Half-Earth, the 1/8 Principle, & Ethics of Collective Restraint

Presenter Information

Alan Johnson, Clemson University

Loading...

Media is loading
 

Start Date

14-12-2020 10:55 AM

End Date

14-12-2020 11:15 AM

Description

As humans increasingly transform the Earth and expand to other planets, how should we relate to nature? What meaning and value should we attach to wilderness? Ecologist and evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson advocates the setting aside of half of Earth’s surface as a reserve for preservation the biosphere. Astrophysicist Martin Elvis and philosopher Tony Milligan advocate a one-eighth principle, restricting development to one-eighth of the solar system, and reserving the remainder as wilderness. What these proposals have in common is that they ask humanity as a whole to exercise restraint with respect to territory and resources that might otherwise be claimed and exploited. These authors advocate altruism on a massive scale for the sake of other species and/or future generations of humans, but the historical record is not encouraging in terms of examples of such collective restraint. What ethical framework could actually motivate such action? In his half-Earth proposal, Wilson appeals primarily to the intrinsic value of nature, while additionally drawing on notions of biophilia and ecosystem services for support. Elvis and Milligan employ prudential reasoning based on a concern for the livelihoods of future generations of humans. Concern for future humans generally declines as they are more remote in time, and may be insufficient to convince society to adopt a one-eighth principle. Recognizing intrinsic value in wilderness could bolster the argument for collective restraint, but extending this to extraterrestrial worlds, particularly those devoid of life, is currently a minority position.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Dec 14th, 10:55 AM Dec 14th, 11:15 AM

Half-Earth, the 1/8 Principle, & Ethics of Collective Restraint

As humans increasingly transform the Earth and expand to other planets, how should we relate to nature? What meaning and value should we attach to wilderness? Ecologist and evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson advocates the setting aside of half of Earth’s surface as a reserve for preservation the biosphere. Astrophysicist Martin Elvis and philosopher Tony Milligan advocate a one-eighth principle, restricting development to one-eighth of the solar system, and reserving the remainder as wilderness. What these proposals have in common is that they ask humanity as a whole to exercise restraint with respect to territory and resources that might otherwise be claimed and exploited. These authors advocate altruism on a massive scale for the sake of other species and/or future generations of humans, but the historical record is not encouraging in terms of examples of such collective restraint. What ethical framework could actually motivate such action? In his half-Earth proposal, Wilson appeals primarily to the intrinsic value of nature, while additionally drawing on notions of biophilia and ecosystem services for support. Elvis and Milligan employ prudential reasoning based on a concern for the livelihoods of future generations of humans. Concern for future humans generally declines as they are more remote in time, and may be insufficient to convince society to adopt a one-eighth principle. Recognizing intrinsic value in wilderness could bolster the argument for collective restraint, but extending this to extraterrestrial worlds, particularly those devoid of life, is currently a minority position.