorrespondingauthor:FreyaMathewsf.mathews@latrobe.edu.auPostaladdressasabove

2

AbstractNatureconservationhasinrecentdecadesbecomelargelysynonymouswithbiodiversityconservation.Biodiversityisatermwithscientificmeaningbutinpolicycontextsitalsocarriesanormativeloading.Underthisnormativeaspect,thenotionofbiodiversityhasreceivedlittlescrutiny.Uponexaminationitmaybeshowntosetthebarofconservationtoolow.Thegoalofbiodiversityconservation,asframedinthetermsoftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity,istoassureviabilityratherthanabundanceforspeciespopulations.Thisresultsinatendencytowardsan“ecologyoftheminimal”whichiscompatiblewithlarge-scalehumanexploitationofnaturalenvironments.Toequateconservationwithbiodiversityconservationisthustotailorconservationtotherequirementsof“development”.Initsimplicitconcessiontohumanhegemony,biodiversity-basedconservationrevealsitsunderlyinganthropocentrism.Inthispaperitisarguedthat,asananthropocentricproject,biodiversity-basedconservationcannotassurethefutureofearth-lifeandthatabio-inclusivevaluebase,whichexceedstherequirementofbiodiversityconservation,isthereforeneeded:over-relianceontheconceptofbiodiversityhasskewedconservationpolicytowardsapossiblyself-defeatingminimalism.Asanalternativebasisforconservationpolicy,anethicofbio-proportionalityisproposed.Thegoalofsuchanethicwouldbenotmereviabilitybutoptimization:itwouldseeknotmerelyviablebutoptimalpopulationsofallspecies.Thishasspecificpolicyimplicationsforhumanpopulationandstrengthensthecaseforincreasingtheextentofprotectedareas.

1.IntroductionFewvastareasoflandrelativelyundisturbedbyhumanactivityandhometoabundantpopulationsofwild,indigenousanimalspeciesremainonearth,butwherevertheydo–asinpartsoftheArctic,Antarctica,AustraliaandSouthAmerica–theyarecurrentlythreatenedwithlarge-scaleresourceextractionanddevelopment.Conservationistsfightforreservesanddevisestrategieswithintheseareasinordertoprotectspeciesandecologicalcommunitiesthatdevelopmentislikelytoplaceatrisk,butconservationdiscoursegenerallyseemstohavelosttermsofreferencethatwouldenableittoquestionwhethertheseregionsneedtobedevelopedatall.Itseemstohavelostthecapacitytoadvocatenotmerelyonbehalfofthreatenednaturebutonbehalfofabundantnature.Howhasthisstateofaffairscomeabout?Howhasittranspiredthatconservationistsnolongerhavethediscursivemeanstoadvocateonbehalfofvastterrainsofabundantliferatherthanmereremnantsandlastthings?Asthisisanormativeandphilosophicalquestion,thoughonewithimportantimplicationsforpolicy,aphilosophicalmethodwillberequiredtoaddressit.Inordertogivefocusandconcretenesstotheinquiry,IshallinitiallyconsiderthecaseoftheKimberleyinAustralia’sfarnorthwest.Ishallthenconsiderhowthenotionofbiodiversity,asdefinedandenshrinedintheUnitedNationsConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD)anditsAustraliansubsidiary,theEnvironmentalProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct(EPBC),predeterminestheoptimalscopeofconservationintheKimberleyandelsewhere,andindoingsodrasticallylimitswhatconservationistsmayaspiretoachieve.Logicalobjectionstothisnotionofbiodiversityasanormativebasisforconservationwillthenbecanvassed.Forthepurposeofunderstandinghowthe

3

conceptofbiodiversityhasbecometheverypivotofwildlifeconservationthroughouttheworld,aresumeofitsemergenceinscientificliteraturewillbeoffered.Itsrapiduptakeinthesphereofpolicywillbeattributedatleastinparttothefactthat,asacriterionofwhatshouldbeconserved,thisnotionwaseminentlycompatiblewiththeanthropocentricprojectofeconomicdevelopmentthatwasalsoenshrinedintheCBD.Asanormativecriterion,biodiversitywillbecontrastedwiththeearlier,moregenerous,lessanthropocentric–thoughalsoflawed-notionofwilderness.Inordertoofferaproperevaluationoftherelativemeritsofbiodiversityversuswildernessinthisconnection,theanthropocentrism/biocentrismdebate,recentlyrevived(thoughwithouthindsight)byecomodernists,willberevisited.Afterseverallessoft-notedobjectionstotheanthropocentricpositionareoutlined,anewconcept,thatofbioproportionality,willbeadvancedinlieuofbiodiversityasanormativefoundationforconservation.2.ArgumentsagainstBiodiversityastheExclusiveBasisforConservationTheKimberleyisanareaofover424,000squarekilometres.ThisislargerthanmanyEuropeancountries,suchasItalyorGermany,andalmosttwicethesizeoftheUnitedKingdom.Yetaccordingtogovernmentcensusfiguresfor2011,ithasapermanenthumanpopulationof34,794(AustralianBureauofStatistics2011).NoristheKimberleymerelyadesertregion,anaridzoneoflittlebiologicalsignificance.Rather,itisoneofAustralia’sfifteenNationalDiversityHotspots,characterizedbyawidevarietyofunusualandendemicanimalspecies,suchasthesnubfindolphin,foundonlyinnorthernAustralianwaters,thebilby,goldenbandicoot,maskedowl,golden-backedtreerat,paintedsnipeandGouldianfinch(McKenzieetal1991;Cawardineetal2011).Itisacentreofworldsignificanceformigratorybirds.TheKimberleycoastlineisalsoahumpbackwhalemigrationroute,andthelargesthumpbacknurseryonearthliesbetweenBroomeandCamdenSound.Thepristinecoralreefsthatlinethecoastrival,intermsofspeciesrichness,theGreatBarrierReef(Jonesetal2014).Asanenvironmentalcausethen,theKimberleyisinaveryspecialclass.Atissuehereistheprotection,notofexhaustedremnants,butofaveritableempireofnature,admittedlyinfiltratedbyferalsandexotics,butnotyetseverelyecologicallycompromised(Cawardineetal2011).AlthoughtheKimberleydoessupportindustries,suchaspastoralism,tourism,limitedagriculture,pearlingandfishing,itneverthelessremainslargelyasceneofecologicalandevolutionaryunfoldingrelativelyfreeofhumaninterference.RecentbattlesoveraproposedgashubontheDampierPeninsulaand,subsequently,mushroomingminingprojectsallovertheregionhavehoweverbroughtthequestionofthefutureoftheKimberleytopublicattention.Thefightto“savetheKimberley”[see<http://www.savethekimberley.com>foronehubofthiscampaign]hasenumeratedtheknownthreatenedandendangeredspeciesandvegetationcommunities,aswellascertainarchaeological,heritageandscenicvalues,buthasoverallbeenhardpressedtoarticulateacaseforpreservingtheKimberlyinitspresentrelativelyundevelopedstateatthecostofvastminingandotherindustrialrevenuesforegone.Thereseemstobeamissing

