Defending Biodiversity : Environmental Science and Ethics / Jonathan A

Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-76886-3 — Defending Biodiversity Jonathan A. Newman , Gary Varner , Stefan Linquist Frontmatter More Information

Defending Biodiversity

Imagine that you are an environmentalist who passionately believes that it is wrong to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. How do you convince someone that a decision to drill is wrong? Debates about the environment and how humans ought to treat it have gone on for decades, yet arguments in favor of preserving biodiversity often lack empirical substance or are philosophically naïve, making them far less effective than they could be. This book critically examines arguments that are commonly offered in support of biodiversity conservation. The authors adopt a skeptical viewpoint to thoroughly test the strength of each argument and, by demonstrating how scientiﬁc evidence can be integrated with philosophical reasoning, they help environmentalists to better engage with public debate and judiciously inform public policy. This interdisciplinary and accessible book is essential reading for anyone who engages in discussions about the value of biodiversity conservation.

jonathan a. newman is Professor of Ecology, and Dean of the College of Biological Science at the University of Guelph, Canada.

gary varner is Professor and former Head of Philosophy at Texas A&M University, USA.

stefan linquist is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Integrative Biology, both at the University of Guelph, Canada.

© in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-76886-3 — Defending Biodiversity Jonathan A. Newman , Gary Varner , Stefan Linquist Frontmatter More Information

Defending Biodiversity Environmental Science and Ethics

jonathan a. newman University of Guelph gary varner Texas A&M University stefan linquist University of Guelph

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 4843/24, 2nd Floor, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi – 110002, India 79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521768863 DOI: 10.1017/9781139024105 © Jonathan Newman, Gary Varner, Stefan Linquist 2017 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2017 Printed in the United States of America by Sheridan Books, Inc. A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Newman, Jonathan A., author. | Varner, Gary E. (Gary Edward), author. | Linquist, Stefan Paul, author. Title: Defending biodiversity : environmental science and ethics / Jonathan A. Newman, University of Guelph, Gary Varner, Texas A & M University, Stefan Linquist, University of Guelph. Description: Cambridge, United Kingdom : New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identiﬁers: LCCN 2017023820 | ISBN 9780521768863 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Biodiversity – Moral and ethical aspects. Classiﬁcation: LCC QH541.15.B56 N49 2017 | DDC 333.95–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017023820 ISBN 978-0-521-76886-3 Hardback ISBN 978-0-521-14620-3 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

Preface page ix Acknowledgments xiv

1 Biodiversity and the Environmentalist Agenda 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 What Do We Mean by ‘Biodiversity’?2 1.3 Why Think the Earth Is Running Out of Biodiversity? 6 1.4 The Environmentalist Agenda 15 1.5 Total Commitment vs. the Ceteris Paribus Environmentalist 22 1.6 Environmental Ethics and Intrinsic Value 22 1.7 The Structure of this Book 39 1.8 Further Reading 42

PART I INSTRUMENTAL VALUE DEFENSES 43

2 Ecosystem Functioning and Stability 47 2.1 The Basic Argument 47 2.2 Preliminaries 50 2.3 Relationships between Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning 51 2.4 Limitations of Experimental Design 60 2.5 A Summary of the Empirical Evidence 67 2.6 Questionable Relevance of the Experimental Evidence 77 2.7 Unpalatable Implied Commitments 86 2.8 Conclusions 91 2.9 Further Reading 92 2.10 Appendix: Economic Value of Ecosystem Functioning 93

vi contents

3 The Precautionary Principle 97 3.1 Introduction 97 3.2 What Is a Precautionary Defense? 98 3.3 Deﬁning the Precautionary Principle 100 3.4 Why vs. How: Uses of the Precautionary Principle 101 3.5 The Precautionary Principle, Risk Assessment, and Cost–Beneﬁt Analysis 107 3.6 Further Problems for the Precautionary Principle 118 3.7 Conclusions 130 3.8 Further Reading 131

4 Agricultural and Pharmaceutical Beneﬁts 132 4.1 Introduction 132 4.2 A Precautionary Warning 133 4.3 Is Biodiversity Necessary for Food? 134 4.4 The Argument from Pharmaceutical Value 141 4.5 Conclusions 170 4.6 Further Reading 171

