lecture 2: why protect nature? - macaulay honors...

Lecture 2: Why Protect Nature?

• The nature/artefact distinction

• Five types of natural values

Tuesday, September 3, 2013


• “We should conserve/protect nature”

• What is nature?

• Why protect it?


What is nature?• ‘Natural’ is often

contrasted with cultural or even ‘artefactual’ (or artificial)

• Is this a valid distinction?

• Humans part of the natural world

• ‘Pure’ nature - unaffected by humans -


What is nature?• ‘Natural’ is often

contrasted with cultural or even ‘artefactual’ (or artificial)

• Is this a valid distinction?

• Humans part of the natural world

• ‘Pure’ nature - unaffected by humans - no longer


Nature/Artefact

• Should we just get rid of the distinction completely?

• If so, what would guide conservationists?

• The distinction between nature and artefact is:

1. Real

2. Blurry

3. Useful


It’s probably safe to assume that the distinction between the ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’/‘artefactual’/‘cultural’ is a blurry -

but useful - distinction with a lot of gray areas

Major metropolitan area

Uninhabited forest



• The nature/artefact distinction

• Five types of natural values


Natural Values

Natural values: Those (human) desires, goals, and values that tend to promote the welfare of non-human life and/or the persistence of non-anthropogenic (non-human-made)

parts of the environment

(E.g., contrast the desire for unbridled accumulationof wealth and the desire to enjoy wilderness)


Five Natural Values

1. Biodiversity

2. Welfare

3. Fidelity

4. Service

5. Wild Nature


Natural values1. Biodiversity: Diversity of life at

all levels of the natural world, including genes, organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems.

• Typically ‘biodiversity’ is taken as ‘species’ diversity, but it’s hard to measure directly

• In order to measure it we have to operationalize it: redefine it in a way that lends itself to field measurement

• Sarkar presents six different operational approaches


Specific Criteria for Measuring and Assessing Biodiversity

• Vulnerability (e.g., species at risk: either endangered or vulnerable according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list)

• Problem: conservation biology shouldn’t just be about single-species management



• Rarity (e.g., species that have low absolute numbers)

• This is not the same a vulnerability (a species may be rare but non-vulnerable) but it may be a mark of rarity



• Richness (e.g., areas that have many species rather than few)

• E.g., ‘biodiversity hotspots’ are those areas in the world, such as the Amazon rainforest or Madagascar, with large numbers of endemic species (species found nowhere else)



• Suitability (or viability) (e.g., areas that are conducive to the long-term persistence - of the species that live there)

• All things equal, it’s better to protect landscapes that are more conducive to long-term persistence of its resident species (e.g., protecting land in the center rather than the periphery of a species’ range, or perhaps farther from sites of anthropogenic disturbance)



• Proximity to native range (e.g., ‘native’ vs. ‘alien’/‘invasive’/‘non-native’ species)

• This particular criterion has been controversial. Migration and habitat change are normal features of evolution.

• Does our fear of ‘alien species’ reflect some (unconscious) racism or xenophobia? (“it’s foreign so we should eliminate it”)

• The ‘war’ against tamarisk shrubs (Tamarisx spp) in California may be based on outdated science, skewed public perception, and an inability to perceive benefits, such as its providing habitat for the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

• Perhaps it’s most reasonable to evaluate ‘alien’ species on a case-by-case basis



• Cultural role (e.g., ‘totemic’ species; national symbols)

• Sometimes the protection of biodiversity can be carried out by focusing on certain species that have important cultural or national significance

• These are sometimes called ‘flagship’ species, that is, species that can be used to generate significant income for conservation projects


Eliminate “Biodiversity”?

• If ‘biodiveristy’ is such a vague concept, should scientists just get rid of it?

• In other words, maybe we should just focus on specific operational measures (rarity, richness, etc.) and stop trying to have a catch-all term that includes them all


Natural values

2. Welfare: At the most general level, the perception that something is ‘good for’ the environment

• We may want to protect the individuals of a species simply because we value their ability to survive and procreate

Grey Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)


Natural values

• We may also want to protect individuals of a species from pain

• Most environmental policies or moral systems that aim to minimize perceived cruelty stem from the value of welfare, rather than, e.g., biodiversity


Natural values

• This particular value seems limited: it only focuses on sentient organisms

• In what sense is it ‘good for’ a stream to be free from pollutants, or ‘good for’ a mountain to persist in its natural state?


Natural values

3. Fidelity: The desire to make a habitat similar to some other habitat

• Ecological restoration is the practice of restoring degraded or damaged ecosystems to their former condition

Reintroduction of endangered Tidewater Gobies (Eucyclogobius newberryi) in Tomales Bay State Park,

Marin County, CA


Natural values

• This raises deep philosophical questions: why is historical fidelity itself a desirable thing?

Restoration of wetlands


Natural values

• This raises deep philosophical questions: why is historical fidelity itself a desirable thing?

• If we could clone the Woolly Mammoth and reintroduce them in Alaska, would that be a good thing?


Natural values• The desire for fidelity

need not be restricted to re-creation of a past state

• The re-creation of English gardens in colonial-era India was motivated by a desire for fidelity, though it strikes us as highly ‘artificial’


Natural values

4. Service: One of the major values that motivate current conservation projects is service for human ends

• Productivity

• Environmental security

• Ecosystem services


Natural values

• Productivity: Maximization of desirable ‘biomass’ production

• This can be done in ways that are more or less beneficial to biodiversity or the environment

Shade-grown coffee plantation

Monoculture coffee plantation


Natural values

• Environmental security: Protection of habitats as flood or storm protection

• This can be done in ways that are more or less beneficial to biodiversity or the environment


Natural values• Ecosystem services:

Protection of habitats for all other human-related needs or uses

• Forests as carbon sinks

• Tree-planting projects for reduced respiratory problems

• Protecting underground aquifers for clean water


Natural values

5. Wild Nature: Desire to protect ‘wildness’ or ‘wilderness’

• The central value here is freedom from human interference or intervention

• Another way of putting it is the idea of the autonomy of nature


Natural values• One particular manifestation of

this value is the desire for ‘unspoiled wilderness’

• An area with no present and little past human habitation

• One problem with this particular goal is that there are few if any places in the world that exist free from extensive human modification

• Many current national parks, for example, were created through the forced expulsion or intimidation of First Nations


lecture 2: why protect nature? - macaulay honors...

Documents