On vegetarianism,morality, and science: A counter reply

I recently took issue with Kathryn George's contention that vegetarianism cannot be a moral obligation for most human beings, even assuming that Tom Regan's stringent thesis about the equal inherent value of humans and many sentient nonhumans is correct. I argued that both Regan and George are incorrect in claiming that his view would permit moral agents to kill and eat innocent, non-threatening rights holders. An unequal rights view, by contrast, would permit such actions if a moral agent's health or life is at stake. I then argued that current nutritional research does not support Professor George's claim that some wealthy adult males (and many fewer wealthy women) are the only persons whose health does not require the consumption of nonhuman animals and their products. In her 1992 response to my critique, George did not address my moral argumentation. She concentrated her entire paper on a wholesale rejection of my discussion of nutrition. Although she now takes a somewhat more moderate position on who can safely contemplate strict vegetarianism, she still believes that most people are not in a position to follow such a diet. In my counter-reply, I argue that her rejection is based upon numerous distortions, omissions, and false charges of fallacy. She even devotes a substantial section of her paper to criticizing me for saying the opposite of what I actually wrote. As I did in my earlier paper, I cite current research, including George's own preferred source on the topic of vegetarianism, to support my view. I conclude that Professor George has still not shown that for most human beings it is dangerous to follow a diet that omits nonhuman animals and their products. Moral agents who take the rights of humansand nonhumans seriously will find vegetarianism well worth considering.     

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS, MEASUREMENT METHODS, AND RESEARCH FINDINGS

A serious threat to human beings and their environment is the continuous and accelerating overuse and destruction of natural resources. Bearing this in mind, it is unfortunate that efforts to permanently change people's environmentally destructive behaviour through interventions has typically not been met with success. A necessary condition may be an increase in environmental concern and knowledge about the effects and consequences of the ongoing environmental deterioration for future generations. Studies are reviewed that have attempted to show (1) correlations between determinants, such as socio-demographic and/or psychological factors, and environmental concern, and (2) an impact of environmental concern on environmentally responsible behaviour. In general, correlations with background factors are weak. Factors affecting behaviour appear to be knowledge, internal locus of control (positive control beliefs), personal responsibility, and perceived threats to personal health. The need for further research that attempts to specify the process leading to environmentally responsible behaviour is highlighted. A new framework is presented which integrates some of the previous research.     

Stories and maps, images and archives: multimethod approach to the political ecology of native property rights and natural resource management in Sabah, Malaysia

The study of human-environmental relations is complex and by nature draws on theories and practices from multiple disciplines. There is no single research strategy or universal set of methods to which researchers must adhere. Particularly for scholars interested in a political ecology approach to understanding human-environmental relationships, very little has been written examining the details of “how to” design a project, develop appropriate methods, produce data, and, finally, integrate multiple forms of data into an analysis. A great deal of attention has been paid, appropriately, to the theoretical foundations of political ecology, and numerous scholarly articles and books have been published recently. But beyond Andrew Vayda’s “progressive contextualization” and Piers Blaikie and Harold Brookfield’s “chains of explanation,” remarkably little is written that provides a research model to follow, modify, and expand. Perhaps one of the reasons for this gap in scholarship is that, as expected in interdisciplinary research, researchers use a variety of methods that are suitable (and perhaps unique) to the questions they are asking. To start a conversation on the methods available for researchers interested in adopting a political ecology perspective to human-environmental interactions, I use my own research project as a case study. This research is by no means flawless or inclusive of all possible methods, but by using the details of this particular research process as a case study I hope to provide insights into field research that will be valuable for future scholarship.     

A Reply to My Critics

Critics of my book, Sustainability, have raised many objections which are addressed. In general, I emphasize that the book is an integrative work; it must be long and complex beause it attempts a comprehensive treatment of problems of communication, of evaluation, and of management action in environmental discourse. I explain that I depend upon the pragmatists and on work in the pragmatics of language because the current language of environmental policy discourse is inadequate to allow deliberative processes that can reach consensus and cooperative actions. I revise my account of risk analysis somewhat, and defend my broad approach to the concept of sustainability. Finally, I discuss applications of my book to the current situation in environmental policy discourse.     

