Executive summary: Ecosystem restoration presents ethical challenges for environmentalists and non-consequentialists, as it raises concerns about authenticity, non-interference, animal suffering, and moral responsibilities toward newly created life, particularly as we consider interventions on Earth and potentially other planets.
Key points:
Ecosystem restoration vs. conservation: While conservation seeks to protect existing ecosystems, restoration actively recreates them, raising ethical concerns about whether reconstructed ecosystems hold the same value.
Authenticity and moral patienthood: Robert Elliot’s “Faking Nature” argument suggests restored ecosystems may lack intrinsic value if their origins are artificial rather than naturally evolved over millennia, though the author finds this argument unconvincing.
Non-interference and autonomy: Some environmental ethics prioritize non-interference, arguing that restoration represents an unjustified human imposition on nature, similar to how conservation avoids direct intervention.
Animal welfare concerns: Restored ecosystems may reintroduce suffering by creating new animal populations subject to predation, disease, and harsh natural conditions, potentially making their creation ethically problematic.
Moral responsibility toward newly created life: If humans initiate new ecosystems, they may bear unique care duties toward the organisms they introduce, particularly if early-stage conditions (e.g., pollution) are unusually harmful.
Implications for planetary colonization: Given these ethical complexities, humans should carefully consider whether and how to create entirely new ecosystems on other planets, where interventionist mistakes could be irreversible.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: Ecosystem restoration presents ethical challenges for environmentalists and non-consequentialists, as it raises concerns about authenticity, non-interference, animal suffering, and moral responsibilities toward newly created life, particularly as we consider interventions on Earth and potentially other planets.
Key points:
Ecosystem restoration vs. conservation: While conservation seeks to protect existing ecosystems, restoration actively recreates them, raising ethical concerns about whether reconstructed ecosystems hold the same value.
Authenticity and moral patienthood: Robert Elliot’s “Faking Nature” argument suggests restored ecosystems may lack intrinsic value if their origins are artificial rather than naturally evolved over millennia, though the author finds this argument unconvincing.
Non-interference and autonomy: Some environmental ethics prioritize non-interference, arguing that restoration represents an unjustified human imposition on nature, similar to how conservation avoids direct intervention.
Animal welfare concerns: Restored ecosystems may reintroduce suffering by creating new animal populations subject to predation, disease, and harsh natural conditions, potentially making their creation ethically problematic.
Moral responsibility toward newly created life: If humans initiate new ecosystems, they may bear unique care duties toward the organisms they introduce, particularly if early-stage conditions (e.g., pollution) are unusually harmful.
Implications for planetary colonization: Given these ethical complexities, humans should carefully consider whether and how to create entirely new ecosystems on other planets, where interventionist mistakes could be irreversible.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.