Topic 1: In what ways does the text's anthropocentric perspective limit sustainability science (if at all)? How would alternate ethical frameworks shift the conversation?

Christine makes a good point and that is something that I hope we get to address more as the semester moves along. I believe this is linked with the idea of soft vs. strong sustainability. The latter term is briefly touched upon in footnote g), which it seems will not be included in chapter I.

If we are providing an anthropocentric ethical framework, then only soft sustainability (leave the future generation the capacity to be as well off as we the current generation) is valid. I believe this is an extremely anthropocentric viewpoint and it is up for debate if it is the only valid way.

Strong sustainability, on the other hand, might be too rigid. It is hard to imagine to leave the world just as we found it. This is, however a concept that is difficult to achieve for all species. Therefore, a middle road is needed, where we go beyond our anthropocentric view and somehow be able to expand our framework beyond human welfare. 

One question remains: How far can we extend this idea until there is a backlash of society's (and society's future members) most needed members continue being affected?

 

Previously Christine O'Connell wrote:

The text frames its look at sustainability as inherently anthropocentric.  Alternate ethical frameworks, however, grant rights to other species or even to ecosystems and biomes.  In prioritizing one ethical framework - human welfare - to what extent has sustainability science limited its scope?  Further, are there ways in which sustainability science can incorporate a look at ecocentric ethical systems without losing its relevance to sustainable development and human rights?

Wilson's chapter in Concilience (posted in the student group session 2 folder) provides one jumping off point to consider.

 

 

When we get to Part II of the course, especially the chapter on human well being and sustainable development, these issues will be to the fore.  The case we argue there is that a proper conceptualization of human well-being does take account of the direct benefits we (know we) get from nature, the indirect benefits we (know we) get from environmental services, and even potentially the uncertainties regarding the benefits of nature we get but don't (yet) appreciate. (That is, the framework we present will be consistent with preserving nature for no other reason that the chance that it might generate human benefits that we don't yet appreciate.  This is consistent with EO Wilson's comment that allowing biodiversity degradation is like allowing the burning of books in the old Alexandria Library without even bothering to read them first.)

What we rule out in our book chapter is valuing nature for its own sake, with no reference to humans.  That's equivalent to saying that if optimizing for human well being (properly defined) leads to different actions than optimizing for human well being plus the well being of sea slugs (or trees or polar bears), we will opt for the actions that optimize human well being.  Which is not to say that we would not recognize the merits (for humans) of preserving wilderness because it recharges our souls, or water because we deem it to be sacred...

 

Previously Katie Lundquist wrote:

Does protecting and promoting human welfare necessitate that we protect ecology as well?  And if we do, are we only protecting ecology in order to protect ourselves?  Even "Concilience" argues that there are benefits to humans from ensuring biodiversity as we strive to improve quality of life for all 6+ billion people on earth.  Sustainable development focused only on feeding people at the expense of diverse habitats may lead to a world that cannot actually sustain humanity despite our best efforts!

 

 

Previously Christine O'Connell wrote:

The text frames its look at sustainability as inherently anthropocentric.  Alternate ethical frameworks, however, grant rights to other species or even to ecosystems and biomes.  In prioritizing one ethical framework - human welfare - to what extent has sustainability science limited its scope?  Further, are there ways in which sustainability science can incorporate a look at ecocentric ethical systems without losing its relevance to sustainable development and human rights?

Wilson's chapter in Concilience (posted in the student group session 2 folder) provides one jumping off point to consider.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Tara's comments on pragmatism and inseparability in the discussion of whether sustainability science should be seen from an anthropocentric and/or egocentric perspective. I'd like to expand upon her comments with a few thoughts of my own.

 

Regarding inseparability, it bothers me that the discussion is framed as an either/or construction: "anthropocentrism vs

ecocentrism" as if the two are mutually exclusive or in conflict with each other. I see it that they encompass one another. Isn't this the whole idea of human-ecological systems as one interdependent complex system? By operating from an "anthropocentric" perspective in which our primary goals are to preserve/sustain/improve human well being, we cannot help but preserve/sustain/improve all life on the planet since we as a species are inherently dependent on all other life of the planet.

