Aldo Leopold

By examining several versions of eco-centrism, I argue that environmental eco-centrism fails as a normative principle. Consequentialist versions fail since they cannot generate traditional moral principles and may in fact be inconsistent with traditional morality. Eco-centrism will therefore only make sense as a nonconsequentialist principle, particularly as a prima facie duty-based principle. However, duty-based eco-centrism also fails since the list of environmental duties it recommends will be the same as the list recommended on a purely anthropocentric approach. In short, eco-centrism is irrelevant to the process of both arriving at our environmental duties, and resolving conflicts with human duties.

In this chapter, the inquiry shifts to the scale of the local and everyday, specifically to the topic of gardening, in the hope of integrating the theory and practice of a deeply pragmatic form of environmental communication. Gardening is not always a private affair. A group of individuals can partake in the activity and co-create not only plants and food, but also ideas that inform their communal lives and democratic politics (Holba, 2011, p. 69). Individuals motivated by environmental causes can anchor their activism in gardening, connecting green politics to community gardening, gardening education, and food movements. While environmental activists engage in garden politics, so do average people with an interest in preserving shared spaces for recreation, beautification, and food cultivation. As the saying goes, “all politics is local.” If this is the case, then studying the rhetorical engagements involved in community gardening and gardening politics presents an opportunity to demonstrate an even more localized application of the Leopoldian-Deweyan framework. What is the significance of gardening for social and environmental justice generally?  How should gardening activists communicate their demands to the government and their fellow citizens in a democratic society? While philosophical treatments generally highlight gardening’s importance for human well-being, aesthetic theory, and urban landscape design, few of these treatments offer the “green” reformer more than minimal encouragement and a sense of historical context with which to guide her activism. Few also address the vital connection between school gardening and community gardening. For instance, several accounts of John Dewey’s educational philosophy draw attention to the school gardens tended by students at the University of Chicago’s Experimental School. However, these typically neglect the social and political significance of Dewey’s writings on school gardening.

I argue that a central question for any Leopold scholar interested in animal studies concerns the precise valuation of the animal in his ethical theory. Do animals have value merely insofar as they preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the land? Or is there a place for the intrinsic valuation of animals in Leopold's land ethic? This is an important question, since if the answer is yea to the former but nay to the latter then the land ethic not only allows for but commands the culling of destabilizing "varmint" populations for the benefit of land health. This would by extension, it has been argued, include theoretically the application of such a policy to human populations. I will present evidence from his writings that speak against this fascistic interpretation of the land ethic. I argue, in other words, that there is a place for the intrinsic valuation of animals in Leopold's philosophy, however weakly expressed this may be in his extant corpus.

Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.

Il presente lavoro si pone l'obiettivo di portare alla luce alcuni degli elementi che caratterizzano il pensiero di Aldo Leopold, da molti considerato il “genio fondatore” della contemporanea etica ambientale.
Il primo capitolo si dedica a un'analisi delle premesse teoriche che sottendono all'etica della terra, e si concentra sulla rottura che separa il nostro autore dalla conservazione ambientale di stampo pinchottiano, la quale si proponeva come fine ultimo il profitto economico.  Si tenta poi di individuare come principio portante dell'etica leopoldiana il desiderio di emancipazione dal bisogno e dalla paura, sottolineando come questo sia la radice comune di ogni essere vivente: è l'attribuzione di una dimensione morale a questo principio generale a dare forma all'etica della terra.
Il secondo capitolo si concentra sul ruolo che l'immaginario riveste per lo sviluppo di un etica ecologica: essendo l'immaginario il risultato di un processo naturale, è attraverso di esso che è possibile mettere in moto il “mutamento interiore” che dovrebbe portare a quella presa di coscienza che possiamo chiamare “etica della terra”. L'intento di questo capitolo è quello di sottolineare  lo scarto che intercorre fra una conoscenza fattuale del processo naturale e una conoscenza comprensiva, in grado cioè di comporre, senza riduzionismi, la complessità ambientale.
Il terzo e ultimo capitolo si concentra sul rapporto che Leopold intrattiene con le altre specie, e in generale con la natura. Si vuole sottolineare il grado di empatia che la sua prosa propone, la quale suggerisce che lo sviluppo di una coscienza ecologica deve andare di pari passo a una raffinazione estetica del nostro rapporto con la natura.

