Duties to Endangered Species
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Encyclopedia ofEnvironmental Biology, vol. 1 (Academic Press, 1995), pp. 517-528 Duties to Endangered Species Holmes Rolston III Colorado State University I. Ethical Duties and Biological Species II. The Threat of Extinction III. Questions of Fact: What Are Species? IV. Questions of Duty: Ought Species Be Saved? V. Species in Ecosystems VI. Natural and Human-Caused Extinctions VII. Respect for Rare Life Whether humans have duties to endangered comprehensive question ofthe conservation of species is a significant theoretical and urgent biodiversity, how humans can achieve a practical question. Few persons doubt that we sustainable relationship to the natural world.. have some obligations concerning endangered species, because persons are helped or hurt by the condition of their environment, which I. ETHICAL DUTIES AND includes a wealth of wild species, currently BIOLOGICAL SPECIES under alarming threat of extinction. The U.S. Congress, deploring the lack of "adequate A rationale for saving species that centers on concern [for] and conservation [of]" species, their worth to humans is anthropocentric, in has sought to protect species through the which species have instrumental values; a Endangered Species Act. Congress has also rationale that includes their intrinsic and entered into a Convention on International ecosystemic values, those values theymayhave Trade in Endangered Species. The United in themselves or in their functions in Nations has negotiated a Biodiversity ecosystems, in addition to or independently of Convention, signed by over 100 nations. persons, is naturalistic. Some say there are no Taking or jeopardizing endangered species (at duties to endangered species, only duties to least the listed ones) is illegal and, many think, persons. The preservation of species, by the immoral. usual utilitarian account, is commended only But these might be all obligations to persons insofar as human beings have or might have who are benefited or harmed by species as interests at stake. This includes duties to future resources. Is there a human duty directly to human beings, duties derived from our species, in addition to obligations that humans stewardship role as keepers of the planet for have to other humans, fellow members oftheir later people. Any duties concerning species own species? This would be part of an will then be a matter of finding out whatever interspecific environmental ethics, and human values are at stake with the loss of involves a challenging mix of science and species and of applying classical duties to conscience. An answer is vital to the more persons to protect these values. [See MASS humans, when out of a sense of duty an value, and ifhumans encounter and jeopardize individual defers to the values of fellow such value, it would seem that humans ought humans. But it is true interspecifically, since, not destroy values in nature, at least not under this rationale, Homo sapiens treats all without overriding justification producing other species as "rivets," resources, study greater value. We might make a humanistic materials, or entertainment. mistake if we arrogantly take value to lie Ethics has always been about partners with exclusively in the satisfaction of our human entwined destinies. But it has never been very preferences. What is at jeopardy and what are convincing when pleaded as enlightened self our duties? interest (that one should always do what is in one's intelligent self-interest), including class II. THE THREAT OF EXTINCTION self-interest, even though in practice altruistic ethics often need to be reinforced by Although projections vary, reliable estimates self-interest. To value all other species only for are that ~20% of Earth's species may be lost human interests is rather like a nation's arguing within a few decades, ifpresent trends go un all its foreign policy in terms of national reversed. These losses will be about evenly dis self-interest. Neither seems fully moral. tributed through major groups of plants and Nevertheless, those who try to articulate a animals in both developed and developing na deeper environmental ethic often get lost in tions, although the most intense concerns are in unfamiliar territory. Natural kinds, if that is tropical forests. At least 500 species, sub what species are, are obscure objects of species, and varieties offauna have been lost in concern. Species, as such, cannot be directly the United States since 1600. The natural rate helped or hurt, although individual tokens of would have been about 10. In Hawaii, of 68 the species type can be. Species, as such, don't species of birds unique to the islands, 41 are care, although individual animals can care. extinct or virtually so. Halfofthe 2200 native Species require habitats, embedded in eco plants are endangered or threatened. Covering systems that evolve and change. Ninety- eight all states, a candidate list of plants contains percent ofthe species that have inhabited Earth over 2000 taxa considered to be endangered, are extinct, replaced by other species. Nature