 

This brings me to pragmatism. If we are going to muster up the social and political will to preserve the natural environment, it must be framed from a goal of doing so in order to preserve or improve our own welfare. I am an (aspiring) environmental economist as well as an ardent environmentalist. Economics approaches all problems from the perspective of human welfare. We even go as far as calculating monetary values on just about all the "services" that nature provides. (Saying that nature is of "service" to humans in this way, or alternatively that the purpose of nature is to "serve" humans shows that even ecological economics has an entirely anthropocentric orientation.) As an environmentalist I don't have a problem with this, however, because based on human values and concerns and the fact that humans are making all the decisions that impact nature, I see that valuing nature in this way is the only way to save (or sustain) it.

 

Previously Tara Grillos wrote:

In general, I found the chapter to be a great overview of the historical development and the current goals of sustainability science as an emerging discipline. However, I agree with several previous commenters that the choice of an anthropocentric view should be further explained in this introductory chapter. Personally, I feel that the problem-driven focus of sustainability science all but necessitates an anthropocentric view, for pragmatic reasons. Achieving sustainability – whether defined by anthropocentric or ecocentric goals – will require changes in human behaviors/institutions. So successful policy-oriented research must take into account human values and incentives. If policy goals are anthropocentric (and I’d wager that they are), then research that takes into account anthropocentric framing is most likely to result in policy solutions.

 

Beyond these practical concerns, I think it’s also true that there is much more overlap between anthropocentric and ecocentric goals than most people acknowledge. Human welfare is often directly dependent on preservation of the natural environment. The text highlights this with its opening quote from the Brundtland Commission, which asserts that environment and development are “inseparable.” It also alludes to several relevant examples throughout its discussion of Contemporary Challenges – losses in China’s GDP growth due to environmental degradation, the ever-increasing estimates of material damages due to climate change, etc. However, I would have liked the introductory text to address these linkages more completely and directly.

 

It would, of course, be overly idealistic to ignore the conflicts between the anthropocentric and ecocentric views, but it would also be counterproductive to underemphasize the many areas in which they do converge. Furthermore, I believe that as both our knowledge of the natural environment and our conception of what constitutes “human welfare” expand, we will identify even more of these areas of convergence. These are the very areas with the most promising prospects for policy resolution. As such I’d expect to see a bit more explicit emphasis on them not only in sketching the conceptual foundations of sustainability science but also in outlining areas for future research.

 

Relating this to Figure 1.4, I suggest that sustainability science is concerned not only with exploring the overlaps between the pre-existing columns and rows in the matrix, but perhaps also with expanding the matrix itself by identifying the as yet unidentified factors that fall into the “other” category. For example, “human needs” may be seen as extending beyond basic survival to include social and psychological well-being. How such needs are influenced by and dependent on the natural environment in which human interaction takes place is, to me, an important area of inquiry for problem- (and presumably, solution-oriented) sustainability scientists. In some cases, perceived conflicts between the anthropocentric and ecocentric views may arise due to inadequacies in how we define and measure human welfare, and correcting these inadequacies to resolve unnecessary conflict should be seen as one important goal of sustainability science.

 

 

Elizabeth, 

thank you so much for this comment. I had not looked at this issue from this perspective. Though I do not know any overarching links between overall sustainability and animal health, there are many examples of increasing interface between humans and wild communities increasing the rate of zoonotic disease (e.g. marburg virus, ebola). Though these are anecdotal, there are no doubt others, and they often go hand in hand with environmental degradation (e.g. forest clearcuts). These are then possibly an indicator of ecosystem health directly effecting (though on a relatively small scale) human health?

 

Previously Elizabeth Walker wrote:

I wonder if one way to link ecosystem preservation with human preservation is through thinking about the human-animal-environmental-health linkages.  How is disease spread within and across species?  How does human action impact human health, and the health of our ecosystems and animals?  These feedback loops, it seems to me, make ecocentric ethical systems synonymous with anthropocentric ethical systems specifically in terms of the conditions they imply are necessary for sustainability.   

Does anyone know much about how we link human survival (sustainability) with animal and environmental health?   Though I know little about the area, I am  interested in learning more.

 

Previously Christine O'Connell wrote:

The text frames its look at sustainability as inherently anthropocentric.  Alternate ethical frameworks, however, grant rights to other species or even to ecosystems and biomes.  In prioritizing one ethical framework - human welfare - to what extent has sustainability science limited its scope?  Further, are there ways in which sustainability science can incorporate a look at ecocentric ethical systems without losing its relevance to sustainable development and human rights?

Wilson's chapter in Concilience (posted in the student group session 2 folder) provides one jumping off point to consider.