Les relations des humains avec les autres êtres naturels reçoivent désormais l’attention des éthiques du care. La vulnérabilité de ces êtres devant l’action humaine invite à une culture de la sensibilité morale élargie à l’environnement, en particulier aux animaux. L’éthique animale émanant du care, par son attention au contexte, aux singularités et aux différences, entre en contraste avec celle de Peter Singer. On peut rattacher cette dernière à la démarche plus générale des éthiques environnementales gravitant autour de la notion de valeur intrinsèque des entités naturelles. Alors que celles-ci travaillent à établir des critères objectifs, internes aux objets naturels, capables de lier de droit l’action morale, les éthiques du care s’intéressent à la formation d’un ethos de souci envers la nature. Par cet accent quasi exclusif sur le pôle subjectif et relationnel de l’éthique environnementale, le care peine à inclure les ensembles naturels et leurs ressorts discrets (par exemple : les microorganismes) dans le spectre de la considération morale. Déjouant les oppositions habituelles entre éthiques du care et de la valeur intrinsèque, l’éthique de la terre initiée par Aldo Leopold allie les vertus des premières à un écocentrisme éthique dont les critères sont arrimés à la connaissance scientifique de l’écologie.

I think of this as one of my more significant reviews, not only due to its dealings with the underlying orientation of a major environmental philosopher but also because it is here that I say a few words about my own conception of philosophy's proper role and definition, which is similar but not identical to that of Callicott.

Aldo Leopold’s land ethic is often compared to the ethics of many North American Indigenous communities, like Tribes and First Nations. Such comparisons can be considered important today because they are a potential option for bringing together environmentalists of all heritages in North America based on a common ethical orientation.  At a theoretical level, the potential for comparison is certainly present. I argue, however, that there are at least three serious issues that must be reckoned with by any actual attempts to bring people together around the idea of a similar ethical orientation in Leopoldian and Indigenist ethics. The first issue is that Leopoldian ideas may be similar in the abstract to some Indigenous ethics, but Leopold’s own work does not provide a model of environmental stewardship that many Indigenous peoples would identify with or find useful. The second issue is that Leopold’s history of ethics is based on a narrative the plot of which goes in the opposite direction of the narratives many Indigenous peoples would provide of their ethics. The third issue is the tendency to prioritize Leopold as the interpreter and translator of Indigenous ethics, which can grant unsubstantiated and even offensive privilege to Leopold in relation to Indigenous ethics. If left unaddressed, each issue threatens to silence important dimensions of many North American Indigenous ethics that matter deeply to the Indigenous persons who adhere to them. I conclude the paper by arguing that a better exercise would involve approaching any potential comparison with a sobering acknowledgment of and openness to differences between Leopoldian and Indigenist ethics.

ABSTRACT (in english – résumé en français en-dessous) :

First analysing the French expression « éthiques de l’environnement » (translating « environmental ethics », « ethics of respect for Nature », a. s. o.), I recall the philosophical difference between on the one hand ethics (l’éthique) and moral (la morale), and on the other hand the modern concept of environment and the old one of nature, thus showing the implications of the expression « éthiques de l’environnement », in regard with the modern (mainly occidental) point of view on nature, the gap between human and non-human, and the attitudes and philosophies deriving from this modern and commonly unconscious point of view. Here I use Bruno Latour and Philippe Descola’s works and concepts to claim the necessary choice between two visions of man and nature : the modern one and a new one (maybe an original synthesis of what Descola calls naturalism and the older anthropological ontologies, mainly the one he calls analogism).

