I am trying to discern different strands of arguments in this very thought-provoking conservation biology approach and the question of reciprocity thread that forced me to take time off reading/writing/teaching/mothering.
Perhaps it is useful to split these strands into separate threads and continue the conversation in such a way that our colleagues will be able to easily put emails within threads that are less relevant to them into the ‘later-sometime’ folder.
This is a MEGA-LONG email in which I pack everything I wanted to say in the last few days (thus it can directly go the ‘later-sometime’ folder, if none of the themes mentioned in this conservation thread recently are of interest to you).
The way I classified these threads (first the subject, then my own comment):
1. Humans and non-humans: separate or interconnected?
(I personally don’t find this discussion very exciting as most anthropologists agree that yes, humans are part of the environment, interconnected, interdependent, that the dichotomy is false, etc. Influenced by Heideggerian phenomenology, Tim Ingold and scores of other anthropologists have conceptualized a less dualistic and less alienated relationship to the environment)
2. Environmental ethics and animals
(Huge field, contributors to the list like Preston, Pierce, Joe, Erik and Gene have given great examples of questions ranging from the units of values – ecosystem vs individual species, such as cockroaches or chimps; or between domestic vs. wild; to conceptual differences between species- based, individual-based, etc. approaches. When it comes to environmental ethics, I can keep writing to the end of time. What matters to me personally are some distinct approaches within these fields, such as deep ecology and animal rights perspectives which – at least in my view – are largely united in their love of nature – yes, including humans)
3. Rights and Justice
(Distinction between human rights, indigenous rights, and environmental justice on the one hand and animal rights and ecological justice – or biospheric egalitarianism – on the other hand. In my view the first ones – social rights largely overweigh non-human, especially when one thinks of CAFO – industrial production of animals for consumption, and extinctions of wild species. This duality keeps me awake at night)
4. Conservation: how to do it?
[Warning: here comes a long rave!] (Stemming from 1, 2 and 3 above – assuming that humans are part of nature, arguing about what part of environmental ethics can be or should be considered, and what type of rights and justice should be respected – what does it mean for biology conservation? Personally, I think that non-human interests have to be considered on the par with human ones, simultaneously as Veronica said – and not as secondary. This, I am ethically opposed to ‘let us not get boggled by ecological data’ and ‘people first’ earlier proclamations of Konrad Cottack in his widely quoted article in American Anthropologist in 1999.
It is one thing to involve local communities in conservation – also logical, considering that they live within or next to nature areas – because it helps to protect non-humans against being poached, habitats cleared, etc. Naturally, if people are involved or get paid for things like eco-tourism they are less inclined to kill the goose that lays golden eggs. It is another thing to say that people’s interests – and often we talk about economic interests! – should always go first, even in the case of critically endangered species. As Preston said, ‘Even if a traditional practice is a miniscule part of the overall problem, impacts are local and small local impacts may be the ones finally pushing species over the brink of extinction, and the cultural argument doesn’t support continuing it’. Obviously, my support of this perspective is based on certain positioning I take in regard to points 1, 2, and 3 above)
5. Humanity and population
[Warning: here comes another long rave!]
(A latent but potentially fascinating discussion. Obviously, not all humans are the same, there is a huge difference between African rhino poachers – than again, with the distinction between those that are driven to poaching by having starving children at home and those that do it quite ‘voluntarily’ as part of criminal gangs; Chinese consumers – many are hugely environmentally aware and active, others drive demand for rhino horns that causes poaching in the first place; or Dutch environmentalists some of whom are just concerned about the noise pollution in Amsterdam, others freezing their ‘necks’ off on Sea Shepherd ships, etc. what worries me personally is the aggregate humanity of 7 billion. The argument that most of the growing population is poor and thus leaves a small carbon footprint is not really valid because of course we want ALL people to enjoy the same lifestyle as we, privileged Listserers have. Also, there is this thorny question that Albert Bartlett wrote about, going beyond the good old neo-Malthusianism plus realization of something more ‘modern’ .It is questioned whether the objective of balancing social, economic and environmental triad is achievable, since the expansion of the ‘economic pie’ to the ‘bottom billion’ of the poor (and growing) population would include even more natural resources being consumed…. Feeding the growing population is doable– with technological adjustments, as we actually empirically see – so yes, Malthus didn’t see it! - starvation in some countries is not per se the result of lack of resources but of distribution, political mechanisms, etc. However, it will necessarily come at the cost of what I have discussed in the points above, CAFO’s, wild places, what Crist would call enslavement of domestic species and extermination of the ones not economically useful to humanity – again, we are taking about humanity in aggregate. So, here comes a potentially politically incorrect but perhaps very important discussion thread I would like to see on this Listserv).
6. Sustainability
(Infinite complexity of it all. The butterfly effects. Again, to quote Preston, ‘The dirty air on the Washington coast has a contribution from domestic demand for Chinese goods’. Too many things to name. I am presently working on two books for Routledge with my absolutely wonderful, invaluably helpful and infinitely supportive colleague and friend Elle, and another one with John (http://routledge-ny.com/books/search/author/helen_kopnina/), due at the end of this year. Even now that the books are almost completed, there always remains so much to say…..)
7. Innate sense of ‘fairness?’
(Gene: ‘The "morality is only cultural" point of view is biologically wrong; it is now quite well known that humans have innate notions of justice and fairness and of harm, however much culture can mess with this.’
Joe: ‘It is not clear to me how such nuances and differing perspectives can easily be resolved by appeal to some innate sense of "fairness."
