As an environmentalist, even though I acknowledge that much extremely worthwhile research is being done by EA organisations, especially on AI safety and animal/fish/insect etc. welfare, some of the work being done in other areas makes me put my head in my hands and groan in despair. The profound ignorance in effective altruist circles of environmental science, like that of the planetary boundaries [1], for example, which demonstrates the absolute interconnectedness and interdependence of humans and the biosphere—their essential oneness—is depressing, as is the anthropocentrism [2] of the attitudes embedded in some moral philosophical positions. It could well lead to the death of the EA movement itself. Unless EA acknowledges the profundity of the multiple threats to our planetary life support systems, and incoporate ecocentrism into the EA core principles, it risks becoming irrelevant.
I also find it hard to reconcile EA’s immensely praiseworthy work being done in animal welfare with the callousness and disregard for living beings in some posts and comments. For example, a person once commented on something I wrote in the EA Forum, saying, ‘Who cares if some random frog species becomes extinct?’
The callousness of this attitude took my breath away. I can almost hear the phrase ‘Does not compute! Does not compute!’ rattling away, over and over in my brain. There is such a huge gulf between the attitudes of people like that and the EA activists concerned with, say, the welfare of shrimps. Or insects. (Especially in view of recent research on bee intelligence and even emotionality.)
Let’s consider a more recent example of EA anthropocentrism I have encountered. It’s in the Metanormative Method supplement to the Rethink Priorities’ Charitable Resource Allocation Frameworks and Tools Sequence (the CRAFT Sequence). And it is blind to any kind of ecological perspective:
“An example of moral uncertainty
Take the following scenario. A rural village has a growing human population that it is struggling to feed, so it wants to expand its grazing territory into the adjacent countryside. However, the village abuts a forest that is home to an endangered endemic species of monkeys that doesn’t have suitable habitat elsewhere. If the forest is razed, the monkeys will starve. However, a greater number of humans will be fully nourished. If the forest is not razed, then many villagers will face nutritional deficiencies, leading to serious health problems and possible death. You are tasked with deciding what should be done with the forest. You are morally uncertain, assigning some credence to each of the following worldviews, which give very different recommendations about what you ought to do:
Species-neutral justice: The welfare of all individuals matters equally, regardless of species. Justice requires that we secure a minimal amount of welfare for every individual, not that we maximize the overall or average welfare. Recommendation: preserve the monkeys’ habitat because it is necessary for them to live.
Species-neutral utilitarianism: The welfare of all individuals matters equally, regardless of species. The correct action is the one that maximizes overall welfare, even if it requires sacrificing the interests of some individuals. Recommendation: raze the forest because it will result in greater overall welfare.
Humans-only prioritarianism: Human welfare matters much more than monkey welfare. The correct action is the one that has the best overall consequences for welfare, where the welfare of the worst off is given extra weight. Recommendation: raze the forest because that will save humans, and the interests of the monkeys are not morally important in comparison.”
No solution or moral theory is offered which takes into account the planetary boundaries and which acknowledges that that which is good for the planet is good for all of us. Razing the forest may provide a short term solution for that particular tribe’s needs but since it undermines the global commons—the forests which are necessary to create the very air we breathe and to regulate the hydrological systems, prevent desertification, and preserve the biodiversity, the web of life in which we are all held—it is ultimately unacceptable because it would lead to the death of all humans and all life on earth if pushed to the extreme.
The example given also does not offer the solution of the tribe learning to restrict its population so that it can live in harmony with the monkeys in their forest.[3]
Any moral philosophy which is anthropocentric, i.e. which does not acknowledge the essential oneness of humanity with nature, the fact that we are all in this together, is no better morally than religions that tell humans that they are the pinnacle of creation and should go forth and multiply and rule over the Earth.
Effective altruists who fail to acknowledge environmental science and the need to protect the global commons, who put human needs above all others, are essentially like fundamentalist Christians. Examples like these show that effective altruism is out of touch with the existential risks caused by its anthropocentrism. One might as well call it EAA—Effective Anthropocentric Altruism—except that anthropocentrism is, in the long term, ineffective, rather than effective. It keeps humanity on our current trajectory, hurtling towards the precipice of extinction.
