The Environmental Ethics of Domestication when biotechnology reframes nature by Samantha McLean, BAppSc (Hons) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Geography and Environmental Studies University of Tasmania December 2008 Declaration of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. amantha McLean Statement of Authority of Access This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Abstract Controversies about genetic engineering in agriculture mobilise the concept of nature in ways that reframe nature with significant conceptual implications for the field of environmental ethics. The political economy and regulatory environment of genetic engineering excludes non- technical, non-expert and non-market perspectives in official assessments of biotechnological risk, but broader public conceptions of risk include philosophical concerns about the implications of genetic engineering for nature. Critical attention to the philosophical substance of these concerns is moderated by the conceptual ambiguity of their articulation in terms of unnaturalness and the ubiquity of other rhetorical appeals to nature as a source of precedence, legitimacy and morality. These discourses of naturalness are primarily concerned with whether genetic engineering represents a significant departure from conventional and traditional crop breeding practices or merely their continuation. This tension is seen in contrasting visions of biotechnology as either evolutionary or revolutionary and is resolved by recourse to particular narratives of domesticatory, evolutionary and cultural histories. Strong associations between traditional, conventional and biotechnological domestication cast the previously overlooked moral dimensions of domestication in relief. Protest against genetic engineering on philosophical grounds reinvigorates domesticated nature with positive natural values so that conventional domesticates appear more natural in comparison to genetically engineered plants. Biotechnology debates indicate that the moral dimension of domestication reaches a moral limit in genetic engineering and that both of these are subjects for environmental ethics. The recasting of domesticates as natural effectively extends the nature that environmental ethics theorises and seeks to protect, and presents a challenge to the established perimeters of the field. Environmental ethics is, understandably, biased in favour of wild nature and has traditionally dealt with domesticated nature only incidentally or has omitted it from ethical consideration altogether. This has limited the scope and instructiveness of its contributions to biotechnology debates. The leading conceptual tools of environmental ethics require adaptation and expansion in order to meet the new political imperative to save domesticated nature from biotechnological intervention. An assessment of the value of the nature/artefact distinction for understanding the ontological status of both domesticates and genetically engineered plants is instructive, but ultimately encourages revision of the split between wild and domesticated nature. The development of a more nuanced environmental ethics appreciation of domestication as a human-centred use of nature comes through the recognition of the persistent wild characteristics of domesticated plants and the reframing of the domesticatory relationship in collaborative, coevolutionary terms. Acknowledgements Many people gave me their support and encouragement while I was researching and writing this thesis. Deepest thanks go to my supervisor, Peter Hay, for his unfailing guidance, intellect and understanding. Pete's comments on drafts were always incisive and thoughtfully delivered. I am also grateful to Ariel Salleh for introducing me to academic thinking and writing, and giving me the original motivation to commence postgraduate work. Within the School of Geography and Environmental Studies, I would like to acknowledge the supportive work of the academic and administrative staff, and especially thank Elaine Stratford for her continued encouragement. Thanks must also go to fellow postgraduate Andrew Harwood for regularly providing valuable comment and a fresh perspective on my work. I am most appreciative of the Australian Postgraduate Award and the generosity of my family for making postgraduate work possible. I am particularly indebted to Helen Wilkinson and Deb Reid for their sincere commitment to the principles of a flexible workplace. In regard to the direct assistance I have received with the production of the final draft, I would like thank Sonia Wisby and Liz McLean for kindly checking citations and references. I would also like to thank Avril Firth for her support, patience, and meticulous proofreading. My sister Sallie McLean was always available to help resolve my writing (and personal) dilemmas, and to make room in her study where I could work comfortably. To Sallie and Sara McLean, I express my thanks for believing in me throughout this process. For this, I am also grateful to Tyler Summers. Finally, I would like to thank all my friends and family, and work and university colleagues, for their kindness, care and support over the past few years. Table of Contents Introduction Chapter One Agricultural biotechnology: the environmental, social, and political debates 1 Chapter Two Biotechnology reframes nature:_discourses of naturalness and domestication 40 Chapter Three Environmental ethics on domestication: the place and status of domesticated nature 77 Chapter Four Environmental ethics on biotechnology: domestication revisited 105 Chapter Five Naturalness, artefactuality and the ontology of domestication 135 Chapter Six Wildness: reconciling the wild/domesticated split 176 Chapter Seven Relationship: toward a relational appreciation of domestication 202 Conclusion Domestication, biotechnology and the domus 241 References 247 Appendices Appendix One 307 Introduction Moral concern about the implications of biotechnology for nature has been a key element of public resistance to the use of genetic engineering in crop agriculture. The recombinant- DNA technique is regarded in these objections as an unnatural, unnecessary and unwelcome intervention that is morally problematic irrespective of its environmental consequences. Considered assessment of the philosophical and ethical import of these moral objections has been limited by the inherent power inequities in disputes about biotechnology and the persistent ambiguity of the concept of nature itself. The field of environmental ethics is well placed to decipher the significance of moral concerns about human interferences in nature, but has been restricted in this task by the traditional exclusion of domesticated nature from its theoretical scope. The primary aim of this thesis is to revise the parameters of the field to include domesticated nature, with a secondary aim of providing an environmental ethics appraisal of genetic engineering that accounts for the substance of public concerns. This work is situated within environmental ethics literature but is prepared to gain insights from other fields in moving beyond dualistic approaches to understanding human-nature interactions. It develops a positive account of domesticated nature by identifying existing conceptual resources adaptable to the case of domesticated nature, and progressing these through synthesis with domestication scholarship from further afield. It critically reviews the nature/artefact and wild/domesticated ontologies to provide an understanding of domestication in relational terms. The public debates about agricultural biotechnology provide the starting point for this work. Academic pronouncements of the end of 'nature' by way of the rejection of the nature/culture dichotomy have not been reflected in popular discourse, and the dividing line between society and nature has prevailed in these debates as a highly significant boundary whose perceived transgression is a hotly contended topic. Implicit and explicit claims about the 'naturalness' or otherwise of genetically engineered organisms have ontological implications for the discourses of value in nature that are still taking place within environmental ethics. Genetically engineered organisms present a point of comparison against which domesticated organisms appear natural, while civic concerns about naturalness mobilise environmental values in defending domesticated nature against biotechnological modification. This reframing of domesticated nature as nature proper in the popular imagination represents an empirical extension of what counts as nature that compels an environmental ethics response. INTRODUCTION Environmental ethics has traditionally, and understandably, pursued a focus on wild nature to the relative exclusion of other landscapes. Domesticated nature, together with restored nature and the built environment, are the subaltern objects of environmental ethics. These entities feature in theories of value primarily in terms of the imperative to contain their potential impact on real nature. Genetic engineering, as an intensive technology that is designed to increase production while preventing