See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249432314

All About Nature

Article in Conservation Biology · February 2005

DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00544.x

CITATIONS READS
24 2,244

2 authors, including:

Julianne Warren
Scholar-at-large
38 PUBLICATIONS 223 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Julianne Warren on 14 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

All About Nature
JULIANNE LUTZ NEWTON∗ AND ERIC T. FREYFOGLE†‡
∗
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Center for Wildlife Ecology, 283 Natural
Resources Building, MC-652, 607 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, U.S.A.
†University of Illinois College of Law, 504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue, Champaign, IL 61820, U.S.A., email efreyfog@law.uiuc.edu
We are grateful to the editor of Conservation Biology
for arranging this Forum and for the willingness of such
distinguished conservationists to respond to our essay.
Our critique of sustainability has clearly touched a nerve.
By way of rejoinder we would like to revisit the main point
of our essay, approaching it from a different direction, and
then turn briefly to the three responses.
At its root, conservation is all about nature and the ways
people interact with it. From a conservation perspective,
some ways of using nature are acceptable and some are
not. How do we tell which is which? We can ask this
question in other ways: Where is the line between using
land and abusing it? Or, if conservation succeeded, what
would success look like, in terms of nature itself?
Currently, there is no consensus answer to these ques-
tions, not among society generally, nor among conserva-
tionists. Indeed, these questions are not asked very often
and are not asked in ways that keep these questions sepa-
rate from the many other questions that conservationists
find important.
As posed, our questions are designed expressly to focus
attention on the core ends or aims of conservation, having
to do with the physical condition of nature. Everything
else about conservation, in our view, is secondary to the
achievement of these ends. Conservation is about living
right in relation to lands and waters. If we do not get that
relation right, judged in terms of our effects on nature
itself, conservation has failed. Conservation might also be
about other things—about living right with one another,
for instance, or living right with future generations—but
it is first and foremost about the direct human–nature
link. If we get that wrong, we can never declare success.
A central reason why we do not like the concept of
sustainability is because we cannot extract from it a clear
answer to our questions about humans and nature. We
‡Address correspondence to E. T. Freyfogle.
Paper submitted October 12, 2004; revised manuscript accepted
October 13, 2004.
42
Conservation Biology, Pages 42–44
Volume 19, No. 1, February 2005
cannot find in it a clear test for distinguishing land use
from land abuse. A sound answer to our questions neces-
sarily must be phrased in terms of nature itself. It could
be phrased in terms of how nature functions collectively
in a given place over time; it could be phrased in terms of
the variety of life forms that inhabit the place; it could be
phrased in terms of the aesthetic appearance of nature; or
it could (as we recommend) include all three of these in-
terconnected categories. Any sound goal, though, needs
to be phrased in this manner if it is to focus attention
where it needs to be focused: on physical nature itself
and how well it is holding up under human use.
Three further points might clarify our claims (although
without providing the full defense that we would like to
offer). The first has to do with the ways people live on
land and why, in our view, it is not productive to frame
conservation’s overall goal in terms of human behavior.
People around the world embrace varied ideas about the
good life. It is not the job of conservation, surely, to tell
people precisely how to live. To the extent that alternative
modes of living keep nature’s physical condition in line
with the stated goal, then people can have reasonable
freedom to select (and re-select) among these modes.
Second, there are the issues of morality and mental
state. Again, it is tempting to say that conservation ul-
timately is about embracing a particular line of ethical
reasoning, or a particular world view. It is a temptation
that needs resisting, as important as morality is. Like the
attempt to frame a conservation goal in terms of how hu-
mans live, morality and mental state raise intermediate
issues that are best set aside at this final stage of things,
which (as we have said) is entirely about the physical
condition of nature. If people’s behaviors are properly re-
spectful of nature, in the sense that they comport with