In my view, the EA movement will die unless it acknowledges these shortcomings and fully embraces environmentalism. It must also bridge the gulf between those in the movement who care about animal welfare, and those who couldn’t care less whether ‘some random species’ becomes extinct. There may be hope for a reformed kind of effective altruism to supplant its current anthropocentric phase: Effective Ecocentric Altruism, or EEA.
As I stated in a previous post, there are no altruists on a dead planet. So let’s hope this post marks the beginning of the end of the era of Ineffective Anthropocentric Altruism. Let the the era of Effective Ecocentric Altruism begin.
This planetary boundaries framework update finds that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed, suggesting that Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity. Ocean acidification is close to being breached, while aerosol loading regionally exceeds the boundary. Stratospheric ozone levels have slightly recovered. The transgression level has increased for all boundaries earlier identified as overstepped. As primary production drives Earth system biosphere functions, human appropriation of net primary production is proposed as a control variable for functional biosphere integrity. This boundary is also transgressed. Earth system modeling of different levels of the transgression of the climate and land system change boundaries illustrates that these anthropogenic impacts on Earth system must be considered in a systemic context.
[2] The Anthropocentric Ontology of International Environmental Law and the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards an Ecocentric Rule of Law in the Anthropocene In: Global Journal of Comparative Law Volume 7 Issue 1 (2018) Authors: Louis J. Kotzé and Duncan French
Abstract
In this article we argue that the Anthropocene’s deepening socio-ecological crisis amplifies demands on, and exposes the deficiencies of, our ailing regulatory institutions, including that of international environmental law (iel). Many of the perceived failures of iel have been attributed to the anthropocentric, as opposed to the ecocentric, ontology of this body of law. As a result of its anthropocentric orientation and the resultant deficiencies, iel is unable to halt the type of human behaviour that is causing the Anthropocene, while it exacerbates environmental destruction, gender and class inequalities, growing inter- and intra-species hierarchies, human rights abuses, and socio-economic and ecological injustices. These are the same types of concerns that the recently proclaimed Sustainable Development Goals (sdgs) set out to address. The sdgs are, however, themselves anthropocentric; an unfortunate situation which reinforces the anthropocentrism of iel and vice versa. Considering the anthropocentric genesis of iel and the broader sdgs framework, this article sets out to argue that the anthropocentrism inherent in the ontological orientation of iel and the sdgs risks exacerbating Anthropocene-like events, and a more ecocentric orientation for both is urgently required to enable a more ecocentric rule of law to better mediate the human-environment interface in the Anthropocene. Our point of departure is that respect for ecological limits is the only way in which humankind, acting as principal global agents of care, will be able to ensure a sustainable future for human and non-human constituents of the Earth community. Correspondingly, the rule of law must also come to reflect such imperatives.
[3] Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left
Philip Cafaro, Pernilla Hansson, Frank Götmark
Biological Conservation 272, 109646, 2022
Global biodiversity decline is best understood as too many people consuming and producing too much and displacing other species. Wild landscapes and seascapes are replaced with people, our domestics and commensals, our economic support systems, and our trash. Conservation biologists have documented many of the ways that human activity drives global biodiversity loss, but they generally neglect the role of overpopulation. We summarize the evidence for how excessive human numbers destroy and degrade habitats for other species, and how population decrease opens possibilities for ecological restoration. We discuss opportunities for further research into how human demographic changes help or hinder conservation efforts. Finally, we encourage conservation biologists to advocate for smaller populations, through improved access to modern contraception and explicit promotion of small families. In the long term, smaller human populations are necessary to preserve biodiversity in both less developed and more developed parts of the world. Whether the goal is to save threatened species, create more protected areas, restore degraded landscapes, limit climate disruption, or any of the other objectives key to preserving biodiversity, reducing the size of the human population is necessary to achieve it.
Anthropocentric Altruism is Ineffective—The EA Movement Must Embrace Environmentalism and Become Ecocentric
As an environmentalist, even though I acknowledge that much extremely worthwhile research is being done by EA organisations, especially on AI safety and animal/fish/insect etc. welfare, some of the work being done in other areas makes me put my head in my hands and groan in despair. The profound ignorance in effective altruist circles of environmental science, like that of the planetary boundaries [1], for example, which demonstrates the absolute interconnectedness and interdependence of humans and the biosphere—their essential oneness—is depressing, as is the anthropocentrism [2] of the attitudes embedded in some moral philosophical positions. It could well lead to the death of the EA movement itself. Unless EA acknowledges the profundity of the multiple threats to our planetary life support systems, and incoporate ecocentrism into the EA core principles, it risks becoming irrelevant.
