Environmental Ethics

Earliest human society consisted of hunter-gatherers in which members of a settlement ventured afield to collect plants and fruits, to fish, and to hunt meat-producing animals. In these societies, humans behaved as predators in a sustainable manner, meaning they hunted to sustain their village but they did not decimate wildlife populations.

Today Earth approaches 7 billion people, which is beyond its carrying capacity. Population densities in Africa, Asia, and South America have forced some people into a far more menacing predator role in which wildlife numbers and habitat disappear in the face of human activities. Environmental ethicists have confronted the underlying cause of this problem: poverty. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the European Commission published this viewpoint in an undated briefing titled Biodiversity in Development: The Links between Biodiversity and Poverty: “Poor people themselves are often the cause of biodiversity degradation and loss, especially if lack of income alternatives drives them to over-exploit the resources.” This statement emphasizes the complex association between human poverty and biodiversity.

Environmental ethics involves the search for a solution for two opposing needs: human hunger and wildlife survival. Many African communities depend on their native wildlife for food (called bushmeat) and for income. On a small scale this practice was at one time sustainable, but an increased demand for food and space far exceeds the capacity of wildlife populations to keep up. Threats to the survival of African wildlife now include the following: people hunting for food, destruction of habitat for agriculture or urban development, disappearance of prey animals, retaliatory or preventive killings to protect villages from predator animals, and illegal wildlife smuggling and poaching for income. Some residents sell their native animals as sources for medical drugs, nonmedical cures and supplements, aphrodisiacs, religious and ornamental items, and exotic foods. Wildlife protections exist in many nations but, unfortunately, as governments strengthen the protections, black-market prices for animal products soar. As a result, the extinction of some animals hastens rather than slows.

These forms of legal and illegal hunting have been driven by hunger. Starvation is an immediate crisis for people in many regions of the world in addition to Africa, and things like bushmeat often provide a family with its only protein source. So a need to protect endangered wildlife faces another equally critical need: preventing human starvation.

Some corners of the world rich in biodiversity have revised their relationship with native endangered wildlife. For instance, hunters in Thailand and Costa Rica refrain from capturing rare birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish because they can make more money keeping them alive (instrumental value) for ecotourism. These two countries now earn more from ecotourism than they would by destroying animal habitats.

Ethicists must also consider conflicts between biodiversity and cultural needs that may not have an obvious instrumental value. The black rhinoceros’s habitat in sub-Saharan Africa has stayed about the same size in the past 30 years, yet 90 percent of the animals have disappeared. Two related factors have contributed to this tragedy: a black market that deals in rhino horns and petroleum. In Yemen, young men earn daggers with elegantly carved handles made from rhino horn as a symbol of status and wealth. As oil-rich Yemen’s wealth has grown in the past few decades, the country has become the world’s largest importer of black rhino horn to make these ceremonial pieces. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) has put a global ban on the import of black rhino horn, but as a result the black market for rhino horn has flourished. Armed guards now protect many rhinoceros herds against poaching, and conservationists have even resorted to tranquilizing the animals and cutting off their horns to dissuade poachers. The dehorned animals confront another problem: adults use their horns to establish herd hierarchies and to protect their young. As with most ethical dilemmas, more than one aspect exists to each problem.

In 2005 conservationist Adam Oswell said in a radio interview in Australia, “In countries where people don’t make a lot of money, they’re not concerned about killing animals; they just want to feed their family and make money.” The link between poverty and biodiversity cannot be explained any better.

Source of Information : Green Technology Biodiversity (2010)