After these few preliminary remarks, I argue, against Hans Jonas, Jean-Pierre Dupuy or even Paul W. Taylor (not speaking about the young and popular activist Greta Thunberg), that our change of mind and attitude cannot rely only on abstractions as the «coming ecological collapse», or our responsibility for our children or the non-human living. Human psychology, among other arguments (political, economical, moral, epistemological), points out the fact human can choose and aim such a change if it makes them happier now (as Spinoza explained). Otherwise, we must speak of environmental moral, not of ethics. That’s why I conclude claiming the philosophical and ethical superiority of Aldo Leopold’s ideas on Hans Jonas’, i.e. the superiority of love and gratitude (towards life) on fear and power – whatever the future holds for us.

RÉSUMÉ en français :

En analysant d’abord le choix de l’expression devenue courante en philosophie « éthiques de l’environnement », nous rappelons la différence philosophique entre d’un côté l’éthique (au sens aristotélicien du terme) et la morale (au sens kantien du terme), et d’un autre côté le concept moderne d’environnement et l’ancien concept de nature. Nous montrons ainsi les implications de l’expression « éthiques de l’environnement » par rapport au point de vue moderne (principalement occidental) sur la nature, la césure cartésienne entre l’humain et le non-humain, et les attitudes et les philosophies qui dérivent de ce point de vue moderne largement inconscient. Ici nous nous appuyons sur les travaux et les concepts de Bruno Latour et de Philippe Descola, pour défendre l’idée d’un choix nécessaire entre deux visions de l’homme et de la nature : la vision moderne et une nouvelle vision (peut-être une synthèse inédite de ce que Descola appelle le naturalisme et des ontologies plus anciennes, principalement celle qu’il appelle l’analogisme).

Après ces quelques remarques préliminaires, nous soutenons l’idée, contre Hans Jonas, Jean-Pierre Dupuy ou même Paul W. Taylor (sans parler de la jeune et populaire activiste Greta Thunberg), que le changement de notre manière de voir et d’agir ne peut reposer seulement sur des abstractions comme « le désastre écologique à venir », ou notre responsabilité vis-à-vis de nos enfants ou des êtres vivants non-humains. La psychologie humaine (parmi d’autres arguments, politiques, économiques, moraux, épistémologiques) tend à montrer que l’homme peut choisir et vouloir un tel changement si celui-ci le rend plus heureux dans l’instant présent (comme Spinoza l’a expliqué). Sinon nous devons parler d’une morale et non pas d’une éthique de l’environnement. Voilà pourquoi je conclus en arguant de la supériorité éthique et philosophique des idées d’Aldo Leopold sur celles de Hans Jonas, autrement dit de la supériorité de la reconnaissance (envers la nature) et de l’amour, sur la peur et la puissance – quel que soit l’avenir.

Invasion Biology, the study of biota redistributed via human agency, has traditionally traced its founding to Charles Elton’s 1958 book The Ecology of invasions by Animals and Plants. But there were many substantial, scientific pre-Eltonian accounts and analyses of redistributed biota dating back at least to the mid-1700s; and non-Eltonian treatments appeared into the late 1950s. Elton began writing on the topic by 1925. From 1931 to 1948 he developed his ideas on conservation in association with Aldo Leopold. Their “competitive collaboration” is explored and documented, showing that each supported and contextualized the other. Elton was, in part, inspired to write The Ecology of invasions by Animals and Plants in dissatisfied response to an earlier effort by American Marston Bates. The two authors, and these works, are compared and contrasted. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals is analyzed in detail, showing how Elton framed his arguments in terms of warfare and cold-war era nuclear alarmism, making a plea for action without providing a strong theoretical basis for preventing the redistribution of biota. The republication of Elton’s book in 2000 iincited a new round of interpretation, but even while its proponents hailed the book as invasion biology’s ‘bible,’ they prepared to replace it with more modern texts. The narrative shows how a ideas about the origins of life on earth, the role of humans in nature, a sense of place and biogeographical belonging, and concerns about the unintended consequences of human agency motivated scientists to attempt to impute order to, and impose it upon, the historically contingent distribution of biota.