I also find it hard to reconcile EA’s immensely praiseworthy work being done in animal welfare with the callousness and disregard for living beings in some posts and comments. For example, a person once commented on something I wrote in the EA Forum, saying, ‘Who cares if some random frog species becomes extinct?’
The callousness of this attitude took my breath away. I can almost hear the phrase ‘Does not compute! Does not compute!’ rattling away, over and over in my brain. There is such a huge gulf between the attitudes of people like that and the EA activists concerned with, say, the welfare of shrimps. Or insects. (Especially in view of recent research on bee intelligence and even emotionality.)
Let’s consider a more recent example of EA anthropocentrism I have encountered. It’s in the Metanormative Method supplement to the Rethink Priorities’ Charitable Resource Allocation Frameworks and Tools Sequence (the CRAFT Sequence). And it is blind to any kind of ecological perspective:
“An example of moral uncertainty
Take the following scenario. A rural village has a growing human population that it is struggling to feed, so it wants to expand its grazing territory into the adjacent countryside. However, the village abuts a forest that is home to an endangered endemic species of monkeys that doesn’t have suitable habitat elsewhere. If the forest is razed, the monkeys will starve. However, a greater number of humans will be fully nourished. If the forest is not razed, then many villagers will face nutritional deficiencies, leading to serious health problems and possible death. You are tasked with deciding what should be done with the forest. You are morally uncertain, assigning some credence to each of the following worldviews, which give very different recommendations about what you ought to do:
Species-neutral justice: The welfare of all individuals matters equally, regardless of species. Justice requires that we secure a minimal amount of welfare for every individual, not that we maximize the overall or average welfare. Recommendation: preserve the monkeys’ habitat because it is necessary for them to live.
Species-neutral utilitarianism: The welfare of all individuals matters equally, regardless of species. The correct action is the one that maximizes overall welfare, even if it requires sacrificing the interests of some individuals. Recommendation: raze the forest because it will result in greater overall welfare.
Humans-only prioritarianism: Human welfare matters much more than monkey welfare. The correct action is the one that has the best overall consequences for welfare, where the welfare of the worst off is given extra weight. Recommendation: raze the forest because that will save humans, and the interests of the monkeys are not morally important in comparison.”
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pOzOpVxGVSoGW6n4h-BoFqrfzOQAoVj8hzk_VQf8dfA/edit
Can you see the problem here?
No solution or moral theory is offered which takes into account the planetary boundaries and which acknowledges that that which is good for the planet is good for all of us. Razing the forest may provide a short term solution for that particular tribe’s needs but since it undermines the global commons—the forests which are necessary to create the very air we breathe and to regulate the hydrological systems, prevent desertification, and preserve the biodiversity, the web of life in which we are all held—it is ultimately unacceptable because it would lead to the death of all humans and all life on earth if pushed to the extreme.
The example given also does not offer the solution of the tribe learning to restrict its population so that it can live in harmony with the monkeys in their forest.[3]
Any moral philosophy which is anthropocentric, i.e. which does not acknowledge the essential oneness of humanity with nature, the fact that we are all in this together, is no better morally than religions that tell humans that they are the pinnacle of creation and should go forth and multiply and rule over the Earth.
Effective altruists who fail to acknowledge environmental science and the need to protect the global commons, who put human needs above all others, are essentially like fundamentalist Christians. Examples like these show that effective altruism is out of touch with the existential risks caused by its anthropocentrism. One might as well call it EAA—Effective Anthropocentric Altruism—except that anthropocentrism is, in the long term, ineffective, rather than effective. It keeps humanity on our current trajectory, hurtling towards the precipice of extinction.
In my view, the EA movement will die unless it acknowledges these shortcomings and fully embraces environmentalism. It must also bridge the gulf between those in the movement who care about animal welfare, and those who couldn’t care less whether ‘some random species’ becomes extinct. There may be hope for a reformed kind of effective altruism to supplant its current anthropocentric phase: Effective Ecocentric Altruism, or EEA.