4

argumentattheheartofsuchcampaigns,anargumentsimplyfortheentitlementofexistingterrainsoflifetotheircontinuedexistence.Campaignersinsteadresortalmostexclusivelytoargumentsframedintermsofextinctions,endangermentandthenecessitytomaintainviablepopulationsofspeciesandsamplesofvegetationcommunities.2.1.ThepivotalroleoftheconceptofbiodiversityinsettingminimaltargetsforconservationTheemphasisonthesetermsofreferenceincampaignsandinpolicysettingsderivesfromthecentralityofbiodiversityastheframingcategoryofcontemporaryconservation,ascanonizedintheUnitedNationsCBD.TheCBDdeclaresinitsPreamblethat“....thefundamentalrequirementfortheconservationofbiologicaldiversityisthein-situconservationofecosystemsandnaturalhabitatsandthemaintenanceandrecoveryofviablepopulationsofspeciesintheirnaturalsurroundings”.(italicsadded)Thestatedgoalofthispre-eminentenvironmentalcharter–namely,thein-situconservationofecosystemsandnaturalhabitats–isgivenspecificitybythequalifierthatitisviablepopulationsofspeciesthataretobepreserved.ElsewhereintheCBD,biodiversityisdefinedas"thevariabilityamonglivingorganismsfromallsources…….thisincludesdiversitywithinspecies,betweenspeciesandofecosystems".(CBD1992,Article2)Althoughinterpretationsoftheterm,biodiversity,varywidelyamongstbiologists,theagreedcoreoftheideais,asstatedintheCBD,diversityatgenetic,speciesandecosystemlevels(Quammen1997;Takacs1996).However,sincegeneticvariationis,inpractice,onalandscapescale,hardtomeasureandsincecriteriafordefining-identifyinganddemarcating-ecologicalcommunitiesareunder-developedinbiology,the“diversity”inbiodiversitytendstoberead,forpolicyandcampaignpurposes,intermsofspecies.Biodiversityconservationtendstobeunderstood,atitscore,asthepreservationofviablepopulationsofspeciesintheirnaturalsurroundings.Butviablehereimpliesaminimum.Populationsofagivenspeciesoughttobeprotectedtotheextentthatthatspeciesisindangerofceasingtobeviable.Atitsbaldest,thisimpliesthatpriortothepointofendangermentthereisnoobligationtoprotectspecies.Thereasonforthislimitationonprotectionsoonbecomesclear.FortheCBDisasmuchanedicttoexploitnatureastoprotectit.Itconjoinstherequirementofbiodiversityconservationwitharequirementofeconomicdevelopment.Inthebodyofthedocumenttheemphasistendstofallheavilyonthelatter(Guruswamy1998).Undertherubricofbiodiversityconservation,inotherwords,permissionforlarge-scaleexploitationofallspeciesandecologiesisgranted:humansaremorallyentitledtomonopolizetheresourcesofthebiospheresubjectonlytotheconditionof“sustainability”,namelythatotherspeciesandtypesofecosystemarenotentirelyobliterated(Vucetich&Nelson2010).IntheAustraliancontext,thesameback-handedcommitmenttoconservationisevidentintheEPBC,thefederalActthatlegislatesAustralia’sresponsibilities

5

undertheCBD(AustralianGovernment1999).ThisActnominates“mattersofnationalenvironmentalsignificance”whichmustbeprotectedbylaw.Theyincludeendangeredspecies,threatenedecosystemsandmigratoryspeciesaswellasalistofnatureandmarinereservesalreadylistedfortheirbiodiversityvalues.ThenotionofbiodiversityisusedambiguouslythroughoutthetextoftheAct,asitisthroughouttheConvention,tosignify,simply,naturalenvironments,ontheonehand,andanactualdiversityofspeciesortypesofecologicalcommunity,ontheother.Thelattersenseisusedtoselectthosenaturalenvironmentsthatwillqualifyforprotection,thoughthelimitedscopeofthiscriterionisdisguisedbythemoregeneralsense.BoththeConventionandtheActspeakoftheneedtoconservebiodiversity,whichimpliesacommitmenttoconservingnatureatlarge,butthecommitmentisimplicitlyonlytriggeredbythethreatofdisappearanceornon-viabilityofspeciesortypesofecologicalcommunity.Itisthishiddenbutextremelysignificantbiasincontemporarybiodiversity-basednotionsofconservationthatmakesavastandecologicallyabundantterrainsuchastheKimberleydifficulttodefend.Foralthoughat-riskspeciesandtypesofecologicalcommunitydoofcourseoccurintheKimberley–suchastheMonjonrock-wallaby,scaly-tailedpossumandmonsoonvinethicket(AustralianGovernmentDepartmentofEnvironment)–savingahandfulofrareentitiesfromextinctionisnotthemainpointofpopularcampaignsto“savetheKimberley”.TheKimberleyisuniquepreciselyinbeingastageforecologicalprocessesonagrandscale,forsupportingvastflocksandherds,sheernumbersofwildthings,suchasusedtooccuronallcontinents.Thegistofcurrentbiodiversity-basednotionsofconservationhoweveristhatsuchabundanceissurplustoenvironmentalrequirements:viabilitymightbeassuredwithdramaticallyreducedpopulationsofmanyspeciesandtypesofecologicalcommunity.OfficialMinimumViablePopulationfiguresofcoursevaryfromspeciestospecies,butaregenerallyintheorderofonlyhundredsorafewthousand(Quammen1997).Onerecentmeta-studyofdifferentestimatesintheliteratureputtheaveragefigureat4169individuals(Trailletal,2007).Themessageimpliedincontemporaryconservationdiscoursethenisthat“undeveloped”regionssuchastheKimberleyshouldindeedbeopenforbusiness,providedthatbusinessallowsforresidualpopulationsofspeciesorrepresentativesamplesofecosystem-typesuniquetotheseregions.Thesepopulations/samplesmustbelargeenoughtoassureviabilitybutsmallenoughtominimizecompetitionwithhumanenterprisesfornaturalresources.Theymightprovecapableofsubsistingintheintersticesofindustriallandscapes–wedgedbetweenmininginstallationsorontheperipheriesofirrigatedcroplandsortourismhubs.Thisistheprospectivefaceof“sustainableuse”ofKimberleyresourcesfromthepointofviewoftheCBDandtheEPBC.Butsuchecologicalminimalismisfarfromthegoalofthoserunningcampaignsto“savetheKimberley”.2.2.Threereasonswhyover-relianceonviabilityfailsconservationThequestionwhetherbiodiversity-basedconservation,withitsprescriptiontopreserveonlythebarebioticminimumrequiredforviability,isethically

6

defensiblewillbeconsideredbelow.Threefurtherobjectionstobiodiversityasanexclusivebasisforconservationhoweverarealsoimportant.2.2.1.EcologiesoftheminimalarenotenoughFirstly,theprescriptionmerelytopreservebiodiversityratherthanabundanceisunlikely,takentoitslogicalconclusion,toachieveevenitsownecologicallyminimalistgoals.Asstudiesinislandbiogeographyconsistentlyshow,remnantpopulationsoftendeclineinspiteofsatisfyingestimatesofviability(Quammen1997;Whittaker&Fernandez-Palacios2007).Inthecaseofmanyspecies,viabilityinthelongtermispremisedonabundance:undeterminablylargepopulationsarerequiredasbuffersagainstunforeseeableandhencestatisticallyunquantifiableenvironmentalset-backsandcontingencies.Speciesthatarealreadyrare,eithernaturallyorasaresultofhumanlyinducedattrition,areatgreatestriskinfragmentedanddisturbedenvironments(Quammen1997).Asageneralrule,natureoperateswithlargenumbers,oratanyratewithalargemarginofredundancy.Anyprospectiveecologyoftheminimalwillarguablyturnouttobeoxymoronic.Inhisbook,TheIdeaofBiodiversity,DavidTakacsrecognisesthatthisisaweaknessofanyconservationmovementorganisedexclusivelyaroundthepreservationofthreatenedspecies,ashethinkstheAmericanconservationmovementwaspriortotheemergenceofthecategoryofbiodiversity.(Takacs1996)Takacsarguesthattheemergenceofthisnewcategoryinthe1980’sbroadenedthescopeofconservation.ButthisiswhatIamsuggestingseemsquestionable.Evenwereittoprovepracticable,undertherubricofbiodiversityconservation,toprotectnotmerelyspeciesdiversitybutgeneticandecosystemdiversityaswell,theproblemofminimalismwouldstillapply.For‘diversity’inthesenseintendedpertainstotypes:genotypes,species,ecosystem-types;noneofthesetypesshoulddisappear.Butonceaviablesetofinstancesofanytypeissecured,thattypeissaved.Furtherinstancesaresuperfluous.2.2.2.ViabilityisunknownformostspeciesSecondly,aconservationprotocoltriggeredonlybyendangermentis,evenatacommonsenselevel,inadequateinasmuchasscientistshavesofaridentifiedonlyasmallpercentageofthespeciesthatactuallyinhabittheearth.(Takacs1996)Arecentstudyestimatesthepresentnumberofspeciestobe8.7million(giveortake1.3million).Ofthose,only1.2millionhavealreadybeencatalogued,leaving86%ofterrestrialspeciesand91%ofmarinespeciesstilltobeidentified(Moraetal2011).Ifwearesolittleapprisedofthespeciesthatdoexist,howcanwerelyonevidenceofendangermentasatriggerforintervention?Itisobviouslynotpossibletoarriveatviabilityestimatesforpopulationsofspeciesasyetunidentified.2.2.3.Viabilityasacriterionleadstoover-valuingtherareThirdly,anover-emphasisonthreatenedandendangeredspeciesleadstoaone-sidedvalorizationofrarityattheexpenseofcommonness:commonspeciesarelikelytobetreatedwithenvironmentalindifference,asoflittlevalue.Thiscanleadtopopularattitudesofcontempttowardscertainspecies,andconsequentlycarelessandbrutaltreatment.PopularattitudestothekangarooinAustraliaare