Although this book is about the newly emerging academic field of environmental communication, it is also about voice and practical activism. I contend that a deeply pragmatic form of environmental communication has the potential to transform the way environmental activists speak about their methods and goals – moving them toward a rhetoric of eco-justice. Sometimes looking forward requires stepping back – in this case back to two progressive era thinkers who revolutionised our outlook on social and environmental justice: John Dewey and Aldo Leopard. I argue that the impoverished state of present day studies in environmental communication can be traced to a shallow conception of the pragmatic – a conception that can be made deeper through recourse to Dewey’s and Leopold’s ideas. Originating from their philosophies are twin rhetorics — control and restraint — that when balanced constitute a rhetoric of eco-justice. This new approach to speaking about environmental matters proves helpful for contemporary environmental activists – particularly when working in the areas of wilderness preservation, gardening politics, global climate change and environmental justice ""

Climate change and extreme weather events are an ever-increasing concern on planet earth during this epoch called the Anthropocene. Water is front and centre in all these experiences from oceans rising, to increased floods and insect-borne diseases thriving in murky water. What can we do? We can all get involved in understanding how water moves around the planet, and our responsibility to sustain clean and accessible flows. Welcome to the launch of the AquaMOOC! This MOOC is a free online learning tool for everyday citizen scientists, secondary school students, and entry level university students. Out specific focus is water, hence, the name AquaMOOC. One of the aims

From his boyhood in southwestern Minnesota to his pathbreaking scientific investigation of a bog lake north of Minneapolis, Raymond Lindeman was passionate about learning how the natural world works. Science allowed one to “see and try to understand the majestic symmetry of the universe” while serving humanity, he wrote as a high school senior applying for college. In 1935, a year before Lindeman began drawing samples from Cedar Bog Lake for his graduate research, the British ecologist Arthur Tansley coined the term “ecosystem.” It was Lindeman, however, who gave birth to ecosystems ecology with his landmark paper “The Trophic-Dynamic Aspect of Ecology” published in the journal Ecology shortly after his death in 1942 at age twenty-seven. In the paper, a young mind born of the tall grass prairie joined in a single system the length of food chains, the efficiency of trophic transfers, the rates of primary productivity, energy values for losses due to respiration, predation, and decomposition, and the role of bacteria and microorganisms in cycling dead organic matter. Lindeman was able to look beyond ecosystem relationships and perceive the underlying thermodynamics of ecosystem behavior. He calculated how energy derived from the sun flows and dissipates as heat through successive layers of ever-more complex life forms in the ecological food pyramid, with life in each ascending layer using energy more efficiently. More than seven decades after its publication Lindeman’s paper continues to be listed among essential readings in natural resource and wildlife management and in ecosystem conservation.

This paper puts forward a concept of naturalness as an alternative to the wilderness concept, which has been criticized for problematically situating human beings outside the natural world and thus conceptually foreclosing the possibility of humans living in harmony with nature. After examining and finding inadequate two concepts of naturalness dominant in the work of environmental ethicists, namely the natural as opposed to the supernatural and the natural as opposed to the anthropogenic, the paper delineates a concept of ecological naturalness, which links naturalness to ecological normality and ecosystem health. Tracing the historical roots of this concept back to classical Aristotelian philosophy, the paper shows that a contemporary ecological version of it actually underpins the intuitive views of many current-day environmentalists and ecologists. The paper concludes that the concept of ecological naturalness is better suited than the wilderness concept to support efforts at enabling humans to inhabit the earth’s ecosystems in ecologically sustainable ways.

When we envision who or what community is, how often do we think of those who are not human? And even when we consider those beyond the realm of human affairs (if there even exists such a realm), how often do we consider the outsider, the Other? The concept of community itself, it would seem, “already nullifies alterity,” as Emmanuel Levinas puts it. In the current discourse on ethics and the environment, I suggest, there is a wealth of thinking of community and a sufficient lack of thinking of alterity. In this paper, I read some of the major voices concerned with the health and historical degradation of the planet—specifically western environmental ethics and ecology, and Indigenous environmental ethics—and bring them into conversation with Levinas’s ethics of alterity. The aim of this paper is to open a dialogue with the Others of environmental ethics by posing a wholly Levinasian question for our contemporary epoch: What is the meaning of alterity in environmental thinking?

