Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation

Ramp, Daniel; Bekoff, Marc

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44206-8_23

Cited by 32 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These reject the utilitarian view of the environment drawing inspiration from traditional cultures and a broader concept of 'compassionate conservation' (Munro 2001;Ramp and Bekoff 2015), and include spiritual ecology (Sponsel 2014) and deep ecology perspectives (Naess 1973).…”

Section: Environmental Justice and Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting the Lorax complex: deep ecology and biophilia in cross-cultural perspective

Kopnina

2015

Environmental Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By supporting creation of protected areas, conservation projects are known to bring economic prosperity to the local communities, but also incite criticism. A common theme in the critique of conservation organizations is the proximity to neoliberal agencies seeking to capitalize on environment, which disadvantage the local communities. Community participation has been proposed as a panacea for neoliberal conservation. However, conservation efficacy is not always contingent on the community involvement and reliance on 'traditional' practices in protected areas has not always benefitted biodiversity. Simultaneously, critique of conservation ignores evidence of indigenous activism as well as alternative forms of environmentalism which provide a broader ethical support base for conservation. This article highlights the challenges and contradictions, as well as offers hopeful directions in order to more effectively ground compassionate conservation.

show abstract

Section: Environmental Justice and Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Ethically, supporters of ecological justice have argued that at present concerns for human life, human welfare, is taken for granted, but ecological justice and animal rights are not (e.g. Finsen and Finsen 1994;Baxter 2005;Cafaro and Primack 2014;Miller, Soulé, and Terborgh 2014;Ramp and Bekoff 2015).…”

Section: Environmental Justice and Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Revisiting the Lorax complex: deep ecology and biophilia in cross-cultural perspective

Kopnina

2015

Environmental Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Transitioning to predator‐friendly production is likely to gain increasing momentum because it links two strongly supported social values: animal welfare and biodiversity conservation (Treves & Bruskotter ; Ramp & Bekoff ; Lute et al ). Although most attention on animal production has so far focused on the humane treatment of livestock, there is growing recognition that much animal production also involves killing of wild animals, and this killing often entails a high degree of suffering.…”

Section: A Predator‐friendly Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

The virtuous circle: predator‐friendly farming and ecological restoration in Australia

Johnson

Wallach

2016

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Australia, dingoes are widely regarded as enemies of livestock, and accordingly livestock producers commonly attempt to reduce or eradicate them by lethal control. This can have two forms of perverse outcomes: lethal control often does not succeed in reducing dingo populations and can even result in increased attacks on livestock; and the environmental benefits provided by dingoes, some of which are valuable to livestock production, are lost. We describe these outcomes and suggest mechanisms by which tolerance of dingoes could provide benefits to livestock enterprises, at the same time widening the scope of ecological restoration, and humane treatment of wildlife in Australia.

show abstract

“…). These programs also usually fail to define, defend, and meet clear objectives (Ramp & Bekoff ). For example, across Australia, 68% of conservation‐culling programs targeting medium to large wild mammals do not monitor the targeted control or recovery species, and <3% follow basic experimental design standards (Reddiex & Forsyth ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation

Wallach

Bekoff

Batavia

et al. 2018

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

187

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation practice is informed by science, but it also reflects ethical beliefs about how humanity ought to value and interact with Earth's biota. As human activities continue to drive extinctions and diminish critical life-sustaining ecosystem processes, achieving conservation goals becomes increasingly urgent. However, the determination to react decisively can drive conservationists to handle complex challenges without due deliberation, particularly when wildlife individuals are sacrificed for the so-called greater good of wildlife collectives (populations, species, ecosystems). With growing recognition of the widespread sentience and sapience of many nonhuman animals, standard conservation practices that categorically prioritize collectives without due consideration for the well-being of individuals are ethically untenable. Here we highlight 3 overarching ethical orientations characterizing current and historical practices in conservation that suppress compassion: instrumentalism, collectivism, and nativism. We examine how establishing a commitment to compassion could reorient conservation in more ethically expansive directions that incorporate recognition of the intrinsic value of wildlife, the sentience of nonhuman animals, and the values of novel ecosystems, introduced species, and their members. A compassionate conservation approach allays practices that intentionally and unnecessarily harm wildlife individuals, while aligning with critical conservation goals. Although the urgency of achieving effective outcomes for solving major conservation problems may enhance the appeal of quick and harsh measures, the costs are too high. Continuing to justify moral indifference when causing the suffering of wildlife individuals, particularly those who possess sophisticated capacities for emotion, consciousness, and sociality, risks estranging conservation practice from prevailing, and appropriate, social values. As conservationists and compassionate beings, we must demonstrate concern for both the long-term persistence of collectives and the well-being of individuals by prioritizing strategies that do both.

show abstract

Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation

Cited by 32 publications

References 52 publications

Revisiting the Lorax complex: deep ecology and biophilia in cross-cultural perspective

Revisiting the Lorax complex: deep ecology and biophilia in cross-cultural perspective

The virtuous circle: predator‐friendly farming and ecological restoration in Australia

Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About