7

acaseinpoint(Garlicketal2011).Suchattitudesnotonlysubverttheverybasisofconservation,which,aswillbearguedbelow,needstorestonageneralizedrespectforlivingthings.Theycanalsoleadtoenvironmentalpracticesasaresultofwhichspeciesoncecommonquicklybecomeuncommon.Historicalexamplesarealmosttoonumeroustomention–theyrangefrompassengerpigeonsintheUSAtobettongsinAustralia(Flemingetal2013).2.3.Insettingthebarofconservationtoolow,anethicofbiodiversitycapitulatestoanthropocentrismAnexclusivelybiodiversity-basedapproachtoconservationmaythenbeunlikelytosucceedeveninitsowngoalofsustainingviabilities.Themainaimofthepresentpaperhoweveristoevaluatebiodiversity-basedconservationinspecificallyethicalterms.Areconservationbiologistsreallyconcernedmerelytoheadoffextinctionsratherthandefendtheentitlementofexistingterrainsoflifetotheircontinuedexistence?Aretheyreallycontenttoconcedeonlyresidualspacestoearth-liferatherthandeclaringitsequalrighttoexistence?Toacknowledgetheequalrightofnon-humanlifetoexistencewouldbetoaskhow,asenvironmentalmanagers,weshoulddivvyupthebiologicalresourcesofthebiospheresoastoensurethatallspeciesreceivetheirjustapportionment.Itwouldbetoaskbywhatrighthumansaresystematicallydisplacingallotherspecies(oratanyrate,specieswhicharenotdirectlyinstrumentallyimportanttous)tothepointofmere“viability”,theirlastfewhundredsorthousandsofmemberslingeringinghettoes,fencedoutoftheirerstwhileterritoriesorassailedinthoseterritoriesbyunremittinghazards.Itwouldbetoaskthemostobviousyettillrecentlyrarelyaskedquestionoftheconservationproject:howmanyhumanscan,infairnesstootherspecies,inhabittheplanet?(Cincotta&Engelman2000)Tohowgreataproportionofthebiologicalresourcesofthebiosphereisthehumanspeciesentitled?Howmuch“development”isconsistentwiththeneedsoftherestoflife?Insteadofpressingthesequestions,thebiasesinherentinthebiodiversityconceptleadconservationiststoacquiesceintheextravagantdoublestandardthatsetspopulationgoalsfornon-humanspeciesinthelowthousandswhilecondoningforhumansapopulationinthebillions.Thiswillingnessimplicitlytodefertohumanhegemonyimpliesthat,whatevertheprivatemoralaspirationsofconservationists,theirdeferraltoanethicofbiodiversityresultsinananthropocentricorientationinconservation.Forifconservationistsarenotpreparedtouphold,inprinciple,theentitlementoflivingthingstotheirownexistence,whethertheyareendangeredornot,thenfromwhencedoesthecommitmenttopreservingspeciesdiversityarise?Diversitypersecannotbedeemedintrinsicallyvaluable.(Moraretal2015)Onedoesnotvaluediversitywhereevilsormattersofindifferenceareconcerned.(Adiversityofdiseases,forinstance,ishardlytobepreferredoverasingledisease.)Diversityisintrinsicallyvaluableonlyinrelationtogoods.Iflifeisconsideredagoodinitsownright,thenthegreatertherichnessoflifethebetter,wherediversityintheformsoflifeisonemeasureofsuchrichness.Butiflifeisnotconsideredagoodinitsownright,thenanyvalueaccordedtodiversity,inthecaseofspecies,mustbepurelyinstrumental:speciesdiversitymustbefiguringmerelyasaconditionforecologicalfunctionality,whereecologicalfunctionalitymustinturnbefiguring

8

merelyasaconditionforhumanamenityandsurvival.Inotherwords,unlessconservationistsinsistonthevalueoflifeinitselfandhencetheentitlementoflivingthings,whetherendangeredornot,totheirownexistence,theircommitmenttobiodiversitymustultimatelybemerelyinstrumental.12.3.1Isanthropocentrismenough?Ifanthropocentrismisalreadyimplicatedinthiswayinconservationpredicatedexclusivelyonbiodiversitythentheethicaladequacyofanthropocentrismasabasisforconservationrequiresevaluation.Howwellcantheconservationprojectbeprosecutedfromananthropocentricvalue-base?Asthisquestionhasreceivedconsiderableattentioninrecentconservationliterature(Kareivaetal2011;Kareiva&Marvier2012;Doaketal2014;Vucetichetal2015;Vucetich&Nelson2007,Soule2013)itwillbeonlybrieflyreviewedhere,withemphasisonargumentsthathavenotfiguredprominentlyinthedebatesofar.Theadequacyofanthropocentrismwillbeconsideredunderthreeheadings:

(1) Istheanthropocentricassumptionthatonlyhumansareentitledtomoralconsiderationvalid?

(2) Arethematerialoutcomesofananthropocentricethicequivalenttothoseofabiocentricone?

(3) Oughtananthropocentricapproachbepreferredonpragmatic/politicalgroundstoonebasedonbiocentrism?

2.3.1.1.Doonlyhumanspossessmoralentitlements?(i)Intrinsicvalue.Afirstapproachtothisquestionisviathenotionofintrinsicvalue.Thiswastheapproachthatlaunchedthefieldofenvironmentalethicsinthe1970’s:anthropocentrismwasdefinedasthepositionthatattributesintrinsicvalueexclusivelytohumanbeings.Topossessintrinsicvalueistobevaluableinone’sownrightandhenceinherentlyworthyofmoralconsideration.Fromananthropocentricperspective,anyvalueattachingtonon-humanentitiesispurelyinstrumental–itderivesfromtheutilityofsuchentitiesforhumanpurposes.Biocentrism,bycontrast,wasdefinedasthepositionthatattributesintrinsicvalue,andhencemoralconsiderability,tonon-humanentitiesintheirownright.(Astheterm‘biocentrism’canbemisconstruedasprivilegingtheinterestsofthenon-humanoverthehuman,theterm,‘bio-inclusive’,signalinginclusivenessofbothhumanandnon-humaninterests,willherebeusedinterchangeablywith‘biocentrism’.)WhilsthistoricallysomeenvironmentalphilosophersconcurredwiththeWesterntraditionofdenyingintrinsicvaluetonon-humanentitieswhilealsoinsistingthatanthropocentrismprovidedanadequatebasisforenvironmentalprotection,theweightofargumentinenvironmentalethicsoverfivedecadeshassupportedtheviewthatatleastsomeother-than-humanlivingthingsareentitledtomoralconsiderationintheirownrightandhencethatabio-inclusiveethicisrequiredinadditiontothetraditionalethicsofthehuman.Insufficientspaceisavailablehereforareviewoftheliteratureonintrinsicvalue,butrecentsuchreviewsincludeBrennan2008andVucetichetal2015.(Seealsothesection