the overall goal, they can be free to select their own moral
views and mental state.
Third, there are the messy questions about diagnoses
and remedies for land abuse. Why do we misuse nature,
and how do things need to change to rectify our errors?
Newton & Freyfogle
The massive writing on these questions certainly has its
place. But it is no substitute for, and should not be con-
fused with, a clear conservation goal.
Let us return to the substance of such a goal. The pos-
sible elements of it, set forth above as three intercon-
nected categories, were intended not merely to illustrate
our point, but to present what we view as the key com-
ponents that need considering in framing a sound goal.
There is the functional and organizational component,
the ethical component, and the aesthetic component.
We want nature to function in particular types of ways
over time, both to produce the resources we need and
for other reasons. As for ethics, nature’s condition may
be good only when, in dealing with it, we abide by cer-
tain ethical norms or ideals, which could take a variety of
forms. (For instance, if we feel ethically bound to protect
all species, all species must then be part of the physical
nature that we protect.) Finally, there is the aesthetic com-
ponent, which has to do with what nature looks like and
whether it accords with our aesthetic preferences.
Readers, of course, might object at this point. Have
we not said that our conservation goal should not be
dictated by human behavior and issues of morality and
mental state? We have, and it is important to see why our
positions are consistent.
In developing a conservation goal, it will be necessary
to take into account a wide variety of considerations—
human needs, social justice, and ethical aspirations
among them. Yet it is critical to realize that these issues
are all intermediate ones. They are steps on the way to
the conservation goal and not part of the physical nature
goal itself. By way of illustration: five people may have
five different reasons—inconsistent ones, even—for be-
lieving that we should protect fertile soil. If they all end
up in the same place, protecting the physical soil, people
are free to choose different logical paths to get there.
Arguments about intermediate issues have been, and
remain, costly and confusing. How much energy has
been spent—wasted, perhaps more aptly—arguing about
whether humans do or do not have to overcome their an-
thropocentrism to live right with nature? And what about
the academic energy spent on what the term wilderness
means (as if its meaning were something other than a
dynamic human convention) and whether or not true
wilderness really exists?
Surely we would be better off if we put aside such
issues and got to the core questions: How do we need
nature to function (within the limits it imposes)? In what
ways should ethical ideals constrain our uses of nature?
And what would we like nature to look like? It hardly
needs saying that answers to these questions need to at-
tend closely to nature itself. Nature, that is, must play a big
role in producing our answers. It is vital to note (and again
the confusion on this is legion) that these are normative
questions, going well beyond science. Moreover, a sound
conservation goal takes into account not just science but
All About Nature 43
our strong sense of its incompleteness (Freyfogle & New-
ton 2002).
In his response, David Ehrenfeld (2005, this issue) in-
cludes a variety of comments about the steps necessary
to achieve conservation success. He speaks of moral ex-
ertion and change in world view, about using energy and
materials more efficiently, and about love and respect to-
ward nature. But these are all about means, not about
the end. Maybe they are necessary, maybe they are not.
Too often we argue endlessly about means when our true
disagreement is really about our unstated and perhaps ill-
considered ends. The “ecological footprint” idea ( Wack-
ernagel & Rees 1996) gets us closer to a goal, in that it
counsels us to reduce our footprint (and vividly illustrates
our destructive life patterns). But how small do the foot-
prints need to be, and will a small footprint automatically
implement the ethical and aesthetic elements of our goal?
Indeed, will it necessarily even protect nature’s ecological
functioning?
Robert Paehkle’s response (2005, this issue) also over-
flows with thoughtful comments about means, from
greater economic efficiency and productivity, to embrac-
ing material sufficiency, to new product designs, to “re-
balancing our social and economic priorities.” We find
it revealing that, when he does comment about how we
assess impacts on nature, he finds it appropriate (essen-
tial?) to use the terms ecological health and the health
of ecosystems. He observes that we face “a limit” in what
we can extract from nature, and of course we do. But
