Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation

Abstract

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.

Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation

“…Nonlethal management approaches have gained increasing popularity in the past decade (Ramp ; Wallach et al. ). Type 1 harms are imposed when animals are brought into captivity (Nuñez et al.…”

Animal welfare, social license, and wildlife use industries

“…There is a distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. Proponents of animal rights (Regan ) and related deontological approaches such as compassionate conservation (Wallach et al ) generally oppose all use or killing of animals (including wildlife) on absolutist philosophical grounds. Animal welfare advocates, on the other hand, apply a consequentialist ethic to animal harm and generally support utilitarian use or control of animals provided that the suffering of affected animals can be justified, measured, and minimized (Dubois et al ).…”

“…Crucially, advocates of animal welfare and sustainability often have different philosophies and core values, despite sharing some common ground (Paquet and Darimont ). However, they often diverge because decisions made to maximize conservation outcomes can affect the welfare of individual animals (Lunney , Wallach et al ). Such conservation actions include poison baiting to achieve eradication of invasive predators on islands (Russell et al ) or lethal control of invasive urban birds by bird enthusiasts to minimize competition with native bird species (Larson et al ).…”

The fatal flaws of compassionate conservation

“…Instead, Wallach et al. () champion the cause of wildlife individuals as the primary focus for action under the framework of compassionate conservation. According to them, compassionate conservation “aims to safeguard Earth's biological diversity while retaining a commitment to treating individuals with respect and concern for their well‐being.” The 4 key tenets of this approach include: “do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity; and peaceful coexistence” (Wallach et al.…”