Future Environmental Philosophies and Their Biocultural Conservation Interfaces

Perhaps it would be better to speak of the future of environmental philosophies, rather than of the future of environmental philosophy. Making explicit a plurality of future trends helps prevent an "Anglo-academic" bias, and emphasizes the need for further developing environmental philosophy into at least two directions: (1) a stronger dialogical interaction with the diverse international constellation of cultural, ethnic, social, political, economic, and ecological dimensions of environmental problems; and (2) a greater integration into the transdisciplinary field of biological and cultural conservation, involving an enhanced actualization of environmental theoretical philosophy into environmental practical philosophy.

1. Toward more multi-discursive international environmental philosophies

Further developing international environmental philosophy can help to more precisely identify agents and causes of environmental problems, as well as their effects and victims. For instance, the focus on global climate change—and more generally global change, including other processes of rapid environmental transformation such as biotic, linguistic, and cultural homogenization—should not overlook the fact that different human communities, regions, societies, and countries are not equally responsible for such change nor suffer equally from its consequences. For example, today the highest levels of UV radiation fall on areas of Patagonia and the Antarctic Peninsula. These regions are the farthest away from the centers of CFC emissions which generate the stratospheric ozone hole found over the austral portion of the Americas.¹ The incorporation of these type of regional distinctions into environmental philosophy provides the opportunity for more precise diagnoses and characterizations of environmental problems than the still-frequent generalizations stated in terms of problems between "humanity and nature."² Such a lack of specificity is deceptive because it absolves particular responsible agents of environmental problems by referring to all humans or society in general as responsible for them.

Secondly, contrasting ecological, social, and political settings generate not only different environmental problems, but also offer a variety of viable options for solving those problems. This is a point that remains frequently overlooked within global environmental agendas. While working in conservation in Latin America, I am continuously surprised by the marked ecological and cultural singularities I find in different localities in which communities have evolved peculiar ways of understanding, valuing, and interacting with their environments.³ On the one hand, environmental philosophy would enrich itself by further incorporating this biocultural diversity. On the other hand, environmental philosophy could provide a valuable contribution to biocultural conservation by better articulating the understanding the reticulate diversity of ecological knowledge and practices that indigenous and non-indigenous old-resident communities have co-evolved with particular ecosystems and historic and cultural settings around the world.

Finally, furthering the participation of environmental thinkers of different regions and strengthening environmental philosophy networks could contribute to an international dialogue that would generate more pertinent concepts and propositions by more deeply embracing local social, historical, political, cultural, linguistic, and ecosystem realities. The dynamic diversity of human ecological worldviews and practices has been addressed by the field of environmental philosophy;⁴ however, this diversity has still not been sufficiently incorporated as part of a multi-discursive community.

* * *

2. Incorporating environmental philosophy into the theory and praxis of biocultural conservation

During the last two decades, a main goal of ecological sciences and biological conservation has been a better integration between human and natural systems. Under currently prevailing scientific approaches, such reconnection has been developed primarily through economic valuation of "ecosystem services" (see, for example, the recent landmark Millennium Ecosystem Assessment).⁵ Environmental philosophy has had a weak presence as compared to ecological economics in the transdiscipline of biological conservation. This weak presence is mismatched with the numerous calls made by ecologists about the need for environmental ethics, and with the frequent reference to ethical values made by international environmental conventions. For instance, the text of the Convention on Biological Diversity begins with a reference to the intrinsic value of biodiversity but it does not develop this notion at all.⁶ Similarly, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment mentions the intrinsic value of biodiversity but does not develop the notion, and ends up justifying the need for its conservation in terms of economic values...