The Issue of No Moral Agency in Climate Change

The dominant methodological assumptions in climate ethical debates are rational-individualistic. The aim of this paper is to examine whether the rational-individualistic methodological framework is compatible with a theory of moral responsibility for climate change. I employ three fitness criteria of moral agency: (1) a normatively significant choice, (2) sufficient knowledge and (3) control. I demonstrate that the rational-individualistic methodology does not provide a framework in which rational agents meet the three criteria. I conclude that rational-individualistic agents are not fit to be held morally responsible for climate change. The paper demonstrates that the dominant climate-ethical view rests on a methodology that does not allow for a conceptualisation of a moral agent of climate change.     

Inspiring Respect for Animals Through the Law? Current Development in the Norwegian Animal Welfare Legislation

Over the last years, Norway has revised its animal welfare legislation. As of January 1, 2010, the Animal Protection Act of 1974 was replaced by a new Animal Welfare Act. This paper describes the developments in the normative structures from the old to the new act, as well as the main traits of the corresponding implementation and governance system. In the Animal Protection Act, the basic animal ethics principles were to avoid suffering, treat animals well, and consider their natural needs and instincts. In addition, a principle for balancing our duties towards animals with the needs and interests of humans was expressed by the formulation “unnecessary suffering.” These principles (only with slightly different formulations) are retained in the new act. The novelty of the new act is shown by its explicit intention to promote respect for animals and its recognition of animals’ intrinsic value. Whereas intrinsic value is only given a symbolic function, the notion of respect is intended to have practical consequences. One interpretation of respect for animals is taking the animal’s integrity—and not only welfare—into account. Another is to see the introduction of respect as a call to animal keepers to provide animals with welfare exceeding the minimum requirements. In several respects, the legal system now seems to leave more responsibility to the individual animal keeper—and to citizens in general. I argue that if the authorities really do want to promote respect for animals, they must at the same time initiate activities to achieve this. In my perspective the challenge is to provide adequate measures to achieve in practice the intended respect for animals expressed in the new act.     

Opening Up for Participation in Agro-Biodiversity Conservation: The Expert-Lay Interplay in a Brazilian Social Movement

In science and environmental studies, there is a general concern for the democratization of the expert-lay interplay. However, the democratization of expertise does not necessarily lead to more sustainable decisions. If citizens do not take the sustainable choice, what should experts and decision makers do? Should the expert-lay interplay be dissolved? In thinking about how to shape the expert-lay interplay in a better way in agro-biodiversity conservation, I take the case of the MST (Movimento Sem Terra/Landless People’s Movement), possibly the largest rural movement in Latin America. The MST is in a process of turning towards environmentalism. It has adopted agroecology, a democratically oriented knowledge field. However, not all of the farmers were willing to adopt new environmentalist ideas and practices. Through ethnographic research, I analyze how expertise was recognized and redistributed within the MST, attending particularly to the role of MST coordinators and technicians. I explore how participation was framed and put into action. The adoption of agroecology brought to the MST a new and more inclusive map of expertise, but it also influenced new social distinctions within the communities. In part, farmers’ knowledge was labeled as ignorance. This may close down possibilities for dialogue as well as for sustainability. The paper suggests that experts’ power for discriminating among lay knowledges should come together with a responsibility for opening spaces for dialogue and action. One way of doing so could be by adding “interactional reflexivity” to experts’ expertise.     

Youth,climate change and visions of the future in Miami

ABSTRACT

Miami, FL, is one of the most climate-vulnerable cities in the United States. At an average elevation of only 6 feet above sea level, parts of the city could be made uninhabitable by rising oceans within the next 40 years. The effects of climate change are already beginning to be seen, but the subject of climate change is nevertheless modelled, imagined and contested in the future tense. Today's young people are similarly future oriented, but unlike older generations they will live to feel climate change's full future effects. This study investigates knowledge of and experiences with climate change among young adults in Miami, and their visions of the future in light of predicted changes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 long-term residents of the city between the ages of 18 and 30 who were students at Miami-Dade College or Florida International University. I discuss participants’ sense of personal responsibility to inform themselves and the individualised understandings of climate science that emerge, their disillusionment with politics and resulting perception of individual responsibility for climate mitigation, and their negotiation of personal future plans in light of fatalistic visions of the future. These young adults’ perspectives on rising seas in their home city are revealed to be socially structured by ideals of individual agency and self-reliance, which become paradoxically disempowering because of the impossibility of addressing the transformational impacts of climate change through individualised means.     