9

onthehistoryofenvironmentalethicsbelow.)Suchavastweightofargumentcanhardlysimplybesetasideindeterminingthevalue-baseofconservation.(ii)Whoownstheearth?Asecondapproachtotheissueofwhethernon-humanlifecanclaimmoralentitlementsinitsownrightrevolvesaroundnotionsofownershipandsovereignty.(Staples&Cafaro2012;VanDooren2014).Bywhatrightdoeshumanityclaimexclusiveownershipofterrestrialandmarineenvironments?Legalregimesofownershiparebasedonconventionsthatvarywidelyacrossculturesandareeminentlyopentocontestation.Oftentheyservetolegitimatehistoricalprocessesofdispossession,suchasthemodernregimesofprivatepropertythataroseoutoftheEnclosuresthattookplaceinEnglandfromtheearly16thcentury.(Linklater2014)Tothelimitedextentthatsuchregimescanbemorallyjustified,theyarguablyrestonnotionsofsovereigntyorself-rule:asovereignpeopleismorallyentitledtoitsownterritory.Butthenotionofsovereigntyappliestonon-humanlifeaswell,particularlytowildanimals.Wildanimalsdonotowetheirexistencetous.Wedidnotinventthem,designthem,createthem.Theyareguidedbyendsthatarecompletelyindependentofours.Theyhavetheirownuniquepatternsandrhythmsofexistence.Theyare,inthetermsofKant’smoralphilosophy(Taylor1986),endsinthemselves,notmeremeanstoendsofours.Theyareaccordingly,intheirrelationswithus,sovereignbeings:theydonotbelongtous;theyarenotourproperty.Theybelongtothemselves.Toacknowledgethemoralsovereigntyofwildlifeistoconcedethatwildanimalsare,likesovereignpeoples,entitledtotheirterritories,theirecologicalestates.Itistoacknowledgethatthebiospherewasshapedforwildlifeandbywildlifeasmuchasitwasshapedforusandbyus.Theyhavebeen“mixingtheirlabourwithit”,toadaptanothercriterionofownership,thatofthephilosopherJohnLocke,aslongasandlongerthanwehavebeenmixingourswithit.Inthissensethebiospherebelongstowildlifeasmuchasitbelongstous.ItfollowsthatwehavenorighttodispossesswildthingsoftheirrangesordegradetheirenvironmenttothepointthatitcannolongersustainthemInlightoftheargumentfromsovereignty,wemightdetect,intheprocessesofdisplacementanddispossessionthatcharacterizethecurrentregimeofdevelopment,afamiliarlogic:thatofcolonization(Plumwood1993).Invadersarriveinaland,repulsetheindigeneswithsuperiorforceandarrogatetothemselvesthenaturalresourcesoftheregion.Aftertheevent,whenthespoilshavebeenthoroughlyappropriatedandnewpropertyregimesconsolidatingandlegitimatingappropriationhavebeenestablished,thereisconcernfortheplightofsurvivingmembersofthedispossessedpopulations.Reservesareestablished,tribesandlanguagescatalogued,pocketsofaccommodationarranged.Asasidelinetothemainbusinessofappropriation,effortsaremadetopreserveculturaldiversity.Everyoneismorallypleasedwhenthreatenedindigenousculturesandcommunitiesaredraggedback,forthemoment,fromthebrink.Theparallelbetweenthelogicofcolonizationandthatoftheecologicaldispossessioninvolvedintheprocessesofmoderndevelopmentbetraysanunderlyingmoralsymmetrythatatteststotheviolatedsovereigntyofwildlife

10

evenwhilethediscourseofdevelopment,withitsimplicationofprogress,deniesit.2.3.1.2.Arethematerialoutcomesofanthropocentrismequivalenttothoseofbiocentric?Someenvironmentalphilosophershavealwaysarguedthatinprotectingthebiosphereforourselvesweincidentallyprotectitforalllifeandhencethatthereisnoneed,practicallyspeaking,forrecoursetoabio-inclusiveethic(Norton1991,Light&Katz1996).Thisequivalenceargumenthoweverisuntenableinasmuchasitisclear,inthefaceofthecurrentwaveofextinctions,thatmanyspeciesareecologicallydispensableinthesensethattheirdisappearancedoesnottriggerthecollapseofbiosphericsystemsandthusendangerhumansurvivalorwellbeing(Doaketal2014;Vucetichetal2015).Fromtheperspectiveofapurelyanthropocentricethicseekingtoconservethebiospherestrictlyaslifesupportforhumanitythen,suchspeciesmaywellprovesuperfluous.Advocatesofananthropocentricapproachmighthoweverreplythatthedefinitionof“humaninterests”mustbedrawnmorewidely:itmightbeinourinteresttoconservespeciesnotmerelytosecuretheconditionsforhumansurvivalbutforpsychological,spiritualorevenepistemicreasons-asobjectsofwonderorofscientificinquiry,forinstance.Aversionofthisweakerformofanthropocentrismfrequentlyheardinenvironmentalcampaignsisthe“forourgrandchildren”argument.Wemustpreserveexistingspeciesnotmerelyonaccountoftheirmaterialorecologicalutilityforusbutasobjectsofwonderandjoyforfuturegenerations.Suchanargumentagainhoweverhaslittleforce.Thereisnomorereasontoexpectfuturegenerationstofeelsignificantlydiminishedbythelossofspeciestheyhaveneverknownthanmostpeopledotodaybythelossofspeciessuchastheaukandthedodo(Pauly1995).Moreover,scientificinterestofitselfcannotbeusedasgroundsforpreservingorallowinganyparticularstateofaffairs.Allmannerofethicallyunconscionableactualorpossiblestatesofaffairsmightpossessscientificinterest,asthefactofNaziscienceattested.Aneviluniversemightprovemoreinterestingtosciencethanabenignone.Othernormativeconsiderationsmustaccordinglycomeintoplaywheredecisionsregardingwhatshouldorshouldnotbepreservedareconcerned.Therelatedargumentthat“biophilia”isaninherentaspectofhumanpsychology,entailingavitalhumanneedforaccesstonature(Kellert&Wilson1993),isnomorecompellingasacaseforconservation.Peoplemayindeedfeelrefreshedbygreeneryintheirenvironmentbuttheevidentpsychologicalandsocialfunctionalityofcountlessmillionsofpeoplecurrentlyenclosedinhigh-riseconurbationsindevelopingnations,withlittleornoaccesstowildspaces,demonstratesthathumanflourishingbynomeansrequiresaccesstosuchspaces.Anyinnateneedforgreenerymayevidentlybesatisfiedbyurbanparklands,gardensorindoorplants.

11

Manyothersuch“weaker”versionsofanthropocentrismcouldbecited,butgenerallyspeaking,whereverlivingthingsarevaluedpurelyasmeanstoendsofours,theybecomeinter-substitutablewithotherthingsthatcouldsatisfythoseends(Nelson&Vucetich2013).Asmeansonly,livingthingsarealwaysatriskofbecomingsuperfluous.Inthissense,purelyinstrumentalargumentscanneverassureequivalentoutcomestoargumentsbasedontheintrinsicvalueoflivingthings.2.3.1.3Oughtananthropocentricapproachbepreferredonpragmatic/politicalgroundstoonebasedonbiocentrism?Evenifitisconcededthatanthropocentrismcannotdeliverconservationoutcomesequivalenttothoseofbiocentrismorbio-inclusivenesshowever,thequestionwhetherananthropocentricapproachshouldbepreferredcanstillberaisedonpragmaticgrounds:arenotanthropocentricargumentsmorelikelytobeacceptedthanbio-inclusiveones,especiallyinpoorercountries?Suchapragmaticpreferenceforanthropocentricapproacheshasgainedprominenceinrecentyearswiththedeclarationof“eco-modernism”inconservation,whereeco-moderniststailorconservationgoalsexclusivelytotheinterestsofhumancommunities(Kareivaetal2011;Kareiva&Marvier2012;Marvier2014;Asafu-Adjayeetal2015).Fromthisperspective,conservationistsareurgedtolowertheirecologicalexpectationsandpitchtheirinterventionsinwayscalculatedprimarilytobenefitdisadvantagedhumans.Anew,ecologicallysimplifiednatureintegratedwithhumansystemsmustreplacewildnatureasthetelosofconservation.IntheAnthropocene,itisargued,conservationistsmustconcedethehegemonyofthehumanandscorewhateverpointstheycanforbiodiversityincidentallytoservinghumaninterests(Lewis2014).Topulltherugofbiocentrismoutfromundertheprojectofconservationinthiswayhoweverwouldnotonlydrasticallydiminishthereachofconservationefforts(Soule2013;Cafaro&Primack2015)butwould,inourpresenthistoricalcircumstances,riskrenderingtheconservationprojectaltogethersuperfluous.Foritmaytodaynolongerbevalidtoargue,asenvironmentalistshaveperenniallydone,thathumanityneedstoprotecttheecologicalfabricoftheplanetinordertosafeguarditsownexistence.Whilebiospheredysfunction–includingclimateinstability-willindeedundoubtedlyderangeoururban-industrialsystemsintheshortterm,thosesystems,recalibratedtonewclimaticandbiosphericalconditions,maywellproveadaptableandbasicallyviable.Thoughthebiospheredoescurrentlyprovideessentiallifesupportforhumancivilization,itisnolongerinconceivablethathumansmighteventuallydeviseartificialsystemsthatmimicthefunctionalityofecologicalsystems,makingnaturalecologiessuperfluous.Forexample,certainrecentsustainability-designscenariosstartwithbiomimeticproductsdesigned“afternature”andendwitharadicalarchitecturethatappliestheprinciplesofgeneticsandcyberneticstodesign.Builtenvironmentscreatedinaccordancewiththeseprinciplesmightbemade,whollyorpartially,oflivingtissue,capableofgrowingofitsownaccord.Alternatively,inertmaterialsmightbeorganized,followingDNAblueprints,into“living”,intelligent,adaptive,self-maintaining,self-replicatingstructures(Chu2004;Estevez2009).Nottobe

