On diversity of human-nature relationships in environmental sciences and its implications for the management of ecological crisis.

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
L Mouysset
{"title":"On diversity of human-nature relationships in environmental sciences and its implications for the management of ecological crisis.","authors":"L Mouysset","doi":"10.1007/s40656-023-00575-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Decision makers addressing the ecological crisis face the challenge of considering complex ecosystems in their socioeconomic decisions. Complementary to ecological sciences, other scientific frameworks, grouped under the umbrella term environmental sciences, offer decision makers the opportunity to pursue sustainable paths. Because the environmental sciences are drawn from different branches of science, environmental ethics must go beyond the legacy of ecology and the life sciences to describe the contribution of scientific knowledge to addressing the ecological crisis. In this regard, I analyze and compare three environmental sciences based on their seminal articles: Conservation Biology, Sustainability Science, and Sustainability Economics. My analysis shows that conservation biology and sustainability economics share strong similarities despite their different disciplinary backgrounds (life versus social sciences). Both seek to contrast a biocentric and an anthropocentric perspective. The goal of sustainability is therefore understood as a balance that must be found between these two perspectives. If the issue of balancing human and non-human interests is still relevant to sustainable science, it is more likely to take place in an ecocentric perspective based on alternative ontological and normative prescriptions. Based on this analysis, I distinguish between 'proscriptive value-based' scientific work that cannot be used for policy advice but is flexible to different value systems, and 'prescriptive value-based' scientific work that can be used for policy advice but is fixed within a given value system. Conflicting recommendations from environmental scientists therefore result from the coexistence of multiple 'prescriptive value-based' scientific approaches based on different conceptions of the relationship between humans and nature.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":"45 2","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-023-00575-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decision makers addressing the ecological crisis face the challenge of considering complex ecosystems in their socioeconomic decisions. Complementary to ecological sciences, other scientific frameworks, grouped under the umbrella term environmental sciences, offer decision makers the opportunity to pursue sustainable paths. Because the environmental sciences are drawn from different branches of science, environmental ethics must go beyond the legacy of ecology and the life sciences to describe the contribution of scientific knowledge to addressing the ecological crisis. In this regard, I analyze and compare three environmental sciences based on their seminal articles: Conservation Biology, Sustainability Science, and Sustainability Economics. My analysis shows that conservation biology and sustainability economics share strong similarities despite their different disciplinary backgrounds (life versus social sciences). Both seek to contrast a biocentric and an anthropocentric perspective. The goal of sustainability is therefore understood as a balance that must be found between these two perspectives. If the issue of balancing human and non-human interests is still relevant to sustainable science, it is more likely to take place in an ecocentric perspective based on alternative ontological and normative prescriptions. Based on this analysis, I distinguish between 'proscriptive value-based' scientific work that cannot be used for policy advice but is flexible to different value systems, and 'prescriptive value-based' scientific work that can be used for policy advice but is fixed within a given value system. Conflicting recommendations from environmental scientists therefore result from the coexistence of multiple 'prescriptive value-based' scientific approaches based on different conceptions of the relationship between humans and nature.

论环境科学中人与自然关系的多样性及其对生态危机管理的启示。
解决生态危机的决策者面临着在社会经济决策中考虑复杂生态系统的挑战。与生态科学相辅相成的是,其他科学框架,统称为环境科学,为决策者提供了追求可持续发展道路的机会。由于环境科学来自不同的科学分支,环境伦理学必须超越生态学和生命科学的遗产,以描述科学知识对解决生态危机的贡献。在这方面,我根据他们的开创性文章分析和比较了三个环境科学:保护生物学,可持续性科学和可持续性经济学。我的分析表明,尽管保护生物学和可持续性经济学的学科背景不同(生命科学与社会科学),但它们有着很强的相似性。两者都试图对比生物中心和人类中心的观点。因此,可持续性的目标被理解为必须在这两种观点之间找到平衡。如果平衡人类和非人类利益的问题仍然与可持续科学相关,那么它更有可能发生在基于替代本体论和规范处方的生态中心观点中。基于这一分析,我区分了不能用于政策建议但对不同价值体系具有灵活性的“禁止性价值为基础”的科学工作和可以用于政策建议但固定在给定价值体系内的“规范性价值为基础”的科学工作。因此,环境科学家提出的相互矛盾的建议是由于基于人类与自然关系不同概念的多种“基于价值的规定性”科学方法共存造成的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信