In his influential work, The Phenomenon of Life, Hans Jonas articulates what he terms an "existential interpretation of biological facts." A broadening of Jonas's existential interpretation is necessary, I believe. For I hold that Jonas's philosophy of life lacks an explicit ecological understanding of living entities. I accordingly propose an existential ecology, using Jonas's analysis as my cue but applying it to the land. This concept of land is one I borrow from Aldo Leopold, particularly as he expresses it in his beautiful work, A Sand County Almanac. This idea of an existential ecology is congruent with a current neo-Lamarckian evolutionary model of organism-environment interactions known as niche construction theory. My paper consequently has three parts: (1) a brief outline of Jonas' existential interpretation, (2) Leopold's land concept interpreted existentially, and (3) the congruence of this idea to niche construction evolutionary theory.

Aldo Leopold’s essay ‘Thinking Like a Mountain’ was more than a parable about a redemptive personal moment; it was the fruition of a larger effort on Leopold’s part to effectively communicate the fundamentals of a ‘land ethic’. I explore striking narrative antecedents to Leopold’s ‘green fire’ moment, including writings by Henry David Thoreau and Ernest Thompson Seton, and articulate why wolves provided the quintessential totem animal for communicating a larger ecological ‘drama’. Both these literary antecedents and the essay’s ongoing—sometimes surprising—impacts are
worth exploring, not just because of the high regard in which the essay itself is held but because Leopold succeeded in navigating a problem that persists in our own time: the gap between scientifically informed understandings of the world and effectively communicating those understandings to the public.

The aim of this essay is twofold. First, I examine the role of Alfred North Whitehead and process thinkers in bringing about and shaping the field of environmental ethics. As we will see, our job is not so much to develop the connections between Whitehead and environmental thought as to recover them. Second, given this genealogical work, I invite process scholars to reconsider their generally hostile reception of Aldo Leopold and his land ethic. I suggest that a version of the land ethic grounded in a process axiology could make a significant contribution to contemporary environmental thought.

James Graham Ballard was a contemporary British author mostly known for his dystopian works dealing with climatic disasters, uncanny catastrophes and the negative effects of technological modernity. Ballard’s fourth novel, The Crystal World (1966) tells the unusual story of Edward Sanders, a medical doctor treating leprosy patients in Cameroon. Together with his friends, Sanders encounters a strange phenomenon in the African jungle that slowly turns everything into crystal. This study aims to interpret Ballard’s The Crystal World from the window of Aldo Leopold’s land ethic and the notion of anthropocentrism. The theoretical section of the article gives a detailed account of Aldo Leopold’s land ethic referring to various texts and sources. The land ethic proposes a formulation for the preservation of land from the perspective of environmental ethics whereas anthropocentrism strongly insists on the central position of humans in the universe. Specifically, the article argues that through the allegorical narrative, Ballard deconstructs anthropocentric human thought and reveals the immediate necessity for a land ethic by revealing the exploitation of land and the exaltation of human speciesism/chauvinism. To this end, the study examines how Ballard deconstructs anthropocentrism in The Crystal World and implies the necessity for a land ethic, combined with an ecological conscience.

"Aldo Leopold’s land ethic is widely recognized as a key philosophical tenet for the development and evolution of environmental ethics.  Criticism of the application of the land ethic considers that it is interpreted to narrowly resulting in the removal of humans as part of the biotic community.  This further exacerbates the anthropocentric division that Leopold was attempting to reduce. As a solution, I pose the concept of biocultural stewardship, defined as an ethically based interaction with the natural and cultural environment that respects all members of both communities and values the co-evolutional aspect of their interaction.  This paper, then, is an exploration of Leopold’s land ethic and its more accurate application through biocultural stewardship.


