Abstract
ESEP Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics Contact the journal RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections ESEP 14:27-32 (2014) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00149 AS I SEE IT Reconciling utilitarian and non-utilitarian approaches to biodiversity conservation Michel Loreau* Centre for Biodiversity Theory and Modelling, Station d’Ecologie Expérimentale du CNRS, 09200 Moulis, France *Corresponding author: michel.loreau@ecoex-moulis.cnrs.fr ABSTRACT: Two broad types of approaches have been used in biodiversity conservation: (1) non-utilitarian approaches, which put the emphasis on the aesthetic, emotional, spiritual, and ethical values of nature, and (2) utilitarian approaches, which put the emphasis on species and ecosystems as resources or service suppliers for humans. Here, I argue that the long-standing divide between utilitarian and non-utilitarian perspectives is a reflection of the separation between humankind and nature that lies at the root of the global ecological crisis. Neither perspective challenges this separation fundamentally; therefore; neither alone offers a solid foundation for biodiversity conservation. Resolving the current ecological crisis requires, first and foremost, reconciling humans with their own nature, which in turn requires refocusing both human development and nature conservation on fundamental human needs. Contrary to a widely held idea, fundamental human needs do not involve a purely utilitarian or anthropocentric worldview. Quite the opposite, they provide powerful non-utilitarian arguments for nature conservation, and they are fully compatible with the recognition or attribution of intrinsic values in the human and non-human world. Human nature is neither fundamentally selfish and utilitarian, nor fundamentally altruistic and non-utilitarian; humans simply have a set of fundamental needs that require satisfaction, and these needs include respecting and loving the world around them. KEY WORDS: Biodiversity conservation · Environmental ethics · Ecological economics · Ecosystem services · Intrinsic value · Instrumental value · Human nature · Fundamental human needs Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Loreau M (2014) Reconciling utilitarian and non-utilitarian approaches to biodiversity conservation. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 14:27-32. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00149 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in ESEP Vol. 14, No. 1. Online publication date: October 27, 2014 Print ISSN: 1863-5415; Online ISSN: 1611-8014 Copyright © 2014 Inter-Research.
Highlights
The demographic and economic growth of human societies is increasingly colliding with the ecological limits of planet Earth, generating a global ecological crisis
The current global ecological crisis is the historical product of the divorce between humankind and nature that is deeply rooted in modern Western civilisation
Subject versus object, reason versus emotion, culture versus nature, intrinsic value versus instrumental value: modern Western civilisation has an inordinate fondness for dualism
Summary
The demographic and economic growth of human societies is increasingly colliding with the ecological limits of planet Earth, generating a global ecological crisis. Traditional utilitarian approaches dealt with specific environmental issues such as economic incentives to reduce pollution or the management of fish stocks, the new ecosystem service framework promoted by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) is much more comprehensive and integrative as it encompasses the whole set of effects of ecosystems on human well-being It even includes the intrinsic value of nature under the category of ‘cultural services’. This separation results from the widespread assumption that humans and other animals are fundamentally selfish, such that satisfying one’s needs implies treating others as instruments of this satisfaction (except when social and moral constraints forbid it) This assumption, which permeates classical economics, rests on a flawed interpretation of evolutionary biology that confounds the process of natural selection at the level of the gene and psychological motivation at the level of the organism as a whole. — perhaps counterintuitively — anthropocentrism hinders the full satisfaction of fundamental human needs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
