Beyond value: biodiversity and the freedom of the mind

Abstract

Circumstances have conspired to render the conservation movement curiously diffident in the expression of the fundamental beliefs that underpin it. ‘Oppositional’ activists assume their case as proven, while ‘institutional’ tacticians tend to adopt the point of view of those they oppose, deploying utilitarian/economic arguments. The latter arguments represent an unstable long‐term option because they are an inadequate defence against compelling forces of corrosion and corruption. On present evidence, in a few hundred years the planet will be devoid of major natural areas, and the quality of human life will have been utterly compromised. A more honest admission that the natural world is an inalienable component of the human capacity to experience freedom (which is also a mental circumstance) would transform the way we treat the natural environment and hence the prospects for the long‐term survival of biological diversity.

Bulldozing biodiversity: The economics of offsets and trading-in Nature

“…Despite a variety of conservationists' warnings (e.g., Büscher, 2008;Child, 2009;Collar, 2003;Ehrenfeld, 1988Ehrenfeld, , 2008Jepson and Canney, 2003;McCauley, 2006;Redford and Adams, 2009), the move to market logic has proceeded as if there were no alternatives. I refer to this as part of a new environmental pragmatism (Spash, 2009) that is clearly identifiable in fields such as ecological economics (Spash, 2013;Spash and Ryan, 2012).…”

Value Plurality among Conservation Professionals

“…Thus, although some may privately base the positions they hold on intrinsic values, they may espouse use‐value arguments in public, adapting arguments to the interests of their audience. Some call for conservation scientists to return to a conservation ethic derived from intrinsic values (Collar 2003; Ehrenfeld 2008; Child 2009). Child (2009) argues the need for a single “overarching ideal” to unify conservation.…”

Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation

“…Aside from the importance of nature's intrinsic value in organizational and legal documents, some scholars argue that it is an important justification for conservation (e.g., Collar ; McCauley ; Ehrenfeld ; Child ). Others dissent, arguing that the strongest justification for conserving nature is that doing so is vital to human welfare (e.g., Costanza et al ; Daily ; Shrader‐Frechette ; Balmford et al ; Kareiva & Marvier ; Maguire & Justus ; Tallis et al ; Fisher et al ; Justus et al ).…”