Keywords:  biocultural stewardship, bioculturalism, stewardship, land ethic, Aldo Leopold, environmental ethics, cultural diversity, biodiversity, cultural diversity, culture
"

Η ηθική της γης του Aldo Leopold απετέλεσε, κατά πολλούς, το έναυσμα για την ραγδαία ανάπτυξη της Περιβαλλοντικής Ηθικής και την παγίωσή της ως αυτόνομου κλάδου της Εφαρμοσμένης Ηθικής. Και πράγματι, η γονιμότητα της ηθικής θεωρίας του Leopold δεν μπορεί να αμφισβητηθεί, αφού όλες οι μετέπειτα αντίστοιχες απόπειρες τελούν εμφανώς υπό την επιρροή της, είτε ενστερνιζόμενες, είτε καταδικάζοντας και απορρίπτοντας την κεντρική ηθική θέση που ο Leopold εισηγείται, δηλαδή την ηθική προτεραιότητα της βιοτικής κοινότητας έναντι των ατόμων και των ειδών που την συναπαρτίζουν. Εκείνο, όμως, που θα εξετάσω στο σύντομο αυτό δοκίμιο είναι η ευστάθεια και η συνοχή της ηθικής της γης. Θα επιχειρήσω να αποδείξω την θέση μου, ότι η ηθική θεωρία του Leopold είναι σε μεγάλο βαθμό ατεκμηρίωτη, αντιφατική και δυνητικά επικίνδυνη, αφού υποδαυλίζει έναν ιδιότυπο ηθικό ολοκληρωτισμό.

Yaşar Kemal, 1972 yılında yayımladığı Denizler Kurudu adlı eserinin moral coğrafyasında, ünlü doğa korumacı, ekolog ve doğa yazarı Aldo Leopold’un ekosistem sağlığını ön plana alan ve genişletilmiş bir toplum anlayışı içeren Toprak Etiği (Land Ethic) düşüncesinde olduğu gibi, üst predatörleri dahil tüm deniz canlılarını ve denizel alanları etik sorumluluğun sınırlarına dahil etmiştir. Denizler Kurudu’da tasvir edildiği üzere Marmara Denizi’ndeki balık tükenişi, Leopold’un “Bir Dağ Gibi Düşünmek” adlı klasik anlatısında olduğu gibi avcı-av (predator/prey) dengesindeki bozulmayı hatırlatır. Bu yazıda Leopold, çağlar boyu geçerli olacak bütüncü bir doğa koruma felsefesi yaratarak, ekosistem sağlığı için, düşüncesizce yok edilen üst predatör kurtların da korunması gerekliliği üzerinde durmuştur. Bu durumda Kemal’in Denizler Kurudu’da anlattığı üst predatör yunusların aşırı avlanması ve bunun neticesinde deniz ekosisteminde meydana gelen tahribat, Toprak Etiği’nin temel ilkelerinin deniz ekosistemleri için de geçerli olabileceğini düşündürür. Bu bağlamda Denizler Kurudu, dünya denizlerinde ve okyanuslarında süregelen -yunuslar gibi- üst predatörlerin aşırı avlanmasını durdurmaya katkı sağlayacak bir eser olup Marmara Denizi örneğinde denizlerin sağlığı için avcı-av dengesinin korunması gerektiğine işaret eder. Kemal’in bu duruşu, sadece Marmara Denizi’nde değil, tüm dünya denizlerinde süregelen balık tükenişinin önüne geçilmesini sağlayacak bir “Deniz Etiği” olarak değerlendirilebilir.

Le point de départ de cet article est l’idée qu’afin d’aborder le thème de « prendre soin de la nature et des hommes » nous ne pouvons pas nous focaliser uniquement sur le soin, car nous devons également repenser le socle commun qui lie la nature aux hommes. Pour ce faire, nous nous appuyons sur les analyses de l’eau comme « matière à rêver » avancées par Gaston Bachelard et Ivan Illich afin, par la suite, de nous concentrer sur l’image fondamentale de la nature (en tant que physis) que propose Edgar Morin : celle du tourbillon. Cette image de la nature comme tourbillon « auto-producteur » se retrouve chez deux penseurs importants de l’écologie. Aldo Leopold, père de l’éthique environnementale, développe une image de la terre comme « fleuve rond » dont l’homme serait le navigateur. Et Janine Benyus, théoricienne importante de la biomimétique, propose d’imiter le faire de la nature en intégrant notre faire et notre agir avec son courant tourbillonaire. La conclusion principale de nos analyses est que « prendre soin de la nature et des hommes » consiste à « laisser être » l’autos d’êtres auto-producteurs.

