Lecture 1 - Intro (part I; faking nature) Flashcards

1
Q

Ecomodernism

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Planetary Boundary approach

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Shellenberger and Nordhaus

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

old conservationism

A

nature = fragile
biodiversity
biocentric
industry = enemy
humanity = pest species
doom and gloom
technophobia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

new conservationism

A

nature = robust
ecosystem services
anthropocentric
industry = ally
humanity = god species

technophile

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

practical conflicts

A

landsharing vs landsparing (“half-earth project”)
geo-engineering, nuclear energy, biotech
population control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

pleistocene rewilders

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

views on nature

A

independence
“natural”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

naturalistic fallacy

A

unnatural is not automatically morally unacceptable and vice versa
natural as a biological concept is not natural as normative concept

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

different views on the value of nature

A

endangered (fragile/healthy)
robust (“nature will always find a new balance”)
sphere of purity or spirituality (spectacle; educational/ source of inspo;art/ the sublime, awe inspiring/ therapy; rejection ofmodern society)
resource (recreation/reservoir/maintenance)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

3 groups of environmentalists

A

intrinsic: well-off city folk who seek wilderness
instrumental: progressives who want to ‘develop’ nature for recreation
relational (environmental justice movement): marginalised groups that battle pollution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

referrals to nature in morality and politics

A

often a rhetorical tric
particular views often (mis)used for moral and positions and political goals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

case: south america millions of hectares of forest -> problematic?

A
  • co2 emission
  • wildlife destruction
  • livelihood
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

anthropocentrism VS non-anhropocentrism

A

“humans are always in the center because we always look through a human perspective”
The factual realization is impossible because at this point thought
comes in.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

human exceptionalism

A

two problems:

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

sentience

A

jemery bentham
morally relevant capacities?

17
Q

zoocentrism/sentientism

A

basis of moral status is consciousness and/or sentience (ability to feel pain/pleasure/enjoy/suffer)

18
Q

speciesism

A

discrimination based on belonging to a specific species
-> characteristic of being ‘human’ is not a good reason to be favoured
sef-awareness could lead to more (or less) suffering

19
Q

diffferent animal ethical theories

A

Singer (utilitarian): weigh equal interests equally
Palmer (relational): causal relations determine treatment
Nussbaum (capabilities): flourishing after its own kind
Regan (rights): subjects-of-a-life have inherent value that should be respected

20
Q

biocentrism

A

All living entities have moral status
Albert Schweitzer
Taylor:
Attfield:
Biocentric outlook

21
Q

ecocentrism

A

criticize animal ethicists
still in essence anhropocentric
also criticize biocentrists
emphasis on ecological relations and processes
Aldo Leopold: land ethics

22
Q

holism VS atomism

A

holism: the whole is more than just the sum of its parts

moral holism: wholes (species, ecosystems) have independent moral status

they have their own interests

23
Q

duties to nature

A

thought experiments: the philosopher’s laboratory
last man argument

central question of nature ethical theories: do we have direct or only indirect duties? does nature have intrinsic value?

24
Q

consequentialism

25
Q

human chauvinism

26
Q

intrinsic value

A

3 varieties
1. a goal itself
2. possesses intrinsically valuable properties
3. objective value, independent of a valuing being

1st & 3rd often confused
why important to attribute/acknowledge intrinsic value?

27
Q

other valuations of nature

A

relational values
instrumetal values

28
Q

ecocentrism criticized

A

misantropic (anti-human)
environmental facism (Tom Regan)
how to solve moral dilemmas?

The brain is only concerned with itself, its own security, its own
problems, its own sorrow, and the other' is also this. The brain is never related to anything. There is no other’. The `other’ is the image created by thought
which is the brain.

29
Q

clashes between animal ethics and ecocentrism in practice

A

hunting in order to create healthy populations or save ecosystems
keeping individual animals in captivity (zoos) in order to protect endangered species
eating meat (but could that be non-anthropocentric?)

30
Q

compassionate conservation

A

do no harm
individuals matter
inclusivity
peaceful coexistence

31
Q

specific ecocentric theories: deep ecology

A

Arne Naess
deep VS shallow ecology
non-anthropocentric and holisitic
a cahnge in world view is needed
identification with nature

32
Q

social ecology

A

Murray Bookchin
break down existing hierarchies between people

33
Q

Ecofeminism

A

Val Plumwood (gonna read a text of her), Karen Warren
connection between domination of women and nature
evident in gendered language: mother earth/nature
both are consequences of patriarchy and capitalism
capitalism = intrinsically focused on exploitation, destruction and instrumentalization of animals

34
Q

false dualisms of ecocentrism

A

val plumwood

35
Q

multispecies justice theory

36
Q

intersectionality

37
Q

intersectional forms of commodification

A

exoticism of asian and

38
Q

environmental pragmatism

A

Anthony Weston, Andrew Light
not thinks too much about fundamental questions (nature intrinsic value, etc)
try to reach agreement on practical guidelines
via deliberation
different fundamental values steer deliberation
how do people define nature?