12

confusedwiththeclunkyproposalsofcontemporarygeo-engineering,such“geneticarchitecture”isprefiguredtodayinsolarcitiesthatphotosynthesizeorindustrialaggregatesthatcyclewaterandcarbonandturnwasteintoresources.Geneticarchitecturewouldultimatelybuildthehumanenvironmentfromtheinsideoutinaccordancewiththemorphogeneticprinciplesoflifeitself.Inthatsenseitwouldbeas“sustainable”asthenaturalsystemsonwhichitwasmodelled.However,thereisnoreasonwhyanentireglobalurban-industrialformationsodesignedshouldnotultimatelyusurpthebiospherealtogether,replacingit,asarchitectKarlChuadvocates,witha“newnature”,afunctionalsimulacrumofthebiospheredesignedbyhumansexclusivelyforhumans(Chu2004).Inlightofsuchvisionsofsustainabilitywithoutnature–ofphotosynthesiswithoutplants,ofcarbonsequestrationwithoutforests,ofwaterfiltrationwithoutwetlands,ofpollinationwithoutbees,etc–theideaofapost-ecologicalcivilizationstartstoacquireplausibility.Humanitymightindeedconceivably“out-grow”ecology,ifnotentirelythenatleasttoasignificantdegree.Civilizationmightneedtoretainaretinueofpossiblygeneticallymodified“servicespecies”,whoseonlypurposewouldbetosatisfyhumanneedsandwants,butallotherspeciesmightprovedispensableinfavourofartificialsystemsthatwouldmimicthelifesupportfunctionalitycurrentlysuppliedbythebiosphere.Ifevenarelativelypost-ecologicalcivilizationisindeedapossibilitythenthequestionofthefateofearth-lifehastobedisentangledfromthefateofhumanityandaddressedinitsownright.Merelyseekinghumanadvantagemightnotenhancetheprospectsfornon-humanlifeatall.Humanadvantagemightindeedbestbeservedbyapost-ecologicalcivilization.Todiscounttheintrinsicmoralentitlementsoflivingthingsistorisksteeringhumanitytowardpreciselysuchapost-ecologicalfuture,therebyabandoningtherestofearth-lifetoeventualsuperfluousness.Thereisnothingpragmaticaboutsettingconservationonsuchacourse.Forallthesereasonsthen,anthropocentrismseemsinadequateasanethicalbaseforconservation.Sinceabiodiversityethicis,Ihaveargued,reducibletoanthropocentrism,itmustlikewisebeethicallyinadequate.Abio-inclusivebaseisrequired.2.4.Howdidconservationcometobebiodiversity-based?Butifabio-inclusivebase–anethicthatexceedstherequirementofbiodiversitypreservation-isindispensableforconservation,whatformshouldittake?Toanswerthisletusfirstreview,briefly,howconservationcametobebiodiversity-basedinthefirstplace.Whenthemodernenvironmentmovementemergedinthe1970’s,itwasverydifferentfromtheresource-conservationmovementoftheearly20thcentury(Pinchot1910).Indeeditwaslargelypreoccupiedwithrescuingenvironmentsfromtheclutchesofextractiveindustries,suchasforestry.Insettlersocieties,suchasUSAandAustralia,forestswereunderstoodbythenew

13

environmentalistsnotmerelyasstandingreservesofresourcesbutaswildernessareas(Rodman1983;Devall&Sessions1985;Callicott1998(b)).2.4.1.TheideaofwildernessWildernesspreservationasanethosdatedbacktotheRomanticeraofthe18th-19thcenturies.Thevalueofwilderness,fromtheperspectiveoffiguressuchasThoreauandMuir,wasbasicallyaesthetic.Romanticsarguedforthepreservationoflandscapesdeemedspectacular,beautifulorsublime(Devall&Sessions1985).Whilesuchaestheticideas,oftenspillingoverintothespiritual,didindeedstilllingerintheemergentenvironmentalismofthe1970’s,theyquicklycameunderphilosophicalandideologicalattackfrommanyquarters.Theseattacksincludedargumentsfromtheculturalrelativityofaestheticstandardsandthelackofequivalencebetweenaestheticandecologicalcriteriaofsignificance(Rodman1983);post-colonialargumentsthatwildernesspreservationprioritizesrecreationalinterestsofWesternersovereconomicinterestsofpeopleindevelopingcountries(Guha1998);andargumentsthatnotionsof“unspoiltnature”ignoretheagencyofindigenouspeoplesincreatinglandscapesconsideredwild(Callicott1998(b)).2.4.2.FromwildernesstoecologicalvaluesHowever,theideaofwildernesscurrentintheenvironmentalismofthe1970’s-1980’swasnotinfactpredominantlyaestheticandromanticinorientation,butecological:wildareaswerevaluedasevolutionaryandecologicalterrainsoflife.Itwassuchterrainsoflife,unfoldingfreelyandautonomously,thatenvironmentalistssoughttoprotect.Thephilosophicalbasisforthisorientationwasarticulatedasanewdiscourse,“environmentalethics”,thepremiseofwhichwasthecontrastbetweenanthropocentricandbiocentricpositions,generallydefinedintermsofintrinsicvalue,asnotedabove.(Brennan2008.)Thoughmosttheoristsfavouredabiocentricapproach,thelocusofintrinsicvalue(ormoralconsiderability)variedfromonetheorytoanother,rangingfromsentientbeingstoallorganisms,ecosystemsorthebiosphereasawhole,includinginanimatethingssuchriversandrocks(Brennan2008).Sinceallformulationsoftheintrinsicvaluethesiswereunavoidablyphilosophicalinnaturehowever,nosingleformulationcouldachievedefinitivestatus,andallwerecontestedwithinthedisciplineofenvironmentalethicsitself.Thisisnottosaythatthenotionofintrinsicvaluewasvague,arbitraryorsubjective.Argumentsonitsbehalfweregenerallyrigorousandhardtorefute(Vucetichetal2015).Beinginherentlyphilosophicalhowever,theexactlocusofintrinsicvaluecouldnot,eveninprinciple,beconclusivelyestablished.Itwasperhapsbecauseofthisthatthelanguageofintrinsicvaluedidnotgainthecurrencyitdeservedinpoliticalandpolicydiscourse.Wherereferencesto“intrinsicvalues”or“existencevalues”didappearinpolicydocumentsandenvironmentalimpactstatements,theywereoftenfactoredindiscriminately,withcategoryblindness,intolistsofutilityvalues.Evenwherethenotionofintrinsicvaluewasdeployedcorrectly,itofferedanuncertainbasisforadvocacyinsituationsofenvironmentalconflict.Sincetheoristsvariedintheirattributionofintrinsicvalue,thenotionprovidedlittleguidanceforarrivingatnegotiatedsettlementsbetweencompetinghumanandnon-humaninterests.Perhapsfor