This article reconceptualizes natural capital. It categorizes natural capital into renewable natural capital and structural natural capital, and argues for exclusion of nonrenewable natural capital (such as coal and oil) from consideration as a natural capital. It presents 10 guiding principles for sustainable use of natural capital. Both tasks of reconceptualizing natural capital and identifying guiding principles for sustainable use of natural capital are inspired by Aldo Leopold's land ethic.

The development of ecological thinking in North America has been conditioned by the imperative aiming at a valuation of the biotic community. Since the end of WWII, the US population was warned against the dangerous and violent alterations of nature. Many then found in theology an unforeseen ally. I review the roots of the tension which led to debates involving radical ecologism or its denial, and I aim at analyzing it philosophically.

Este artigo discute as contribuições de sete cientistas naturais – Paul Sears, Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, Donella Meadows, Garrett Hardin e James Lovelock – na construção da agenda ambiental contemporânea. O texto sustenta que os cientistas sociais chegaram a ela de forma retardatária e, por vezes, parcialmente equivocada, por se apegarem à tradição de explicar o “social apenas pelo social”. Muitos cometeram ainda o erro de ignorar as contribuições daqueles pioneiros, com prejuízo para as suas próprias análises. É imprescindível que pesquisadores do campo das ciências exatas e humanas dialoguem de forma mais intensa sobre os temas da agenda ambiental.

NATURAL SCIENTISTS AS LEADERS IN THE CREATION OF THE CONTEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA.

The article discusses the contributions made by seven natural scientists – Paul Sears, Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, Donella Meadows, Garrett Hardin, and James Lovelock - to the establishment of the contemporary environmental agenda. It argues that almost every major issue in this agenda was brought up and publicized originally by natural scientists. Social scientists interested in these issues were latecomers, mostly because they held on to the “human exemption paradigm.” Sometimes they also ignore the contributions of their colleagues in the natural sciences, a flaw that affects negatively the quality of their own endeavors. The article proposes that social scientists and natural scientists should deepen their exchanges on environmental matters.

It is argued that certain individuals can and should be considered ‘morally exemplary’ with respect to the environment. This can be so even where there is no universally applicable ethical principle they employ, and no canonical set of virtues they exhibit. The author identifies Henry David Thoreau, Aldo Leopold, Annie Dillard and Edward Abbey as potential ‘environmental exemplars,’ focusing for the purposes of the essay on individuals who have written compelling autobiographical works in defense of a way of life that is both attuned to the values of a particular place and attentive to the humanistic concerns that have more traditionally been the locus of ethical thought.

As a response to anthropogenic climate change nearly every sector of public and private life has sought to undertake positive steps to ameliorate this modern challenge. The medical industry has not been untouched by environmentalists calling for sustainable practices, not have doctors been unaware of the effects of CO2 on human health.

Environmental bioethics has combined the concerns of ecologists and policymakers and emerged as an avenue for health care professionals to respond to climate change. This article will provide background on the integration of environmental ethics into health care over the last 30 years.

Depending on circumstances, kellert argues that people relate to the natural world from any blend of these value stances. However, people may tend to favor one or two value stances as their primary preference and base decisions and actions accordingly. i t is important to cultivate a respectful and engaging approach to developing and maintaining relationships with indigenous cultures. i propose that two fields of inquiry, bioculturalism and stewardship, be considered together as biocultural stewardship in order to strengthen both. My main premise is that the dominant culture of a country or region bears more responsibility for creating relationships with indigenous cultures because of inherent power differentials, as well as histories of oppression and marginalization. However, it is arguably a matter of necessity at this point in human existence to move past the perceived barriers of culture toward more open and respectful relationships. it is critical to consider the complex and d...