threatened, or of concern, although relatively doesn't care, so why should we? All of the few ofthese have been formally listed. A can familiar moral landmarks are gone. We have didate list of animals contains about 1800 moved beyond caring about humans, orculture, entries. Humans approach, and in places have or moral agents, or individual animals that are even exceeded, the catastrophic rates ofnatural close kin, or can suffer, or can experience any extinction spasms ofthe geological past. thing, or are sentient. Species are not valuers Throughout the Endangered Species Act, with preferences that can be satisfied or frus from the title onward, the mood is one of trated. It seems odd to say that species have danger. The Act laments the irretrievable ex rights, or moral standing, or need our sym tinction of any species, climaxing in a "no pathy, or that we should consider their point of jeopardy" clause. That clause has proved the view. None of these elements has figured toughest part ofthe Act, where nearly all ofthe within the coordinates of prevailing ethical litigation has arisen. This instructs all federal systems. agencies to take whatever action is necessary In fact, ethics and biology have had uncertain "to insure that actions authorized, funded, or relationships. Anoften-heard argument forbids carried out by them do not jeopardize the moving from what is the case (a description of continued existence ofsuch endangered species scientific facts) to what ought to be (a pre or threatened species." Existence is at stake, scription of moral duty); any who do so both ofspecies and ofhabitats that are critical commit, it is alleged, the naturalistic fallacy. for them. On the other hand, if species are of objective It may be thought that, although the terms are maleficent, humans are not in jeopardy; only facts (a scientific issue-about species), one is the plants and animals are. Humans have about values (an ethical issue-involving duties). important, but not life-jeopardizing, benefits to It is difficult enough to argue from an is (that a be gained from saving species. Congress did species exists) to an ought (that a species ought want to protect values at stake to the nation and to exist). Matters grow worse ifthe concept of its people. Yet, in the snail darter case species is troublesome to begin with, and there (Tennessee Valley Authority versus Hill), the are several differing concepts ofspecies within U.S. Supreme Court found in the Act "repeated biology. Perhaps any concept is arbitrary, con expressions ofcongressional concern overwhat ventional-a mapping device that is only theo it saw as the enormous danger presented by the retical. Darwin wrote, "I look at the term eradication of any endangered species." species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of Although Congress has not said that humans convenience to a set of individuals closely re have duties to species (such an ethical sembling each other." Is there enough factual judgment might not be the prerogative of reality in species to base duty there? [See Congress), the Court insisted "that Congress SPECIATION.] intended endangered species to be afforded the No one doubts that individual organisms highest of priorities." All of this suggests exist, but are species discovered? Or made up? considerable peril, and responsibility Indeed, do species exist at all? Systematists proportionate to the peril. regularly revise species designations and Nor is this simply an Act for the utilitarian routinely put after a species the name of the con servation ofimportant economic resources. "author" who, they say, "erected" the taxon. If Congress declared that species have "esthetic, a species is only a category or class, boundary ecological, educational, historical, recreational lines may be arbitrarily drawn, and the species and scientific value" but refused to put on the is nothing more than a convenient grouping of list that value that has since become the one its members, an artifact of the classifier's most often given: economic value. Rather, thoughts and aims. Some natural properties are revealing what Congress thought was at stake, used-reproductive structures, bones, teeth, or economic value is sharply set opposite to these perhaps ancestry, genes, ecological roles. But others. Congress laments "economic growth which properties are selected and where the and development untempered byadequate con lines are drawn are decisions that vary with cern and conservation," and it has consistently systematists. refused to allow the economic benefits or costs Botanists are divided whetherIliamna remota, ofthe preservation ofa species to be one ofthe the Kankakee mallow in Illinois, and Iliamna criteria that determine whether it is listed. corei in Virginia, which are both rare, are Since economic concerns must sometimes be distinct species. Perhaps all that exists con- sidered, Congress III the 1978 objectively in the world are the individual amendments authorized a high-level mallow plants; whether there are two species or interagency committee to evaluate difficult one is a fuss about which label to use.