14

thisreasonthelanguageofintrinsicvalueandtheversionofenvironmentalethicsbasedonitgraduallyslippedfromview.2.4.3.TheideaofbiodiversityemergesintandemwiththeideaofsustainabledevelopmentMeanwhile,inthemid1980’s,thenotionofbiodiversitywasemerginginscience:theexpression,biologicaldiversity,wasfirstintroducedbyconservationbiologist,ThomasLovejoy,in1980andthecontractedform,biodiversity,hadgainedcurrencyby1988(Hawksworth1995;6-8).Rapidlythisscientificconcept,whichwasproperlypurelydescriptiveinmeaning,assumedanimplicitnormativeloading:biodiversitywasavariablethatcouldbemeasuredbutitwasalsotacitlyconsideredagoodtobeprotectedintheinterestsoflifeonearth.(Takacs1996;Moraretal2015)By1992,itwasenshrined,asbothadescriptiveandnormativeprinciple,intheUnitedNationsConventiononBiologicalDiversity.Asanotionthatoriginatedwithinscience,biodiversityseemedtoofferastable,objectiveandhencedefensiblecategorythatcouldprovideapremiseforconservation.Theveneerofscientificobjectivityenjoyedbythetermmeantthatitsunavowednormativeloadingescapedcontestationinawaythattheolderenvironmentalethicbasedonthenotionofintrinsicvaluehadnot.(Takacs1996)Recognizingitsstrategicvalue,conservationistswerequicktoadopttherhetoricofbiodiversity:thenotionofconservationrapidlybecamesynonymouswithbiodiversityconservation.Biodiversityconservationprovedrelativelyacceptabletothewiderworldaswell-presumablyonaccountofbothitsminimalism,explainedabove,andtheauraitprojectedofscientificobjectivity.Astheethicofbiodiversitywastakingshape,thenotionofsustainabledevelopmentwasalsocomingtothefore.Inpolicycontextstheideaofconservationbecameconjoinedwiththeideaofdevelopment,asifdevelopmentweretheappropriatetoolforconservation.Thatthiswouldhavebeenunthinkablefromthepointofviewofanearlier,biocentricethicwasbarelyremarked,becauseconservationhadnowbecomemoreorlesssynonymousmerelywiththepreservationoftypes-speciesandtypesofecologicalcommunity-ratherthantheirinstances–livingthingsintheirownright.ThecrucialroleofbiodiversityconservationintheemergingnotionofsustainabledevelopmentisalreadyevidentintheBrundtlandReportoftheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment(WCED)of1987.“Developmentpatternsmustbealteredtomakethemmorecompatiblewiththepreservationoftheextremelyvaluablebiologicaldiversityoftheplanet”(WCED1987:V,9).ThefinallinesofChapter6,ominouslyentitled“SpeciesandEcosystems:ResourcesforDevelopment”,readasfollows:“Thereisstilltimetosavespeciesandtheirecosystems.Itisanindispensableprerequisiteforsustainabledevelopment.”(WCED1987:VIII,73)Itwasarguablytheminimalismofbiodiversityasacriterionforconservationthenthatmadethenotionofconservationconsistentwiththeethosofdevelopmentinvolvedinthenotionofsustainabledevelopment.Itwasfurthermorethegreatscopefordevelopmentpermittedbysuchacriterionthat

15

gavethenormofsustainabledevelopmentsuchwideappeal.Intheguiseofsustainabledevelopment,conservationwasconvertedintoaveritableinducementtodevelopment–aninversionthatwasexplicitbythetimetheCBDappearedin1992(Guruswamy1998).Conservationbiologistsenthusiasticallyembracedthisrhetoricofbiodiversitythatwasprovingsoacceptabletosocietywithoutperhapsrecognizingtheminimalismofitsethicalentailments.Thatsuchminimalismhasprovedaweakbasisforconservationmaybeevidencedbythetrajectoryofconservationsincebiodiversitybecamethecriterionofprotection:themoreconservationhasbecomeincorporatedintomainstreampolicyandpolitics,underitsbiodiversityaspect,themoregroundthemovementhaslost.Ofcoursesuchlosscannotbeblamedentirelyonthewateringdownofconservationunderitsbiodiversity-baseddefinition.Buttheextremityoftheextinctionscrisisnowfacingthebiospheredoessuggestthatbyloweringtheconservationbarandacceptingtheblatantdoublestandardofspeciessustainability–populationsnumberinginthebillionsforusandinthelowthousandsformostotherspecies–biodiversity-basedconservationhasleftthewayopen,underthedescriptionofsustainabledevelopment,forhumanitytocolonizemostofthelife-spacepreviouslyoccupiedandsustainedbyinnumerablespecies.Inotherwordsbiodiversity-basedconservationhaslegitimatedthisprocessmorethanithaschallengedit.2.5.Bio-proportionality:abio-inclusiveethicofabundanceIfconservationisseriousinitsintentiontoadvocateonbehalfofearth-life,thenitsurelyhastoexposeandchallengethisdoublestandard,contesthumanhegemonyandexplicitlyadoptabio-inclusivestanceastheethicalbasisofitsefforts.Itneedstocommitnotmerelytothepreservationofbiodiversity–whichistosay,preservationmerelyoftheformsoflife-buttotheprimafacieentitlementofalllivingthingstotheirownexistence.Howwouldsuchabio-inclusiveethic,adoptedtoday,avoidtheshort-comingsthatledtothelackofuptakeinpolicydiscourseofearlierversionsofbiocentrism?Anynewbiocentricorbio-inclusiveethicmustsurelyincorporateadecisionprocedurethatenablesmanagerstonegotiateconflictsofinterest,whetherbetweenhumansandotherspeciesoramongstotherspeciesthemselves,asforinstanceamongstferalsandindigenousspecies.Startingwithanacknowledgementoftheprimafacieentitlementofalllivingthingstotheirownexistence,acommitmenttoavoidharminglivingthingswouldfollow.Sincelivingthingsareinterdependenthoweverandinevitablyrequireofoneanotheradegreeofmutualsacrificeaswellasofmutualaid,abio-inclusiveethiccouldnotdemandawhollyhands-offattitudetonature.Asupplementaryprinciplethatcouldguideouruseoflivingthingsandourinterventions,asenvironmentalmanagers,intonaturalsystems,wouldbethatofbio-proportionality.Inaccordancewiththisprinciple,ourgoalwouldbetooptimizethepopulationsofallspecies,relativeonlytotheinternalconstraintsimposedbythechecksandbalancesinherentinecosystems.Thepopulationofeachspeciesshouldbeasabundantaswouldbeconsistentwiththelikerelativeabundanceofallotherspecies.Thatistosay,systemsoftrophicandother

16

ecologicalchecksandbalanceswoulddetermine“abundance”inrelativeterms:an“abundant”populationoftoppredatorswouldtendtobelower,inabsoluteterms,thanan“abundant”populationofherbivores,andabundancewouldcomputedifferentlyforspeciesthatwereuncommonintheirundisturbedconditionascomparedwiththosethatwere,inthesamecondition,highlypopulous.Estimatingproportionalitieswouldbeanempiricalmatterpossiblybestsetagainsthistoricalbaselines.Inreferringestimatestobaselinesonewouldnotbeappealingtooutmodedanddiscreditednotionsofwilderness(Marris2011)nornecessarilyseekingtoexcludehumanagencyfromecosystems.Onewouldrathersimplybeseekingtodiscoverin-situmixesofspeciesthatbroadlymeetthecriterionofbio-proportionality.Manysuchmixesmightbepossibleintheabstract,buttheeasiestandsafestwaytodiscoverinstanceswouldbebyreferencetothosethatexistedpriortomajoranthropogenicdisturbanceinthepast.Theecologicalproportionalitiesthatobtainedatsuchanominatedmomentcouldthenprovideayardstick.Suchayardstickneednotbeconsideredasrigidlyfixed.Changingconditionsallowfornaturalfluctuationsintherelativeabundanceofdifferentspecies.Butthenotionofproportionality,understoodagainstthebackgroundofecologicaloptimization,wouldrepresentthenormativeheartofconservationfromtheperspectiveofbio-proportionality.Thegoalwouldbetoseekrelativeabundanceforallspecies,withinecologicalparameters.Preservationofbiodiversitywouldofcourseremainanintegralcomponentofthisgoal,butasagoalbio-proportionalitywouldsubsumeandgreatlyexceedbiodiversity.WhiletheestimationofproportionalitiesinaccordancewiththisnormativegoalneednotpresupposeateleologicalorClementsian“balanceofnature”modelofecology,norwoulditallowapurely“fluxofnature”,anything-goesmodel.Proportionalitieswouldbeestimatedagainstayardstickofhealthforecosystems(Callicott2002).Inconservationcontexts,accordingtoCallicott,thehealthofecosystemsmustberatedintermsofbiodiversity,thoughexpectationsofbiodiversitymustberelativizedtobackgroundenablingconditions.Measuresofbiodiversitymustfurthermorebequalifiedaccordingtoviabilityandstabilityfactorsacrossappropriatespaceandtimescales.(Callicott2002)(Azoodoesnotcountasahealthyecosystemjustbecauseithasahighspeciescount.)Optimalpopulationsizesforallspecieswouldbecalculatedagainstabackgroundmodelofecologicalstabilityandhealth.Thismodelwouldestablishtheproportionalities;optimizationwouldincreasepopulationsizesinaccordancewiththese.Justasproposingbio-proportionalityastheultimategoalofconservationisnottoseekrigidlytorestoretheecologicalpast,norisittoimplyaprogramofplanetaryengineeringaimedatoptimizingspeciespopulationsbeyondwhatmighthavebeenachievedpriortoindustrial-scalehumandisturbances.Itisrathertotrytoaddress,inanecologicallyopenandadaptivefashion,theextremedisproportionalitiesthathaveoccurredinhistoricaltimesasaresultofthehumanco-optationofbiologicalresources.

