Toward a theory of ecosystem well-being

Abstract

Can the main methods of social welfare analysis be extended to cover multiple species? Following a non-anthropocentric approach, we examine the pros and cons of various objective and subjective methods of well-being comparisons across species. We argue against normalizing by specific capacities but in favor of taking account of individual preferences and specializations. While many conceptual and practical difficulties remain, it appears possible to develop methods for the assessment of collective well-being of multi-species communities and ecosystems.

The Dasgupta Review and the Problem of Anthropocentrism

“…Anthropocentrism may be viewed as a corner moral case where only humans have any moral value. Fleurbaey and Leppanen (2021) claim, for instance, that "…anthropocentrism in normative concepts is suspect, unfounded, ominously similar to the old religious and racist doctrines that gave the White Christian Man the right to own the Earth, and apparently too weak as a normative compass to fight pervasive destruction in the age of mass extinction." Some would qualify the Review's position as "speciesist" (Singer, 1975).…”

“…This is reminiscent of the well-known Nozick's reference to "utility monsters"; that is, those individuals who can transform resources into happiness more easily and would, as a result, receive higher priorities. See Fleurbaey and Leppanen (2021) for a discussion and a moral view that is more encompassing. I also adopt an approach that is "consequentialist", "welfarist" and "individualist", as in Norwood and Lusk (2011) and Johansson-Stenman (2018), for instance.…”

“…This idea relates to the narrative that humans may provide good stewardship to Nature in general. Fleurbaey and Leppanen (2021) eloquently refute this narrative: "The dramatic history of colonialism and slavery suggests that when a subpopulation grants itself overall responsibility over a larger population, and considers itself to be the best steward of the whole, it actually directs most resources toward its narrow interests and can be so oblivious of the interests of the 'other' as to put them into a state of inferiority and dependence from which it takes generations to recover. Even genocide has proved to be possible in this context.…”

“…In this section, which borrows from Carlier and Treich (2020) and Fleurbaey and Leppanen (2021), I present some possible non-anthropocentric research directions that may be pertinent in the economics of biodiversity and in economics more generally. Note, however, that this section is largely influenced by my own personal interests and biases, and certainly limited by my ability to foresee interesting research topics into the future.…”

“…It is well known that economics almost always adopts an anthropocentric approach (Johansson-Stenman, 2018; Budolfson and Spears, 2020;Carlier and Treich, 2020). This problem has long been recognized, though it has not been addressed, even in environmental and resource economics (Ng, 1995;Fleurbaey and Leppanen, 2021). Hence, it is of no surprise that the Review also adopts a standard anthropocentric approach.…”