GIS, modeling, and politics: on the tensions of collaborative decision support

A tension exists at the heart of efforts to support collaboration with GIS. Many scholars and practitioners seek to support two separate objectives: (1) problem solving and (2) the exploration of diverse problem understandings. GIS applications designed for problem solving often pre-define the problem space by structuring the kind of information that can be considered or the way in which the problem is conceptualized. In doing so, they necessarily privilege particular perspectives and understandings of the problem while marginalizing others. As a result, these initiatives undermine their second objective. This is problematic in the context of contentious environmental decisions which have broad-reaching impacts on people with diverse perspectives and interests. In such contexts, I argue that equitable collaboration is impossible without first emphasizing the exploration of diverse problem understandings. I support this argument theoretically by turning to the literatures on collaborative planning and spatial decision support, and empirically in my analysis of a case study of an effort to construct a GIS for supporting collaborative water resource management in rural Idaho. Reflecting upon the case, I provide a set of recommendations to those seeking to better negotiate the tensions of supporting collaboration with GIS in the context of contentious environmental and natural resource decisions.     

Genetically engineered herbicide resistance,part two

Should we continue to support publicly funded research on genetically engineered herbicide resistant crops? In Part One, I discussed the difference between science and ethics, presented a brief history of weed control, and explained three moral principles undergirding my environmentalist perspective. I then argued that unqualified endorsement (E) of the research is unjustified, as is unqualified opposition (O). In Part Two, I argue against qualified endorsement (QE), and for qualified opposition (QO).     

Managerial conceptions of environmental responsibility

Summary In order for business and industry to exercise environmental responsibility in their daily operations and practices, it is necessary for company personnel at all levels to be aware of and committed to the implementation of environmental policies. This study used a phenomenographic approach to explore different ways in which company executives understand and apply environmental responsibility in their managerial roles. Ten senior managers located in three large industrial companies were interviewed and encouraged to express their own interpretation of the phenomenon of environmental responsibility. Four distinct conceptions emerged from the data which differ according to the preferred methods of expressing environmental responsibility within a business setting and the perceived motivations underlying corporate environmental action.Environmental responsibility may be conceived as: (1) an internal proactive undertaking by the company; (2) a reactive response to external community pressures; (3) a negotiated responsibility based on balance and compromise between competing demands; or (4) a collective responsibility involving cooperation amongst companies, government and the wider community. These findings provide a realistic perspective on the phenomenon of management behaviour towards the environment. They form the basis for development of education programmes which will assist managers to adopt and implement environmentally responsible practices within their companies. Further research to extend this knowledge base is recommended.     

Innovation in the Knowledge Age: implications for collaborative science

Current trends validate the notion that multifaceted, multimodal interdisciplinary collaborations lead to increased research productivity in publications and citations, compared to those achieved by individual researchers. Moreover, it may be that scientific breakthroughs are increasingly achieved by interdisciplinary research teams. Nonetheless, despite the perceived importance of collaboration and its bibliometric benefits, today’s scientists are still trained to be autonomous, work individually, and encourage their graduate students to do the same—perpetuating values which impede the creation of collaborative space between disciplines. As a consequence, scientists working in teams typically report serious obstacles to collaboration. This paper builds off of recent recommendations from a 2015 National Academies report on the state of team science which emphasizes greater definition of roles, responsibility, accountability, goals, and milestones. However, these recommendations do not address the subjective, relational components of collaboration which can drive innovation and creativity. The relational side of collaboration is key to understanding the capacity and capabilities of the knowledge workers, such as scientists and engineers, who comprise interdisciplinary research teams. The authors’ recommendations, grounded in organizational communication and knowledge worker literature, include a renewed focus on the process of organizing through communication rather than focusing on organization as an outcome or consequence of teamwork, leading and cultivating team members rather than managing them, and the need to address self-driven, rather than external, motivations to engage in knowledge work.     

Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups

The current industrial pig production model is in crisis, due to its association with environmental pollution, doubtful product quality and lack of animal well-being. In Bretagne (France), a region of intensive pig production, a survey of seven stakeholder groups concerned with pig production was conducted, as part of a research programme dedicated to the assessment of the environmental impact of different modes of pig production. A very large majority of pig producers (93%) and their suppliers (100%) considers pig farms as an asset for the region, whereas a majority of scientists (58%), activists (78%) and consumers (54%) sees it as a handicap. Differences among stakeholder groups are minor with respect to the perceived importance of environmental and social issues. Stakeholders agree on the relative level of responsibility of pig farms with respect to specific problems. For all groups unpleasant odours and water quality come first with respect to responsibility, for most groups soil quality comes second, followed by product safety and air quality. For a future improved mode of pig production, 76% of pig producers and their suppliers prefer to adapt the current model, for all other groups the majority prefers an alternative model. While pig producers and their suppliers prefer a slurry-based housing system, all other groups prefer a straw-based system. Pig producers see the slurry-based system as technically superior and associate the straw-based system with poor working conditions, whereas consumers associate the slurry-based system in the first place with poor water quality and associate the straw-based system with less pollution. These results will be of use in the research programme on the environmental impact of modes of pig production, as they indicate the environmental impacts to be considered and their relative importance. The results will also help in deciding which options should be assessed. It is concluded that the poor image of the current pig production model and its production practices with consumers does not seem compatible with a sustainable demand for pork products.     

The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Omitted Research in the Context of GMO Use and Release

Commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have sparked profound controversies concerning adequate approaches to risk regulation. Scientific uncertainty and ambiguity, omitted research areas, and lack of basic knowledge crucial to risk assessmentshave become apparent. The objective of this article is to discuss the policy and practical implementation of the Precautionary Principle. A major conclusion is that the void in scientific understanding concerning risks posed by secondary effects and the complexity ofcause-effect relations warrant further research. Initiatives to approach the acceptance or rejection of a number of risk-associated hypotheses is badly needed. Further, since scientific advice plays a key role in GMOregulations, scientists have a responsibility to address and communicate uncertainty to policy makers and the public. Hence, the acceptance of uncertainty is not only a scientific issue, but is related to public policy and involves an ethical dimension.     

Deep Ethology, Animal Rights, and the Great Ape/Animal Project: Resisting Speciesism and Expanding the Community of Equals

In this essay I argue that the evolutionary and comparative study of nonhuman animal (hereafter animal) cognition in a wide range of taxa by cognitive ethologists can readily inform discussions about animal protection and animal rights. However, while it is clear that there is a link between animal cognitive abilities and animal pain and suffering, I agree with Jeremy Bentham who claimed long ago the real question does not deal with whether individuals can think or reason but rather with whether or not individuals can suffer. One of my major goals will be to make the case that the time has come to expand. The Great Ape Project (GAP) to The Great Ape/Animal Project (GA/AP) and to take seriously the moral status and rights of all animals by presupposing that all individuals should be admitted into the Community of Equals. I also argue that individuals count and that it is essential to avoid being speciesist cognitivists; it really doesn't matter whether ‘dogs ape’ or whether ‘apes dog’ when taking into account the worlds of different individual animals. Narrow-minded primatocentrism and speciesism must be resisted in our studies of animal cognition and animal protection and rights. Line-drawing into ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ species is a misleading speciesist practice that should be vigorously resisted because not only is line-drawing bad biology but also because it can have disastrous consequences for how animals are viewed and treated. Speciesist line-drawing also ignores within species individual differences. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A Force for Renewal in Academia

I start my essay by recalling the resistance at my university towards some groundbreaking results from environmental and global food production research in the early 1960s, when I was a student in agricultural sciences. I describe this resistance as academic inertia originating from group think in the scientific community. I argue that the problems we face today in our search for sustainable development on a global level require a long-term and broad systems approach in research. I conclude that the predominant scientific paradigm, which I define as the control paradigm, is insufficient given its inbuilt reductionist bias. We need the complement of a paradigm entailing a holistic perspective, which I call the co-existence paradigm. I explore how academic inertia and an increasingly competitive culture in the academic world counteract this development. Students at Uppsala University have managed to cross the boundaries of academic inertia in this area by establishing a Center for Environment and Development Studies which pursues a holistic and multidisciplinary perspective. The student-run center, called Cemus, has successfully acted as a force for renewal in academia for two decades. I describe how the center works and suggest that Cemus represents a model for institutionalizing renewal in academia that fills an essential function and is applicable for any university in a democratic society.     

Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems

Recent policy developments in the area of livestock husbandry have suggested that, from the perspective of optimizing animal welfare, new animal husbandry systems should be developed that provide opportunities for livestock animals to be raised in environments where they are permitted to engage in “natural behavior.” It is not known whether consumers regard animal husbandry issues as important, and whether they differentiate between animal husbandry and other animal welfare issues. The responsibility for the development of such systems is allocated jointly between farmers, regulators, different actors in the food chain, and consumers. This research focuses on understanding consumer attitudes and preferences regarding the development and introduction of such systems, to ensure that they are acceptable to consumers as well as producers, regulators, and scientists. Consumer perceptions of animal welfare and animal husbandry practices were evaluated using quantitative consumer survey, which focused on two animal husbandry issues – farmed pigs and farmed fish. Following pilot work, 1000 representative Dutch consumers were sampled about their attitudes to either pig or fish husbandry. The results indicated that consumers think about animal welfare in terms of two broad categories related to their health and living environment, but do not think about welfare issues at a more detailed level. Greater concern was expressed about the welfare of pigs compared to fish. Consumer trust in labeling also emerged as an important issue, since consumers need to trust different food chain actors with responsibility for promoting animal welfare, and are reluctant to consider the details of animal husbandry systems. As a consequence, a transparent, enforceable, and traceable monitoring system for animal welfare friendly products is likely to be important for consumers.     

Moral Responsibility for Environmental Problems—Individual or Institutional?

The actions performed by individuals, as consumers and citizens, have aggregate negative consequences for the environment. The question asked in this paper is to what extent it is reasonable to hold individuals and institutions responsible for environmental problems. A distinction is made between backward-looking and forward-looking responsibility. Previously, individuals were not seen as being responsible for environmental problems, but an idea that is now sometimes implicitly or explicitly embraced in the public debate on environmental problems is that individuals are appropriate targets for blame when they perform actions that are harmful to the environment. This idea is criticized in this paper. It is argued that instead of blaming individuals for performing actions that are not environmentally friendly we should ascribe forward-looking responsibility to individuals, a notion that focuses more on capacity and resources than causation and blameworthiness. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that a great share of forward-looking responsibility should also be ascribed to institutional agents, primarily governments and corporations. The urge to ascribe forward-looking responsibility to institutional agents is motivated by the efficiency aim of responsibility distributions. Simply put, if responsibility is ascribed to governments and corporations there is a better chance of creating a society in which the opportunities to act in an environmentally friendly way increase.     

Utilitarian killing,replacement, and rights

The ethical theory underlying much of our treatment of animals in agriculture and research is the moral agency view. It is assumed that only moral agents, or persons, are worthy of maximal moral significance, and that farm and laboratory animals are not moral agents. However, this view also excludes human non-persons from the moral community. Utilitarianism, which bids us maximize the amount of good (utility) in the world, is an alternative ethical theory. Although it has many merits, including impartiality and the extension of moral concern to all sentient beings, it also appears to have many morally unacceptable implications. In particular, it appears to sanction the killing of innocents when utility would be maximized, including cases in which we would deliberately kill and replace a being, as we typically do to animals on farms and in laboratories. I consider a number of ingenious recent attempts by utilitarians to defeat the killing and replaceability arguments, including the attempt to make a place for genuine moral rights within a utilitarian framework. I conclude that utilitarians cannot escape the killing and replaceability objections. Those who reject the restrictive moral agency view and find they cannot accept utilitarianism's unsavory implications must look to a different ethical theory to guide their treatment of humans and non-humans.     

Forgivingness, Pessimism, and Environmental Citizenship

Our attitudes toward human culpability for environmental problems have moral and emotional import, influencing our basic capacities for believing cooperative action and environmental repair are even possible. In this paper, I suggest that having the virtue of forgivingness as a response to environmental harm is generally good for moral character, preserving us from morally risky varieties of pessimism and despair. I define forgivingness as a forward-looking disposition based on Robin Dillon’s conception of preservative forgiveness, a preparation to be deeply and abidingly accepting yet expecting human error. As with other virtues, however, preservative forgiveness is available to some of us more than others; in the second half of this paper, I consider the deep challenge posed by rational pessimism, especially on the part of those who have been given many reasons not to hope for the very moral improvements for which they strive. I conclude that for those of us with the power roles and personal resources especially conducive to environmental activism, preservative forgiveness inclines us to remain engaged in environmental activism with fellow flawed human beings, recognizing our own mutual depredations while committing us to cooperatively respond.