17

2.5.1.Bio-proportionalityappliedtothehumanpopulationApplyingaprincipleofproportionalitytobiologicalpopulationswouldalsoentailapplyingittothehumanpopulation,subjecttothesamesystemofecologicalchecksandbalancesandrelativetoaselectedhistoricalbaseline(orotherindicatorofecologicalhealth).Toachievesuchecologicalproportionalitywithrespecttohumanpopulationwouldentailadramatic(thoughofcourseconsensual)reduction,sinceourpresentpopulationhasbeenachievedatmassivecosttootherpopulations.Moreofus(humans)generally,otherthingsbeingequal,meanslessofthem(otherspecies).(Cafaro&Crist2012)However,thescaleofreductionrequiredcouldnotbecomputedwithreferenceonlytonumbers,butwouldalsoinvolveoffsettingtheecologicalcostsofhumanactivityagainstanypositiveinputsthatanecologicallyreformedcivilizationmightmaketoglobalecology.Thecombinedbiomassofaparticularspeciesisnotbyitselfameasureofitsecologicalimpact.Theglobalbiomassofants,forexample,isestimatedtobegreaterthantheglobalbiomassofhumanity,butantpopulationsmaybeecologicallyoptimalbecauseants,unlikehumans,contributepositivelytooverallecologicalfunctionality(Hoyt1996).Inotherwords,calculationofanecologicallyoptimalhumanpopulationwouldhavetotakeintoaccountthedifferentialcapacitiesofvaryingformsofcivilizationtocontributetoecologicalproductivity.Formsofcivilizationthatweregenuinelyecologicallyproductive,inthesenseofcontributingpositivelytotheflourishingofecosystems,might,weretheytoexist,justifylargerhumanpopulationsthanthosethatobtainedatthetimeofthenominatedhistoricalbaseline.Anethicofbio-proportionalitythenwouldsquarelyaddresstheissueofhumanhegemony.Itwouldeffectivelyreversethequestionposedbyconservationistsinrecentyears,namely,howmuchearth-lifecanbepreservedalongsideourtotallydisproportionatehumanpopulation.Instead,fromabioproportionalityperspective,conservationistswouldaskhowlargeahumanpopulationwouldbefeasiblewhileproportionatenon-humanpopulationsweremaintained.Thegreaterthetargethumanpopulationallowed,thegreaterwouldtargetnon-humanpopulationshavetobe.Thecontrastbetweenanethicofbioproportionalityandanethicofbiodiversityinthisconnectionisclear:existingbiodiversitycouldinprinciple(withgoodenvironmentalmanagement)bepreserved–inthesensethatfurtherextinctionscouldbeavoided-alongsideahumanpopulationinthebillions.Butbioproportionality,withitsrequirementofgreaterproportionalitybetweenhumanandnon-humanpopulations,couldnotbeachievedunderthiscondition.Anyargumentforbio-proportionalitywillbeunavoidablyphilosophicalbecausethisprincipleisavowedlynormative,wherenormativequestionscannotbesettledbyscience.Thedifficultyofmandatingpolicyonphilosophicalratherthanstrictlyempiricalgroundsmustbeacknowledged(Sorlin2013;Vucetich&Nelson2010),butthisisabulletthatmustbebitten,sinceotherwisevalues–suchasthoseencodedinbiodiversity-basedconservation-thatpermitoutrightannexationofEarthbyhumanitywillbemistakenlyapprovedasthedeterminationsofscience.

18

2.5.2.Isbio-proportionalityutopian?Againstthosewhostylethemselvesecologicalpragmatists(Lewis2014),andforwhomthecapacityofbio-inclusivevaluestomotivatechangeseemsself-defeatinglyutopian(Marvier2013),itmightbearguedthatloweringtheethicalbarhasneverbeenthewaytoinspiresocialmovements(Doaketal2014;Vucetich&Nelson2015).ThecivilrightsmovementintheUSAwasnotpitchedattheself-interestofwhitesnorfeminismattheself-interestofmen.Ifconservationistogalvanizethekindofpubliccommitmentneededinordertoaddressthecurrentplightofearth-life,itmustsurelynotbecontentwithanapologeticrear-guardstance,butmustleadwithmoralforceandvision.Itmustdemandthatthebiologicalresourcesoftheplanetbedistributedfarmoreequitablythantheycurrentlyareamongsttheworld’sspecies.2.5.3.InstrumentalitiesrequiredforustomeetourmoralobligationsasaspeciestootherspeciesThemostdifficultdilemmasforconservationistsariseindevelopingregionswheretheinterestsofwildlife,suchaselephantsortigers,conflictwiththoseofunder-privilegedhumanpopulations.Manyconservationists,includingeco-pragmatistsandeco-modernists,feel,understandably,thatprivilegedhumanshavenorighttolegislateinfavourofnon-humansinthesesituations.Anticipatingthatanethicofbio-proportionalitywoulddoso,theymightrejectitonthesegrounds.Butthelocusofresponsibility,inrelationtoanethicasencompassingasthatofbio-proportionality,isneithertheindividualnorthenationbuthumanityasawhole:itisasaspeciesthatwehumansaremorallyobligedtorespecttheentitlementofotherspeciestotheirownexistenceandtheirownterrainsoflife.Effectiveinternationalinstrumentsthatwouldenableustomeettheseobligationsfromthecombinedresourcesofhumanityasawhole,ratherthanmerelyfromtheofteninadequateresourcesoflocalcommunities,areurgentlyneeded(astheUnitedNations,underthebannerofitsHarmonywithNatureprogram,nowrecognizes(UN2010)).Conservationcannotaccomplishitstaskwithoutsuchinstruments.3.ConclusionToinsistthatbiologicalresourcesbedistributedmoreequitablythantheycurrentlyareamongsttheworld’sspeciesdoesindeedmeanre-designinghumancivilizationsothatitbecomesasystemofaffordancesfortherestoflife,therebyre-integratingtheinterestsofotherspecieswithourown,aseco-modernistsadvocate.Butitalsomeansconcedingthatasthebiospherewasshapedforearth-lifeandbyearth-lifejustassurelyasitwasshapedforourselvesandbyourselves,itbelongstotherestofearth-lifeasmuchasitbelongstous.Sincewehavealreadyannexedmostoftheterrestrialsurfaceoftheplanetandareintheprocessofecocidallydepletinganddegradingtheoceans,wehavenotonlytocreatenewspacesforearth-lifewithintheintersticesofalltheenvironmentscurrentlyco-optedtohumanuse;wealsoneedtocedeanyremainingecologicalestatestothespeciestowhichtheybelong,togetherwithIndigenouspeopleswhohaveculturallyco-evolvedwiththem.Themostdirectwayofdoingthisisofcoursethroughinter-linkedsystemsoflarge-scaleprotectedareas.(Wilson2016;Wuerthneretal2015)Perhapsoneday,inthecontextofatrulyevolvedecologicalcivilization,humanpresencemaybecomefullyconvertedintoa

