Abstract
Human–nature relations encompass many of the age-old questions about our existence, place, and time. This chapter explores some of these notions and offers insight into the question “why protect nature?”, the Gaia theory, and linkages from a historical and economical viewpoint between the Global North and the Global South. Arguments in regard to moral and utilitarian viewpoints explore nature conservation with respect to ecocentrism versus anthropocentrism. Gaian ideology is defined and used as a premise to tie sustainability and human responsibility to human–nature and human–human relations. Example research interplays between the Global North and the Global South as two subsystems of human settlement. We utilize Africa as an example of the Global South subsystem and the global economy as an indicator for differentiation. In addition, the objectives, i.e., a recap, of the book and synopsis of the individual chapters are presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schultz PW (2002) Inclusion with nature: the psychology of human-nature relations. Psychology of sustainable development. Springer, US, Boston, pp 61–78
UN (2019) World urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York
Redman CL (1999) Human impact on ancient environments. University of Arizona Press, Tucson
Ellis EC (2011) Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 369:1010–1035. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0331
Ruddiman WF (2013) The anthropocene. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 41:45–68. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-123944
Barnosky AD (2014) Palaeontological evidence for defining the anthropocene. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 395:149–165. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP395.6
IPCC (2013) AR5 climate change 2013: the physical science basis—IPCC. Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva
Soulé ME (1985) What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35:727–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054
Doak DF, Bakker VJ, Goldstein BE, Hale B (2014) What is the future of conservation? Trends Ecol Evol 29:77–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2013.10.013
Vucetich JA, Bruskotter JT, Nelson MP (2015) Evaluating whether nature’s intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation. Conserv Biol 29:321–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12464
Cafaro P, Primack R (2014) Species extinction is a great moral wrong. Biol Conserv 170:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.022
Kareiva P, Marvier M (2012) What is conservation science? Bioscience 62:962–969. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5
Ponting C (2007) A new green history of the world: the environment and the collapse of great civilizations. Penguin Books, London
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD et al (2015) Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci Adv 1:e1400253. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253
Perman R (2011) Natural resource and environmental economics, 4th edn. Pearson Addison Wesley, Gosport
Kleijn D, Winfree R, Bartomeus I et al (2015) Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation. Nat Commun 6:7414. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8414
Plumer B (2016) What bees can teach us about the real value of protecting nature—Vox. In: Vox. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900605/bees-pollination-ecosystem-services. Accessed 22 Jul 2019
Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1525002113
Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2014.11.002
Piccolo JJ (2017) Intrinsic values in nature: objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? J Nat Conserv 37:8–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JNC.2017.02.007
Spash CL (2015) Bulldozing biodiversity: the economics of offsets and trading-in nature. Biol Conserv 192:541–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2015.07.037
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (80–) 347:1259855–1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Callicott JB (2014) Thinking like a planet: the land ethic and the earth ethic. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Shoreman-Ouimet E, Kopnina H (2016) Culture and conservation: beyond anthropocentrism. Routledge, New York
Lovelock J (1979) Gaia: a new look at life on Earth. Oxford University Press, Oxford
National Geographic (2008) These astronauts saw earth from space: here’s how it changed them. In: National Geographic Magazine. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/03/astronauts-space-earth-perspective/. Accessed 22 Jul 2019
Darwin CR (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle of life, 1st edn. John Murray, London
Costa JT (2014) Wallace, Darwin, and the origin of species. President and Fellows of Harvard University, Cambridge
Flew A (2018) Darwinian evolution, 2nd edn. Routledge, London
Sclater A (2006) The extent of Charles Darwin’s knowledge of Mendel. J Biosci 31:191–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02703910
Lopreato J, Crippen TA (1999) Crisis in sociology: the need for Darwin. Routledge, New York
Padian K (2018) Origins of Darwin’s evolution: solving the species puzzle through time and place. Syst Biol 67:741–742. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy016
Cazzolla Gatti R (2018) Is Gaia alive? The future of a symbiotic planet. Futures 104:91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURES.2018.07.010
Dutreuil S (2018) James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis: “A New Look at Life on Earth”… for the life and the earth sciences. In: Dreamers, visionaries, and revolutionaries in the life sciences. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 272–287
Christensen K, Di Collobiano SA, Hall M, Jensen HJ (2002) Tangled nature: a model of evolutionary ecology. J Theor Biol 216:73–84. https://doi.org/10.1006/JTBI.2002.2530
Laird S, Jensen HJ (2006) The tangled nature model with inheritance and constraint: evolutionary ecology restricted by a conserved resource. Ecol Complex 3:253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2006.06.001
Arthur R, Sibani P (2017) Decision making on fitness landscapes. Phys A Stat Mech its Appl 471:696–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PHYSA.2016.12.068
Lovelock JE, Margulis L (1974) Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis. Tellus 26:2–10. https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v26i1-2.9731
Arthur R, Nicholson A (2017) An entropic model of Gaia. J Theor Biol 430:177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTBI.2017.07.005
Ford Doolittle W (2014) Natural selection through survival alone, and the possibility of Gaia. Biol Philos 29:415–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9384-0
Mustonen V, Lässig M (2009) From fitness landscapes to seascapes: non-equilibrium dynamics of selection and adaptation. Trends Genet 25:111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.01.002
Odusola A (2018) Poverty and fertility dynamics in Nigeria: a micro evidence. SSRN Electron J 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3101818
Lenton TM, Latour B (2018) Gaia 2.0. Science (80–) 361:1066–1068. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau0427
Hughes S (2004) Complexity theory: understanding conflict in a postmodern world. Marquette Law Rev 87
Jones W, Hughes SH (2003) Complexity, conflict resolution, and how the mind works. Confl Resolut Q 20:485–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.42
Baker M (2006) Translation and conflict: a narrative account. Routledge, New York
Demmers J (2016) Theories of violent conflict: an introduction. Routledge, London
Jackson R (2002) Violent internal conflict and the african state: towards a framework of analysis. J Contemp Afr Stud 20:29–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589000120104044
Keaney M (2017) Questionable interventions: the enduring myth of Laissez-Faire. Polit Stud Rev 15:404–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929916646391
Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Methuen, London
Tarchalski K (2016) Ewolucja instytucji kapitalizmu Zachodu. kapitalizm. Fakty i iluzje. Wydawnictwo Nieoczywiste, Rzeszów, pp 67–98
World Bank (2019) World Bank open data. In: World Bank. https://data.worldbank.org/. Accessed 27 Jul 2019
UNDP (2017) Human development index: United Nations Development Programme. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/. Accessed 17 Jul 2019
Paczoski A (2014) Różnice kulturowe wobec wzrostu gospodarczego: Ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem przykładów państw UE (Translated from Polish: “Cultural differences and economic growth: with emphasized examples from the EU”). Polityka Gospod 22:91–118
Mohl P (2016) Empirical evidence on the macroeconomic effects of EU cohesion policy. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden
Molle W (2007) European cohesion policy. Routledge, London
Barca F (2008) An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy a place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Economics and Econometrics Research Institute, Brussels
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cirella, G.T., Mwangi, S.W., Paczoski, A., Abebe, S.T. (2020). Human-Nature Relations: The Unwanted Filibuster. In: Cirella, G. (eds) Sustainable Human–Nature Relations. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3049-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3049-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-3048-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-3049-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)