5 Nature-based Tourism and Transformative Value 173 5.1 Introduction 173 5.2 Demand Value of Biodiversity 175 5.3 The Transformative Value of Biodiversity 187 5.4 Conclusions 190 5.5 Further Reading 192

6 How Far Do Instrumental Value Defenses Get Environmentalists? 193 6.1 Introduction 193 6.2 The Ecosystem Function Defense 194 6.3 The Precautionary Defense 195 6.4 The Food and Medicine Defense 195 6.5 Nature-based Tourism and Transformative Value Defenses 200 6.6 Conclusions about Instrumental Value Defenses 200

contents vii

PART II INTRINSIC VALUE DEFENSES 205

7 Methodology in Philosophical Ethics 209 7.1 Approaches to Justiﬁcation in Philosophical Ethics 209 7.2 The Role of ‘Thought Experiments’ 223 7.3 Some Conceptual and Terminological Issues 227 7.4 Conclusions 232 7.5 Further Reading 232

8 Extensionism in Environmental Ethics 233 8.1 Introduction 233 8.2 The Animal Welfare/Animal Rights Distinction 234 8.3 Singer’s Utilitarian Sentientism 236 8.4 Regan’s Rights-based (Deontological) Sentientism 243 8.5 The Practical Charges against Sentientism 252 8.6 Can Sentientists Respond to the Practical Charges? 257 8.7 Biocentric Individualism and Environmental Ethics 272 8.8 Beyond ‘The Classical Modernist Paradigm’? 273 8.9 Further Reading 273

9 Ecoholism: Do Ecological Wholes Have Intrinsic Value? 274 9.1 Introduction 274 9.2 Some Non-starters and Common Problems 275 9.3 Extensionist Defenses of Ecoholism 283 9.4 Conclusions 299 9.5 Further Reading 300

10 Ecoholism 2: Callicott on the Leopold Land Ethic 301 10.1 Leopold’s Life and Style of Writing 302 10.2 Callicott’s “Triangular Affair” Paper 307 10.3 Callicott’s Later Interpretation of Leopold 314 10.4 Some Objections to Callicott’s Interpretation of Leopold 333

viii contents

10.5 Where Does Reading Leopold get us? 348 10.6 Further Reading 353

11 Should Biodiversity Be Conserved for Its Aesthetic Value? 354 11.1 Introduction 354 11.2 Russow, Sober, and the Duty to Conserve Artwork 361 11.3 The Superﬁciality Objection 370 11.4 The Problem of Unappealing Species and Ecosystems 374 11.5 Environmental Aesthetics and the Natural Environmental Model 377 11.6 Outstanding Challenges for an Aesthetic Defense of Conservation 383 11.7 Further Reading 386

12 How Far Do Intrinsic Value Defenses Get Environmentalists? 387 12.1 Introduction 387 12.2 Anthropocentrism 387 12.3 Sentientism 393 12.4 Ecoholism and Biocentric Individualism 394 12.5 Aesthetic Intrinsic Value 395 12.6 Conclusions 396

13 Conclusions and Personal Reﬂections 397 13.1 Jonathan Newman 397 13.2 Gary Varner 403 13.3 Stefan Linquist 408 13.4 Don’t Agree to Disagree 416 13.5 Why Ought We Conserve Biodiversity? 417

References 418 Index 436

Preface

This book has three coauthors. Jonathan Newman is an ecologist, former Director of the School of Environmental Sciences, current Dean of the College of Biological Science, and adjunct professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph. Gary Varner is an environmental philosopher and animal ethicist, and former head of the Department of Philosophy at Texas A&M University. And Stefan Linquist is a philosopher of biology at the University of Guelph. We want to begin by saying very clearly that:

All three of us consider ourselves to be environmentalists, and we all think that biodiversity ought to be conserved.