19

systemofecologicalaffordancesforotherspecies.Inthateventtheremightbenoneedtoguardextensiveareasagainsthumanencroachment:humanactivitymightreliablycontributetoanorderofbio-proportionality.Inthemeantimehowever,whileindustrialdevelopmententailsspeciesdisplacementandtheecologicaldepreciationofspecies’estates,suchareasneedtobeprotectedagainstdevelopment.Thegreatmissingargumentfor“saving”areassuchastheKimberleyissimplythatweowetheearth,wearemorallyinbiologicalandhenceterritorialdeficittotheearthandotherspecies.Wehaveexceeded,byordersofmagnitude,theproportionalitiesthatoughttohavebeenobserved.Itistimethennottolowertheethicalbarbuttoraiseittoitstrueheightandsetaboutrestoringtheseproportionalities.Byallowingthemoralforceofitsmessagetobediluted,conservationmayhavecolludedinitsowndisempowerment.Inthissense,pragmatismitselfmaybecallingforareturntobio-inclusivenessinethics.AcknowledgementsForcommentsonearlierdrafts,thankstoS.Chown,D.Griggs,K.Rigby,M.Nelsonandtwoanonymousreferees.LiteratureCitedAsafu-AdjayeJetal.2015.AnEcomodernistManifesto.http://www.ecomodernism.orgAustralianGovernmentDepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation.2009.AsynthesisofscientificknowledgetosupportconservationmanagementintheKimberleyregionofWesternAustralia.Perth

BrennanA.Environmentalethics.2018.StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy.<plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental>AustralianBureauofStatistics,http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/50804?opendocument&navpos=220AustralianGovernment1999,<www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00506/Download>AustralianGovernmentDepartmentofEnvironment.2009.http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/hotspots/national-biodiversity-hotspots#hotspot15CafaroP,CristE.2012.Lifeonthebrink:environmentalistsconfrontoverpopulation.UniversityofGeorgiaPress,AthensCafaroP,PrimackR.2014.Speciesextinctionisagreatmoralwrong.BiologicalConservation170,Feb:1-2

20

CallicottJB.1998.Contemporarycriticismsofthereceivedwildernessidea,inCallicottJB&NelsonMP(editors).Thegreatnewwildernessdebate.UniversityofGeorgiaPress,AthensCallicottJB.2002.Choosingappropriatetemporalandspatialscalesforecologicalrestoration.JournalofBioscience27(Supp),409-420CarwardineJ,O’ConnorT,LeggeS,MackeyB,PossinghamHP,MartinTG.2011.PrioritythreatmanagementtoprotectKimberleywildlife.CSIROEcosystemSciences,BrisbaneCincottaR,EngelmanR.2000.Nature’splace:humanpopulationandthefutureofbiologicaldiversity.PopulationActionInternational,WashingtonDCConventiononBiologicalDiversity.1992.UNEarthSummit.www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02>ChuK.2004.Metaphysicsofgeneticarchitectureandcomputation.Perspecta35:86.DevallB,SessionsG.1985.Deepecology.PeregrineSmith,SaltLakeCityDoakDF,BakkerVJ,GoldsteinBE,HaleB.2014.Whatisthefutureofconservation?TrendsinEcology&Evolution29,2:77-81

EstévezAT.2009.Biodigitalarchitectureincomputation:thenewrealmofarchitecturaldesign.Proceedingsof27thconferenceoneducationandresearchincomputeraidedarchitecturaldesign.Istanbul:681-686,

Fleming,P,AndersonH,PrendergastA,BretzM,ValentineL,HardyG.2013.IsthelossofAustraliandiggingmammalscontributingtoadeteriorationinecosystemfunction?MammalReview44,2:94-108.GarlickS,CarterJ,MatthewsJ.2011.Brutalitytowildlife:conservation,welfareandtheecoversity.PANPhilosophyActivismNature8GuhaR.1998.RadicalAmericanenvironmentalismandwildernesspreservation,inCallicottandNelsonopcitGuruswamyLD.1998.TheConventiononBiologicalDiversity:apolemic,inGuruswamyLD&McNeelyJ.(editors).Protectionofglobalbiodiversity:convergingstrategies,DukeUniversityPress,DurhamNCHawksworthDL.1995.Biodiversity:measurementandestimation.Chapman&Hall,LondonHoytE.1996.Theearthdwellers:adventuresinthelandofants.Simon&Schuster,NewYorkJonesD,BryceC,FromontJ,MooreG.(editors).2014.MarinediversityoftheKimberley1880s–2009.RecordsoftheWesternAustralianMuseumsupplement84:111-132KareivaP,MarvierM,LalaszR.2011.ConservationintheAnthropocene;beyondsolitudeandfragility.BreakthroughJournal2,FallKareiva,P,Marvier,M.2012.Whatisconservationscience?Bioscience62:962–969

21

KellertSR,WilsonEO,editors.1993.Thebiophiliahypothesis.IslandPress,WashingtonDCLightA,KatzE,editors.1996.Environmentalpragmatism.PsychologyPress,NewYork

LewisM.2014.Theeducationofaneco-modernist:fromeco-romanticismtoradicalpragmatism.BreakthroughJournal,SummerLinklaterA.2014.Owningtheearth:thetransforminghistoryoflandownership,Bloomsbury,LondonMarvierM.2014.Newconservationistrueconservation.ConservationBiology28,1:1-3McKenzieNL,JohnstonRB,KendrickPG,editors.1991,KimberleyrainforestsofAustralia.SurreyBeatty&Sons,Sydney.

MoraC,TittensorDP,AdlS,SimpsonAGB,WormB.2011.Howmanyspeciesarethereonearthandintheocean?PLoSBiol9,8MorarN,ToadvineT,BohannanJM.2015.Biodiversityattwenty-fiveyears:revolutionorredherring?Ethics,PolicyandEnvironment18,1:16-29NelsonMP,VucetichJA.2013.Valueofwilderness,inLafolletteH.editor.InternationalEncyclopediaofEthics.Wiley-Blackwell,OxfordNortonB.1991.Towardunityamongenvironmentalists.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork

PaulyD.1995.Anecdotesandtheshiftingbaselinesyndromeoffisheries.TrendsinEcologyandEvolution10:430.

PinchotG.1910.Thefightforconservation.DoubledayPage&Co,NYPlumwoodV.1993.FeminismandtheMasteryofNature.Routledge,LondonQuammenD.1997.TheSongoftheDodo.Pimlico,LondonRodmanJ.1983.Fourformsofecologicalconsciousnessreconsidered,inSchererD&AttigT.editors.Ethicsandtheenvironment.Prentice-Hall,EngelwoodCliffsN.J.82-92

SorlinS.2013.Reconfiguringenvironmentalexpertise.EnvironmentalScienceandPolicy28:14-24

StaplesW.andCafaroP.2012.ForaspeciesrighttoexistinCafaroP.andCristE.(Eds.),LifeontheBrink:EnvironmentalistsConfrontOverpopulation.UniversityofGeorgiaPress,Athens:283-300

SouleM.2013.The‘newconservation’.ConservationBiology27:895-897TakacsD.1996.Theideaofbiodiversity:philosophiesofparadise.JohnHopkinsUniversityPress,BaltimoreTraillLW,BradshawJAandBrookBW.2007.Minimumviablepopulationsize:ameta-analysisof30yearsofpublishedestimates.BiologicalConservation139,1-2:159–166

22

UnitedNationsHarmonywithNature.2010.http://www.harmonywithnatureun.orgUnitedNationsConventiononBiologicalDiversity,www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-00

VanDoorenT.2014.Flightways:lifeandlossattheedgeofextinction.ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork

VucetichJA,NelsonMP.2007.Whatare60Warblersworth?Killinginthenameofconservation.Oikos116,8:1267-1278VucetichJA,BruskotterJT,NelsonMP.2015.Evaluatingwhethernature’sintrinsicvalueisanaxiomoforanathematoconservation.ConservationBiology29,2:321-332 VucetichJA,NelsonMP.2010.Sustainability:virtuousorvulgar?Bioscience60,7:539-544WhittakerRJ&Fernandez-PalaciosJM.2007.Islandbiogeography:ecology,evolutionandconservation.OxfordUP,OxfordWilsonEO.2002.Thefutureoflife.Knopf,NewYorkWilsonEO.2016.HalfEarth.Liveright,NewYorkWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment:OurCommonFuture.1987.<www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm>1Itshouldbenotedthat,initsPreamble,theCBDaffirmstheintrinsicvalueofbiodiversity.Accordingtomyargument,thisonlymakessenseiflivingthingsthemselvesarealsoaccordedintrinsicvalue:diversityisneverintrinsicallyvaluableinitself.ButthebodyofthetextoftheCBD,withitsinjunctiontodevelopaswellasconserve,makesitclearthatthisisveryfarfromitsintention.