Abstract
The development of the aquaculture industry in Canada has triggered a conflict of a scope never seen before. As stated in Young and Matthews’ The Aquaculture Controversy, this debate has “mushroomed over the past several decades to become one of the most bitter and stubborn face-offs over industrial development ever witnessed in Canada” (Young and Matthews in The aquaculture controversy in Canada. Activism, policy and contested science. UBC Press, Vancouver, p 3, 2010). It opposes a wide variety of actors: from industrial investors, scientists, politicians and environmentalists to Native associations and communities, citizens groups and local stakeholders. The opposition is fierce between those in favor of a flourishing and modern aquaculture of industrial nature and those who fear the dreadful consequences of such an industry. In particular, the possible implementation of biotechnology innovations, such as a genetically modified salmon, has made this debate coextensive with the GMO debate, thus multiplying the opposition’s spectrum of arguments against the industry. Throughout the debate, Canadian environmental NGOs like the Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace Canada have assumed leadership over the opposition to aquaculture development with certain success. Their participation in the debate features numerous ethical concerns related to environmental health, a respect for wilderness and local human communities. Such a position can be associated overall with a form of ecocentric ethics or concern. Nevertheless, a careful examination of the technical solutions proposed by these NGOs reveals their embeddedness in biocentrism. Through the example taken from the Canadian debate on aquaculture development, this paper aims to highlight the conceptual difficulty of enacting ecocentric ethical positions beyond formal arguments. Because ecocentrism implies a true paradigm shift, not only in mentality, but also in the way we conceive our technical interventions in nature, biocentrism remains an important practical method to enact ethical positions related to environmental concerns in public debates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See FAO 2010.
Greenpeace is a well known international NGO and the information relating to their campaign on aquaculture is available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/. The David Suzuki Foundation is less known on the international scene, but the scientific aspect of their activism (M. Suzuki himself was a reknown geneticist) has made them a reference on environmental matters in Canada. The content of their campaigns are available at: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/fr/.
The original title of the report is: Acteurs présents dans les débats entourant les animaux clonés, les poissons transgéniques, les organismes génétiquement modifiés et l’aquaculture au Canada. The report was prepared by Louis-Simon Corriveau, Masters’ student at the Département de sociologie (Université Laval). It is part of a series of ethical studies conducted by Lyne Létourneau, member of the network Ressources Aquatiques Québec (RAQ).
See Pigeon and Létourneau (2012). « La problématique éthique du développement de l’aquaculture industrielle au Canada : analyse mésologique d’un nouveau rapport possible à l’océan » in VertigO—La revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement (on line): http://vertigo.revues.org/13035; doi: 10.4000/vertigo.13035.
For example, Arne Naess’ deep ecology approach to environmental ethics is largely based on our scientific knowledge (or ignorance) of the well-being of ecosystems: “Only rarely can scientists predict with any certainty the effect of a new chemical on even a single small ecosystem” (Naess 1989, p. 26). For Naess, the fact of this scientific ignorance is in itself an argument for a more profound ecological consciousness as well as a call for responsibility.
In his essay “Ecological Metaphysics in Agriculture, Medicine, and Technology” (Callicot 1999, pp. 263–282), Callicot argues that Leopold’s Land Ethic represents a major shift in how we can conceive activities such as agriculture. The ecological paradigm underlying the Land Ethic, once applied to agriculture, would not only change things practically, but would also represent a radical shift in how we represent the world culturally speaking: “While agricultural ethics is a perfectly intelligible combination of terms, agricultural metaphysics sounds like an oxymoron. What has agriculture got to do with so arcane and abstract a subject as metaphysics? The answer is ‘really quite a lot’. How people go about producing food both reveals and reflects their worldviews. Indeed, because food production is one among several absolutely fundamental and universal human activities it affords a particularly clear window into the ambient cultural mind” (Callicot 1999, pp. 266–267).
In the case of modern aquaculture, the social problems resulting from its development are well documented. They imply a radical change in the coastal communities’ cultural and economic activities, displacing a tradition of fishing to be replaced by a system of industrial production. This change implies a diversification of the economy that does not necessarily benefit the whole community and that redefines key notions such as “who owns what” and “who works for whom”. For more information on the subject in the Canadian context, see Young and Matthews 2010, pp. 195–227.
For example, although Arne Naess might be considered as an ecocentric philosopher, his notion of “nature” as a normative concept involves the necessity of “Self-realisation” as an ultimate goal (Naess 1989, p. 85). The “Self” here refers to a holistic system in which non biotic entities have a role to play (making it ecocentric), but nevertheless, the movement by which the individual “self” realizes the goal of “Self-realisation” is one that necessarily implies, in the first place “(…) the development of a deep identification of individuals with all life forms.” (Naess 1989, p. 85).
It is also interesting to note that Rolston III’s teleogical argument leads to concerns similar to other animal ethics theorist’s conclusions. Namely, this position induces some respect for the individual creatures’ conditions of life, if not their well-being, as natural entities. In a similar way, Peter Singer’s utilitarian approach leads to similar conclusions, although its theoretical basis is consequetialist and therefore relies directly on the concept of suffering (Singer 1975). In another way, Tom Regan advocates for a better treatment of most animals on deontological grounds (Reagan 1985).
One must nevertheless keep in mind that this classification shows a general trend—that is—it represents the main elements of the discourse. A careful and thorough analysis of the case also reveals that ecocentric solutions are sometimes evoked, although in a marginal way.
This issue can also be seen as part of an ecocentric criticism of fish farming. Nevertheless, ethically speaking, it is the solutions proposed and their emphasis on the essence of animals that differentiates ecocentric “intuitions” from biocentric “solutions”.
The state of wilderness is associated with profound ethical signification. For some authors, like Callicot, wild animals are worthy of moral respect but domesticated animals are to be considered as “living artefacts” (Callicot 1989, pp. 15–38). Holston III also clearly separates essences pertaining to the wild and domesticated realms. On a more general level, wilderness per se, whether it manifests itself as a landscape or animal species, holds a special symbolic and moral status in modern cultures altogether. For a deeper study on the matter from a proper anthropological perspective, see Descola, Philippe (2005). Par-delà nature et culture. Gallimard, Paris.
References
Callicot, J. B. (1986). Intrinsic values of nonhuman species. In B. G. Norton (Ed.), The preservation of species. The value of biological diversity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Callicot, J. B. (1989). In defense of the land ethic. Essays in environmental philosophy. New York: State University of New York Press.
Callicot, J. B. (1999). Beyond the land ethic. More essays in environmental philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chopin, T., & Robinson, S. (2004). Defining the appropriate regulatory and policy framework for the development of integrated multitrophic aquaculture practices: introduction to the workshop and positioning of the issues. Bulletin of the Aquaculture Association of Canada, 104(3), 4–10.
David Suzuki Foudation (2001). Super un-natural—Atlantic Salmon in BC Waters. PDF document: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/reports/2001/super-un-natural/.
David Suzuki Foundation (1996). Net Loss: The Salmon Netcage Industry in British Columbia. PDF document: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/reports/1996/net-loss-the-salmon-netcage-industry-in-bc/.
David Suzuki Foundation. Fishing for Salmon Answers. Internet page. www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2008/04/fishing-for-salmon-answers/.
Descola, P. (2005). Par-delà nature et culture. Paris: Gallimard.
FAO (2010). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e00.htm.
Fletcher, G. L., & Rise, M. L. (Eds.). (2012). Aquaculture biotechnology. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Francione, G. L. (1996). Rain without thunder. The ideology of the animal rights movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Greenpeace (2004). Genetically Engineered Fish: New Threats to the Environment. PDF document. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/genetically-engineered-fish.
Greenpeace (2009). Aquaculture. Internet sheet. http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/campagnes/oceans/Ressources1/Faits-saillants/Aquaculture/.
Leopold (1949). A sand county almanach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Létourneau, L. (2012). Aquaculture ethics in the biotechnology Century. In G. L. Fletcher & M. L. Rise (Eds.), Aquaculture Biotechnology. Hoboken: Wiley.
Lien, M. E., & Law, J. (2011). ‘Emergent Aliens’: On Salmon, Nature, and their Enactment. Ethnos, 76(1), 65–87.
Light, Andrew., Rolston, I. I. I., & Holmes, R. (Eds.). (2003). Environmental ethics. An anthology. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reagan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California press.
Rolston III, H. (1994). Conserving natural value. New York: Columbia University Press.
Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: Random House.
Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature. A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
David Suzuki Foundation. Close Containment is Affordable. Internet page available at: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/oceans/science/sustainable-fisheries-and-aquaculture/closed-containment-is-affordable/.
Young, N., & Matthews, R. (2010). The aquaculture controversy in Canada. Activism, policy and contested science. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pigeon, LE., Létourneau, L. The Leading Canadian NGOs’ Discourse on Fish Farming: From Ecocentric Intuitions to Biocentric Solutions. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 767–785 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9489-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9489-8