To sum up:
Anthropocentric = Death/Existential Risk-Precipitating = Ineffective
but
Ecocentric = Life-Sustaining = Effective
As I stated in a previous post, there are no altruists on a dead planet. So let’s hope this post marks the beginning of the end of the era of Ineffective Anthropocentric Altruism. Let the the era of Effective Ecocentric Altruism begin.
References + Abstracts
[1] Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries
KATHERINE RICHARDSON HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0003-3785-2787 , WILL STEFFEN, [...], AND JOHAN ROCKSTRÖM HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0001-8988-2983+26 authorsAuthors Info & Affiliations
SCIENCE ADVANCES 13 Sep 2023 Vol 9, Issue 37 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Abstract
This planetary boundaries framework update finds that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed, suggesting that Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity. Ocean acidification is close to being breached, while aerosol loading regionally exceeds the boundary. Stratospheric ozone levels have slightly recovered. The transgression level has increased for all boundaries earlier identified as overstepped. As primary production drives Earth system biosphere functions, human appropriation of net primary production is proposed as a control variable for functional biosphere integrity. This boundary is also transgressed. Earth system modeling of different levels of the transgression of the climate and land system change boundaries illustrates that these anthropogenic impacts on Earth system must be considered in a systemic context.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
[2] The Anthropocentric Ontology of International Environmental Law and the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards an Ecocentric Rule of Law in the Anthropocene In: Global Journal of Comparative Law Volume 7 Issue 1 (2018) Authors: Louis J. Kotzé and Duncan French
Abstract
In this article we argue that the Anthropocene’s deepening socio-ecological crisis amplifies demands on, and exposes the deficiencies of, our ailing regulatory institutions, including that of international environmental law (iel). Many of the perceived failures of iel have been attributed to the anthropocentric, as opposed to the ecocentric, ontology of this body of law. As a result of its anthropocentric orientation and the resultant deficiencies, iel is unable to halt the type of human behaviour that is causing the Anthropocene, while it exacerbates environmental destruction, gender and class inequalities, growing inter- and intra-species hierarchies, human rights abuses, and socio-economic and ecological injustices. These are the same types of concerns that the recently proclaimed Sustainable Development Goals (sdgs) set out to address. The sdgs are, however, themselves anthropocentric; an unfortunate situation which reinforces the anthropocentrism of iel and vice versa. Considering the anthropocentric genesis of iel and the broader sdgs framework, this article sets out to argue that the anthropocentrism inherent in the ontological orientation of iel and the sdgs risks exacerbating Anthropocene-like events, and a more ecocentric orientation for both is urgently required to enable a more ecocentric rule of law to better mediate the human-environment interface in the Anthropocene. Our point of departure is that respect for ecological limits is the only way in which humankind, acting as principal global agents of care, will be able to ensure a sustainable future for human and non-human constituents of the Earth community. Correspondingly, the rule of law must also come to reflect such imperatives.
https://brill.com/view/journals/gjcl/7/1/article-p5_5.xml
[3] Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left
Philip Cafaro, Pernilla Hansson, Frank Götmark Biological Conservation 272, 109646, 2022
Global biodiversity decline is best understood as too many people consuming and producing too much and displacing other species. Wild landscapes and seascapes are replaced with people, our domestics and commensals, our economic support systems, and our trash. Conservation biologists have documented many of the ways that human activity drives global biodiversity loss, but they generally neglect the role of overpopulation. We summarize the evidence for how excessive human numbers destroy and degrade habitats for other species, and how population decrease opens possibilities for ecological restoration. We discuss opportunities for further research into how human demographic changes help or hinder conservation efforts. Finally, we encourage conservation biologists to advocate for smaller populations, through improved access to modern contraception and explicit promotion of small families. In the long term, smaller human populations are necessary to preserve biodiversity in both less developed and more developed parts of the world. Whether the goal is to save threatened species, create more protected areas, restore degraded landscapes, limit climate disruption, or any of the other objectives key to preserving biodiversity, reducing the size of the human population is necessary to achieve it.
https://www.sustainable.soltechdesigns.com/Overpopulation-and-biodiversty-loss(2022).pdf