
doi: 10.1111/cobi.13541
pmid: 32424955
Abstract Over the past 5 decades, scientists have been documenting negative anthropogenic environmental change, expressing increasing alarm, and urging dramatic socioecological transformation in response. A host of international meetings have been held, but the erosion of biological diversity continues to accelerate. Why, then, has no effective political action been taken? We contend that part of the answer may lie in the anthropocentric ethical premises and moral rhetoric typically deployed in the cause of conservation. We further argue that it is essential to advance moral arguments for biodiversity conservation that are not just based on perceived human interests but on ecocentric values, namely, convictions that species and ecosystems have value and interests that should be respected regardless of whether they serve human needs and aspirations. A broader array of moral rationales for biodiversity conservation, we conclude, would be more likely to lead to effective plans, adopted and enforced by governments, designed to conserve biological diversity. A good place to start in this regard would be to explicitly incorporate ecocentric values into the recommendations that will be made at the conclusion of the 15th meeting of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, scheduled to be held in October 2020.
Conservation of Natural Resources, worldviews, Ecology, 170, rights of nature, nature, F800, Biodiversity, Biological Sciences, biophilia, Morals, ethics, justice, C900, Convention on Biological Diversity, IPBES, Humans, anthropocentrism, Biologiska vetenskaper, Ecosystem, needs half
Conservation of Natural Resources, worldviews, Ecology, 170, rights of nature, nature, F800, Biodiversity, Biological Sciences, biophilia, Morals, ethics, justice, C900, Convention on Biological Diversity, IPBES, Humans, anthropocentrism, Biologiska vetenskaper, Ecosystem, needs half
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 117 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