We emphasize this up-front, because some may view this book as an attack on environmentalists and on the view that biodiversity ought to be conserved. It is not. Throughout this book we critically analyze various popular arguments commonly offered in support of biodiversity conservation. We adopt a critical or ‘skeptical’ stance toward these arguments not because it is our aim to defeat them, but rather because we hope to test their strength. As the reader will soon dis- cover, some arguments fare better than others, and none of them offer full-blown support for the extensive conservation programs that some environmentalists endorse. As we shall explore, some arguments for biodiversity conservation lack adequate empirical support in ways that challenge conventional assumptions, and sometimes they com- mit one to positions that have unpalatable consequences. Nevertheless, we did not write this book to dismiss environmentalists’ concern for biodiversity. Rather, our hope is that reading this book will help environmentalists improve the arguments they make for conserving biodiversity. This is important because

x preface

promoting conservation often involves convincing others that biodiversity should be protected at the expense of some human activity such as development, and it almost always involves arguments with people who do not immediately share our views. If environmentalists are to be persuasive, then we will have to bring good arguments to these debates. And, as any seasoned debater will know, it’s always important to know the limitations and weaknesses of one’s arguments. Appreciating the limitations of our current arguments can help us engage more effectively in such discussions in the future. The questions we raise about various arguments have no easy answers, and, indeed, it is this fact that makes the study of them, by environmentalists, all the more important. All three of us, in our teaching, in discussions with friends, family, and colleagues, and in our research, engage repeatedly in arguments about the environment and about how humans ought to treat it. These experiences motivated us to write this book. Arguments about the environment and about how humans ought to behave toward the environment have been ongoing in the academic discipline of environmental ethics for decades. All of the opening gambits in these arguments are well-known, and have equally well-known responses. In our experience, many environmentalists seem unaware of these ‘moves and counter moves.’ Asaresult,wewastealotoftimeand energy exploring old ground, to the detriment of advancing the quality of our discussions. We hope that by exploring these opening moves and countermoves, the reader will be better able to see where the most fertile ground is located, and how they can best engage with the subject matter. In writing this book, we struggled with ﬁnding the right voice for our presentation. There are places in the text where we are writing about arguments that others have advanced, some of which we agree with and others of which we do not. Indeed, we do not always agree among ourselves on every position, and we explore some of our differences in the ﬁnal chapter. Nevertheless, there are (many) conclusions on which we all agree, and in those cases we will make statements along the lines of “We think that ...”

preface xi

This approach proved particularly tricky when we had to present positions that we think many environmentalists hold, even though the three of us do not necessarily hold those positions. As we said, we consider ourselves to be environmentalists, even though we don’t all subscribe to each and every position that characterizes what we call ‘the environmentalist agenda.’ Environmentalism comprises a very broad set of personal and political positions, and it is common to find disagreement even among environmental groups in their positions on individual issues. We thought that by limiting our discussion to the conservation of biodiversity, we might perhaps narrow the agenda enough that we could find sufficient common ground on which to start our exploration of these ideas. Hence, there are many places in the book where we refer to ‘environmentalists’ or ‘the environmentalist agenda.’ These terms are not meant to be pejorative in any way; indeed, at various places in the book we will use language such as “we environmentalists” to indicate that we do not consider ourselves to be above or in any way outside the group we are labeling ‘environmentalists.’ The book follows a fairly simple structure that aims to mirror conversations (arguments) about biodiversity conservation. We start out, in Chapter 1, by defining our terms (e.g. ‘biodiversity,’‘intrinsic value,’ etc.) and laying out something that we think approximates the environmentalist agenda. With the stage set in Chapter 1, we are ready to engage with the common arguments for why we should conserve biodiversity. We divide these arguments into two kinds, which we label:

1. Instrumental value defenses: That we ought to conserve biodiversity because it is valuable to humans. In economics this value is called ‘instrumental value,’ and we will refer to these defenses collectively as ‘instrumental value defenses.’ Philosophically, this type of argument is a commitment to an anthropocentric ethical position. What matters morally are human beings and their interests. Everything else, including biodiversity, has instrumental value. It is a means to an end, and that end is human welfare.

xii preface

2. Intrinsic value defenses: That we ought to conserve biodiversity for non- instrumental value reasons. Philosophically, this type of argument involves a commitment to one of several non-anthropocentric ethical positions. Things additional to (or perhaps other than) human beings and their interests matter morally, and biodiversity is one of these things. Regardless of how useful biodiversity is (or is not) to humans, we ought to conserve it because it is the morally correct thing to do. This tactic amounts to a claim that biodiversity has what philosophers refer to as ‘intrinsic value,’ and we will refer to these arguments collectively as ‘intrinsic value defenses.’

Part I of the book comprises ﬁve chapters and considers the instrumental value arguments. Chapter 2 is a fairly lengthy chapter (because the topic is rich and complex) that examines the argument that we should conserve biodiversity because of the ecosystem services that we derive from it. Chapter 3 is similarly lengthy, and explores ‘precautionary defenses.’ These defenses take the form of defending conservation over development for reasons of biodiversity’s uncertain usefulness in an uncertain future. Chapter 4 explores the arguments that we ought to conserve biodiversity because it is the source of our food, fuel, ﬁber, and medicine. Chapter 5 looks at arguments based on the value of nature-based tourism and the power of biodiversity to transform how we value nature in general, and biodiversity in particular. We round up Part I with a brief consideration of how far the instrumental value arguments get environmentalists in their defense of biodiversity conservation. In Part I the strength of the arguments rests primarily on the empirical evidence – what the data indicate – although problems with the precautionary defenses are also philosophical in nature. We think that readers may conclude from Part I that instrumental value defenses cover a lot of biodiversity conservation but they don’t cover all of it, and that these defenses also imply some fairly unpalatable, but logically additional commitments. Faced with the perhaps unsatisfying conclusion that there are parts of biodiversity that are not useful to us, or perhaps not more useful to us than are the alternatives, environmentalists like to claim that biodiversity doesn’thavetobe

preface xiii

useful because it has ‘intrinsic value,’ or that people have some moral/ ethical responsibility to conserve it anyway. Some environmentalists will go straight to this point without ever entertaining instrumental value arguments. For these environmentalists, the conservation of biodiversity has nothing to do with whether or not it is useful. These environmentalists feel that estimating the economic value of biodiversity is not only wrong, it is wrong-headed! This will be evident to some as we consider the ‘implied commitments’ that accompany each of the instrumental defenses. In Part II of the book, we consider in detail the claims of environmentalists for the non-anthropocentric value of biodiversity. In Chapter 7 we provide a brief introduction to the methods that philosophers use to defend moral theories, principles, rules, and moral judgments in general. This chapter will be important as we come to grips with how to assess a claim that biodiversity has intrinsic value. In Chapter 8 we will examine arguments based on claims that (1) sentient non-human animals are worthy of our moral concern, and (2) that all living organisms have intrinsic value and are therefore worthy of our moral concern, independently of their instrumental value to humans. In Chapters 9 and 10, we tackle the broader claims that ecological wholes, such as species and ecosystems, might have intrinsic value. And finally, in Chapter 11, we consider the claim that the aesthetic nature of biodiversity has intrinsic value. We complete Part II with a summary (Chapter 12), in which we reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the environmentalist’s claim that biodiversity has intrinsic value. We end the book (Chapter 13) with some personal and biographical reflections on our individual value commitments, why we think that humans ought to conserve biodiversity, and the implications of those views for how we live our lives.

Acknowledgments

J.A.N.: I thank Gary Comstock for setting me on this road, Tim Mawson for his help in keeping me on this road, and all of my current and former students and colleagues with whom I have discussed these ideas and issues over the years. I would also like to thank the Canadian Natural Science and Engineering Research Council for their continuing support for my research. G.E.V.: I’m grateful to Jonathan Newman for conceiving of this project, bringing me on board, and then wisely adding his colleague Stefan to the team. Thanks also to my parents, for supporting my chosen career path, despite the mystification it caused in them. And I thank my colleague, Clare Palmer, for commenting on some parts of the manuscript for which I wrote the first drafts. S.P.L.: I am grateful to Jonathan and Gary for involving me in this project. Thanks to Madeleine McGreer for helping me understand certain mathematical models in environmental economics, and to Nola Semczyszyn for lending her expertise in aesthetics. I appreciate the many insights from students and community members who participated in the Philosophy Field Course, which met at the University of Guelph and in Tofino, British Columbia. Finally, special thanks to Lucy, Marita, and Katarina for their inspiration and encouragement.

xiv