Fascinating discussion. Philosophers, ethicists, and last but not least conservation psychologists said a lot on the subject but the issue is far from resolved. It would help ‘sustainability’ – however one defines it – if one had an indication whether things like ‘respect for people of other color’, or ‘love of cats’ testifies to some innate socio-biological tendencies, or that it’s all culture – thus relative, and can be learned – this has big implications for why we, for example, now care so much about poor children in Bangladesh, and whether we would care to do so in the next century. Can we speak of natural, cultural, or combined evolution of our ethics – good old question people like Kant used to deal with….).
I’m probably forgetting some more themes. But having types this, I can sleep better at night, now that this ‘summary’ is out :)
Kind regards,
The Hague University of Applied Science
Johanna Westerdijkplein 75, 2521 EN Den Haag
The Netherlands
Johanna Westerdijkplein 75, 2521 EN Den Haag
The Netherlands
linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina
http://thehagueuniversity.academia.edu/HelenKopnina/Papers
http://thehagueuniversity.academia.edu/HelenKopnina/Papers
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: conservation biology approach and the question of reciprocity
I should be getting ready to negotiate. Sigh. But this is a good conversation.
I’m hoping nothing in my posts was taken to argue people over environment. I made a comment on the IPBES Conceptual Framework which is good, but we believed it left out the role of people in healing and co-creating the environment. Collectively, human activities certainly cause harm to the planet, and extinction should be taken very seriously. Animal rights should also be taken seriously. Traditional practices that cause harm should also be revisited. There is the difference between relative contributions and effective contribution. Even if a traditional practice is a miniscule part of the overall problem, impacts are local and small local impacts may be the ones finally pushing species over the brink of extinction, and the cultural argument doesn’t support continuing it. The Sixth Extinction (mass extinction event) to my mind is real.
Still, one also needs to keep the big picture in mind, to which Helen and Gene allude. Indigenous peoples and local communities are generally way down on the inequality ladder. It’s easy to point at the swidden field or even the bulldozer pushing over a tree and announce one has found the problem. It’s harder to describe, comprehend, address and resolve systemic wicked problems that have often been at the root causes of species loss. “Humans”, like “communities” is an extremely large conceptual bucket. It’s often hard to see how many unclean hands can contribute to extinction as much as the axman. The dirty air on the Washington coast has a contribution from domestic demand for Chinese goods. The keyboard on which I type almost certainly involved some quantum of human rights abuses (are there green certified computer parts?) and involved habitat loss and contamination that is contributing to wild animal abuse and extinction. I keep my house at about 62°F in the winter, and may still think of myself as virtuous, but I still emit a significant amount of carbon, and the world suffers through the tyranny of small decisions.
I try to be mindful, but lately have wondered how many millions of the poor my lifestyle and economy exceeds. Voters rejected GMO labels in this state (Washington) and adopted pot. Go figure. I can’t get labels to know the quantum of human rights abuses, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, water pollution, land and resource grabbing, etc. that the products and services I use are causing. The problems are caused by a nebulous “humanity”, but specific practices individuals are individually or collectively taking. I understand how to chain myself to a dozer, but I don’t entirely know how to effectively counter all of the mass of individual actions that are threatening the poor, endangered species, the planet – name your threatened entity.
The Makah stopped whaling in the 1920s, and ceased practicing their treaty-reserved rights to save gray whales endangered by commercial whaling. Once the gray whales had recovered, they have attempted to bring back their tradition and exercise their rights. They completed a successful hunt on May 17,1999. They have been blocked since, primarily by animal rights activists. Within the Makah tribe, there has been some disagreement over whether things have changed enough to stop the practice entirely. In British Columbia a few years back (memory is not working here), a whale appeared that was embodied the spirit of a recently deceased tribal member, and the tribe and their supporters worked canoes to protect in against capture. So it goes.
In the United States, the Secretarial Order of June 5, 1997 on American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, takes an interesting approach. It sets up a kind of mitigation hierarchy for Federal actions to protect endangered species. The order promotes first looking at non-tribal actions first to resolve the problems, acknowledging tribal cultural rights. If a tribal conservation action is necessary, then the least burdensome actions are taken. The tribes are allowed to develop their own plans to address any actions on endangered species. If that isn’t sufficient, plans involving the federal agencies are developed with their participation. That’s idealized, but a rough idea (I’ll Google later to see if this is right).
It’s problematic to demonize conservation biology. Some of my best friends . . .. Conservation and Society (the journal) has a lot of good articles, and Conservation Biology publishes many too. There's a diversity of "conservation biology approaches" There are I took the phrase as shorthand for “an approach that largely emphasizes the biological aspects of conservation problems without sufficient attention to the social.” But that phrase makes for a very long table caption.
Now for radio silence for at least a week.
Regards,
Some more refs, in addition to the great ones already given:
Burdon, Peter (2011)(ed.). Exploring Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence. Wakefield Press, Kent Town, South Australia, Australia.
http://therightsofnature.org/ (available for Kindle, or visit Oz)
Hurn, Samantha (2012). Humans and Other Animals: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions. Anthropology, Culture and Society. Pluto Press, New York, New York, USA.
Kohn, Eduardo (2013). How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. (Runa of Ecuador.)
MacKinnon, J.B. (2013). The Once and Future World: Nature as It Was, as It Is, as It Could Be. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, New York, USA.
Sodikoff, Genese Marie (2012)(ed.). The Anthropology of Extinction: Essays on Culture and Species Death. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Tidemann, Sonia; Gosler, Andrew (2012)(eds.). Ethno-ornithology: Birds, Indigenous Peoples, Culture and Society. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Wagman, Bruce A.; Liebman, Matthew (2011). A Worldview of Animal Law. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Webb, Steve (2013). Corridors to Extinction and the Australian Megafauna. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. (against the 'blitzkrieg' hypothesis: role of climate change, megafaunal life history and biogeography)
