The session on āClimate justice, environmental ethics, and the global ecological crisisā featured leading figures, including keynote speaker Prof. Stephen Gardiner (University of Washington), Prof. Clare Palmer (Texas A&M University), Dr. Bernice Bovenkerk (Wageningen University) and Prof. Ron Sandler (Northeastern University). The panel set out to explore the prospects of a closer integration of ethical themes across climate ethics, environmental ethics, and political theory.
This piece focuses on two interesting points in the discussion among the panellists and the participants.
First, the panellists explored how the various fields have addressed non-human entities. Specifically, they discussed why climate ethics seem to have retained a predominant anthropocentric focus while seemingly overlooking ethical considerations for non-humans. Prof. Gardiner questioned the framing of climate ethics, environmental ethics, and political theory as isolated fields. He reminded us of the difficulty of categorising each field as a silo, as many leading scholars were dedicating themselves to different domains simultaneously. He argued that the representation of climate ethics as a human-centred domain might be a caricature of the field at a certain point in time. Furthermore, he cautioned against attributing an entire field to a single author and proposed an alternative perspective. He suggested that while some scholars ended up focusing on questions of global and intergenerational justice, others were engaging with non-anthropocentrism in other contexts. He also prompted us to question why environmental ethics did not dedicate more attention to climate change issues, thus bridging its non-anthropocentric exploration to the climate crisis. So, while being critical of climate ethics for seemingly overlooking non-humans, can we retain the same critical stance towards environmental ethics? Prof. Palmer seemed to agree with Prof. Gardinerās alternative framing. She also advanced the idea that climate policies can serve both human and non-human interests. For instance, reductions in greenhouse gas levels levels can lead to positive impacts on both human and non-human well-being. The convergence of human and nonhuman interests in climate policies could partly explain why political theory has not directly addressed non-humans.
Secondly, the panellist addressed how novel technologies could potentially alter and disrupt fundamental concepts. Prof. Sandler delved into how advances in gene editing technologies have introduced unprecedented possibilities in conservation. In the past, the focus rested on modifying human behaviour to accommodate non-human animal and plant diversity. However, current attention has shifted to modifying non-humans to adapt to a climate-changed world. This is an insightful case where emerging technologies shift priorities and research questions while simultaneously challenging fundamental notions. Similarly, Dr. Bovenkerk highlighted that the combination of AI and synthetic biology for creating (living) organisms may necessitate new definitions of life and, overall, might require rethinking basic principles. Overall, the technologies we develop to respond to climate change prompt us to rethink the human-nature relationship as well as compelling us to develop new accounts and perspectives.
Ultimately, the global ecological crisis involves overlapping emergencies, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, which cannot be addressed in isolation or separated from broader socio-political issues. Collaboration across disciplines and the integration, rather than segregation, of different fields is essential for addressing these challenges. Thanks to Dr Alexandria Poole, Dr Michel Bourban and Dr Dominic Lenzi for bringing together a wealth of expertise and organising an insightful and timely panel. Thank you to the ESDiT programme and 4TU for offering the opportunity to come together and reflect on how philosophy can help us tackle new challenges introduced by climate change and our own technological responses.
*All the opinions in this blog piece reflect the authorās interpretation of the discussion and might not correspond to the panellistsā perspectives.