Advertisement

Two Conceptions of Embracing Ecological Change in Ecosystem Management and Species Conservation: Accommodation and Intervention

  • Ronald SandlerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 46)

Abstract

In this chapter I consider two different perspectives on what it means to acknowledge and embrace anthropogenic ecological change with respect to ecosystem management and species conservation. On one view, embracing anthropogenic change involves taking greater responsibility for and control of the ecological future. We ought to use our best science and technology to thoughtfully and intentionally manage, and where necessary design and modify, ecological systems and species. On another view, embracing ecological change involves reducing human influences and allowing systems and species space and opportunities to transition and reconfigure without intentionally designing them in accordance with how we think they need or ought to be. Anthropogenic change does not itself imply that there is a responsibility to take an interventionist and control-oriented approach to ecosystem management and species conservation. Whether and when people ought to do so will vary by case and context, not only in accordance with the relevant empirical information, but also in accordance with the operative values as stake.

Keywords

Climate change Ecosystem management Anthropocene Values Anthropogenic change 

References

  1. Cafaro P (2011) Beyond business as usual: alternative wedges to avoid catastrophic climate change and create sustainable societies. In: Arnold D (ed) The ethics of global climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cafaro P (2017) Valuing wild nature. In: Gardiner SM, Thompson A (eds) Oxford handbook of environmental ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 125–135Google Scholar
  3. Camacho AE, Doremus H, McLachlan JS, Minteer BA (2010) Reassessing conservation goals in a changing climate. Issues Sci Technol 26(4)Google Scholar
  4. Caney S (2010) Climate change, human rights, and moral thresholds. In: Gardiner SM, Caney S, Jamieson D, Shue H (eds) Climate ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 163–177Google Scholar
  5. Climate Interactive (2017) Scoreboard science and data. Available via https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/scoreboard/scoreboard-science-and-data/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
  6. Crist E (2013) On the poverty of our nomenclature. Enviro Humanit 3:129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donlan CJ, Berger J, Bock CE, Bock JH, Burney DA, Estes JA et al (2006) Pleistocene rewilding: an optimistic agenda for twenty-first century conservation. Am Nat 168:660–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO (2014) The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture 2014. Rome, Italy, FAOGoogle Scholar
  9. FAOSTAT (2015) Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division. Available via http://faostat.fao.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2018
  10. Galloway JN, Dentener F, Boyer EW, Asner GP, Cleveland C, Green P et al (2004) Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70(2):153–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Aronson J (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restor Ecol 14(2):170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Higgs E, Falk DA, Guerrini A, Hall M, Harris J, Hobbs RJ et al (2014) The changing role of history in restoration ecology. Front Ecol Environ 12(9):499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA et al (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA (2009) Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 24(11):599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Hughes L, McIntyre S, Lindenmayer DB, Parmesan C, Possingham HP et al (2008) Assisted colonization and rapid climate change. Science 321(5887):345–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Available via https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf. Accessed 6 Apr 2018
  17. Katz E (1992) The Big Lie: human restoration of nature. Res Philos Technol 12:231–241Google Scholar
  18. Krausmann F, Erb K-H, Gingrich S, Haberl H, Bondeau A, Gaube V et al (2013) Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(25):10324–10329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marris E (2011) Rambunctious garden: saving nature in a post-wild world. Bloomsbury, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. McKibben B (2000) The end of nature. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Minteer BA, Collins JP (2010) Move it or lose it? The ecological ethics of relocating species under climate change. Ecol Appl 20:1801–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore KD (2013) Anthropocene is the wrong word. Earth Island J. Available via http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/anthropocene_is_the_wrong_word/. Accessed 10 Apr 2018
  23. NOAA (2015) What is ocean acidification? Available via http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F. Accessed 7 July 2018
  24. Pacala S, Socolow RH (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sandler R (2010) The value of species and the ethical foundations of assisted colonization. Conserv Biol 24(2):424–431Google Scholar
  26. Sandler R (2014) The ethics of climate change mitigation. In: Di Paola M, Pellegrino G (eds) Canned heat: ethics and politics of global climate change. Routledge, New Delhi, pp 61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sandler R (2017) Deextinction and conservation genetics in the anthropocene. Recreating the wild: de-extinction, technology, and the ethics of conservation. Hasting Cent Rep Spec Rep 47(4):S43–S47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sandler R (2018) Environmental ethics: theory in practice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Syvitski JPM, Kettner A (2011) Sediment flux and the anthropocene. Philos Trans R Soc A: Math Phys Eng Sci 369(1938):957–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor PW (1986) Respect for nature: a theory of environmental ethics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Tripati AK, Roberts CD, Eagle RA (2009) Coupling of CO2 and ice sheet stability over major climate transitions of the last 20 million years. Science 326(5958):1394–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. UNEP-WCNC and IUCN (2016) Protected Planet Report 2016. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Available via https://wdpa.s3.amazonaws.com/Protected_Planet_Reports/2445%20Global%20Protected%20Planet%202016_WEB.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2018
  33. United States Climate Change Science Program (2008) Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available via www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4–4/final-report. Accessed 10 Mar 2011
  34. Vucetich JA, Nelson MP, Chelsea K, Batavia K (2015) The anthropocene: disturbing name, limited insight. In: Minteer BA, Pyne SJ (eds) After preservation: saving American nature in the age of humans. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 66–73Google Scholar
  35. Wilkinson BH, McElroy BJ (2007) The impact of humans on continental erosion and sedimentation. Geol Soc Am Bull 119(1–2):140–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. World Wildlife Fund (2014) Living Planet Report 2014. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. Available via http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
  37. Wuerthner G, Crist E, Butler T (2014) Keeping the wild: against domestication of earth. Island Press, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and ReligionNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations