I can understand why we should care about climate change (because of the impact on humans) but I’m confused about what the purpose of environmentalism that focusses on preventing destruction of natural habitats is. Here are some possibilities:
Ecosystems with less human interference are intrinsically good, so we should save and increase them
Biodiversity (whether that’s species diversity, genetic diversity, ecological diversity) is intrinsically good and so we should prevent reductions in biodiversity through e.g. species extinction
The welfare of wild animals matters so we shouldn’t harm them through e.g. by destroying their habitat
Relatively undisturbed natural areas provide humans with beneficial things—i.e. ecosystem services
These are very different purposes that would lead to us optimising for very different things, so I think it’s important to clarify what the end goal of an effective environmentalist would be.
If I were to evaluate these different possible end goals, I would think:
1 and 2 don’t make much sense to me because I mainly value the happiness (and avoidance of suffering) of humans and animals.
3 could actually go against environmentalism because of wild animal suffering.
4 seems to fit in with the rest of EA well. Could have implications for poverty and global catastrophic risks.
I can understand why we should care about climate change (because of the impact on humans) but I’m confused about what the purpose of environmentalism that focusses on preventing destruction of natural habitats is. Here are some possibilities:
Ecosystems with less human interference are intrinsically good, so we should save and increase them
Biodiversity (whether that’s species diversity, genetic diversity, ecological diversity) is intrinsically good and so we should prevent reductions in biodiversity through e.g. species extinction
The welfare of wild animals matters so we shouldn’t harm them through e.g. by destroying their habitat
Relatively undisturbed natural areas provide humans with beneficial things—i.e. ecosystem services
These are very different purposes that would lead to us optimising for very different things, so I think it’s important to clarify what the end goal of an effective environmentalist would be.
If I were to evaluate these different possible end goals, I would think:
1 and 2 don’t make much sense to me because I mainly value the happiness (and avoidance of suffering) of humans and animals. 3 could actually go against environmentalism because of wild animal suffering. 4 seems to fit in with the rest of EA well. Could have implications for poverty and global catastrophic risks.