what is the limit, and how do we identify it? Industrial so-
ciety, we are told, is “problematic for nature.” To be sure,
but where is the line between the problematic and the
nonproblematic? As for enhancing “production of human
well-being,” how might we respond, armed only with sus-
tainability, to the libertarian claim that we can adequately
honor the next generation by bequeathing 10 symphonies
in place of the 10 species we have exterminated? Or bet-
ter yet, does the invention of the transistor justify, in our
intergenerational calculus, 10 hypoxic dead zones? When
all considerations are lumped together, it is too easy for
nature to get lost.
In their concluding comments Padoch and Sears (2005,
this issue) head in our direction but stop at a position that
we find troubling. They contend that a sound goal would
refer “to how humans are interacting with the natural
environment,” and they recommend that we each need
“to know what are the problems that affect the health and
well-being of our own and other communities.” We agree,
of course. But observations such as these provide merely
a place to begin. The question is not about knowing how
humans interact with nature, it is about evaluating their
interactions normatively. Yes, we need to attend to the
health of our communities, but how do we measure it,
and when is it healthy enough?
Both Ehrenfeld and Paehlke refer to the issue of fos-
sil fuel energy and to the shortages in our supplies of it.
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 1, February 2005
44 All About Nature
Surely this is, in some way, a conservation problem. But in
what way? A common answer is that our usage patterns
are unsustainable because supplies are running out. But
to view this as a supply issue—as sustainability encour-
ages us to do—is to look in the wrong direction. The
conservation problem with oil is not that we are running
out; it is that we are not running out fast enough. The
conservation worry is about the ill effects of oil consump-
tion on nature, not about the exhaustion of underground
petroleum pools. Massive burning of fossil fuel severely
disrupts the functioning of natural systems; for that rea-
son it is contrary to sound conservation.
Uniting the three responses to our essay is the con-
tention that sustainability is nonetheless a good term be-
cause it is so inclusive. All manner of people can gather
together under it and talk. Perhaps so, and perhaps some
good might come from it. What, though, are they going
to talk about, and how structured will their discussions
be? They could spend lifetimes under the big tent, argu-
ing with one another, and rarely stumble upon the issues
that ought to inform a sound conservation goal. We need
to find wide agreement upon a sound goal; without a
goal it is hard to see how we can achieve it or measure
progress toward it. With a good goal in hand we could
take a pragmatic approach and try out all manner of pro-
posed means, to test how well they worked.
We close with three points. First, we do not mean to
suggest that only one phrasing of conservation’s goal is
possible or that a conservation goal, once set, is unchange-
able. We do believe that nature itself imposes strong con-
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 1, February 2005
View publication stats
Newton & Freyfogle
straints on how we can use it, which is to say nature limits
our options. We also believe that some forms of moral rea-
soning are better than others; on this point, too, all goals
are not equal. And there is the immense practical value
that comes when conservation forces can support a com-
mon platform. Second, The question of who decides is a
challenging one, which we lack space to address. Finally,
it is entirely possible that people in many places cannot
achieve a sound conservation goal while also achieving
social justice, economic security, and other goals. Partic-
ularly in the short run, trade-offs are inevitable. The way
to make them, however, is not to blend all goals together
and come up with a single one so that we can claim over-
all progress even as nature degrades (and perhaps even
hide the degradation). This is a prescription for muddled
thinking and makes difficult issues even worse. Far better,
we believe, is to identify our conservation failures, admit
them, and strive to do better.
Literature Cited
Ehrenfeld, D. 2005. Living with the of imperfection of Sustainability.
Conservation Biology 19:33–35.
Freyfogle, E. T., and J. L. Newton. 2002. Putting science in its place.
Conservation Biology 16:863–873.
Padoch, C., and R. R. Sears. 2005. Conserving concepts: in praise of
sustainability. Conservation Biology 19:39–41.
Paehlke, R. 2005. Sustainability as a bridging concept. Conservation
Biology 19:36–38.
Wackernagel, M., and W. Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint: reducing
human impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia.