Ricardo Rozzi

This contribution is relevant to Ecology and Society readers interested in ethical perspectives that are necessary to counteract a problematic trend identified by the Values Assessment by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): political decisions often prioritize economic criteria which overlook multiple values of nature and human cultures. To address this problem, a new framework called the “3Hs” model of biocultural ethics has been introduced. This model emphasizes the interconnectedness of Hábitats (habitats), Hábitos (habits), and co-Habitantes (co-inhabitants), advocating for a shift towards sustainable practices that respect and enhance our relationship with the natural world. Through an extensive literature review utilizing the 3Hs model, the study explores how different values of nature manifest in three key areas: protected areas (PAs), education, and agro- and forest-ecosystems. • First, it highlights that habitats are crucial for the identity and well-being of human communities. By employing participatory management strategies in protected areas, communities can drive meaningful changes toward sustainability and justice. • Second, habits are examined as reflections of our engagement with environments, illustrating how cultural practices are influenced by both cultural and ecological conditions. Implementing intercultural and multilingual education is vital for fostering positive attitudes towards biocultural diversity, linking future generations with their local ecosystems. • Third, the model addresses our role as co-inhabitants, recognizing the importance of relationships with a diversity of both human and other-than-human beings and the values embedded in these connections. Ultimately, the 3Hs model serves as a guiding principle for integrating the conservation of biological and cultural diversity into Earth Stewardship practices. Formal Abstract The Values Assessment (VA) of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) highlights that contemporary political decisions prioritize economic values of nature while neglecting aesthetic, ecological, and spiritual values. This omission serves as an indirect driver of socio-environmental crises by reinforcing the dominant economic development paradigm that has fueled global biocultural homogenization. To address this problem, we adapt the “3Hs” model— habitat, habits, and co-inhabitants (hábitats, hábitos, co-habitantes, in Spanish)— of the biocultural ethic that offers a heuristic and normative approach to sustaining biological and cultural diversity. We examine case studies on agroecology, education, and protected areas to illustrate Earth Stewardship and biocultural conservation. Integrating these perspectives into decision making fosters sustainable and just futures, as recognized by IPBES-VA’s pathways for revitalizing diverse values of nature. Regarding habits, we provide evidence of educational programs worldwide that promote Earth Stewardship by encouraging respect, reciprocity, and sustainability. These approaches incorporate diverse cultural perspectives, blending experiential learning with ecological knowledge to strengthen biocultural relationships and inspire environmental responsibility. Regarding co-inhabitants, we show how numerous local communities coexist with diverse beings and landscapes, shaping agro- and forest-ecosystems. Despite threats like monocultures, local communities uphold biocultural ethics, preserving biodiversity, food sovereignty, and reciprocal respect for nature. Regarding habitats, we highlight initiatives that integrate conservation with cultural heritage and sustainable development. Despite challenges, PAs play a crucial role in Earth Stewardship and biocultural conservation. The “3Hs” model allows us to understand that every habitat must be cared for, and to put into action IPBES-VA recommendations, such as expanding the range of nature values included in decision making and socio-environmental policies. In this way, the “3Hs” model of biocultural ethics, although rooted in local realities, can acquire global power to transit toward more just and sustainable futures, such as those envisioned by IPBES-VA.

Habitats (where we live), habits (how we live), and inhabitants (who we are) constitute an ecosystem unit. The biosphere is composed of a reticulate mosaic of these habitat-habit-inhabitant units, where humans (with their indigenous languages, ecological knowledge, and practices) have coevolved. Today, these diverse ecosystem units are being violently destroyed by the imposition of a single global colonial cultural model. In Cape Horn at the southern end of the Americas, educators, authorities, and decision makers do not know about the native habitats, language, and flora, and do not distinguish between Cape Horn’s flora and the flora that grows in other parts of the country or the world. In contrast, indigenous people and old residents have a detailed knowledge, but they do not participate in education, and decision making. It is not Homo sapiens in general, but bioculturally biased educators, authorities, and decision makers who need to be transformed into (educated and responsible) members and citizen of biocultural communities. The Omora Ethnobotanical Park educational program was launched to contribute to a biocultural citizenship involving three critical steps: (1) the disclosing of biocultural diversity with a “fine filter” approach that permits understanding of the cultural and ecological diversity hidden by general universal labels; (2) direct “face-to-face” encounters with human and nonhuman co-inhabitants; and (3) actions for protection of habitats and implementation of interpretative spaces that facilitate direct encounters and conservation of biocultural diversity. These steps have been implemented at local and regional scales through the creation of the Omora Ethnobotanical Park and the UNESCO Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve.

A case study of socio-ecological research conducted in Puerto Williams, Chile reveals that persons belonging to different sociocultural groups in Cape Horn have a diversity of perspectives and relationships with nature. For example, a strong sense of home and belonging was expressed by the indigenous Yahgan community and by old residents, mostly descendents of early twentieth-century colonizers. However, people identified with resource use did not include positive answers for a sense of home. The concept of common land presented marked contrasts among respondents. Those identified with a cultivating type of relationship favored private property over public land. For respondents identified with an embedded type of relationship, freedom of movement was one of their most essential values. Some respondents identified with resource use and those identified with intellectual and aesthetic relationships with nature also valued common land. The approach used in this study transforms polarized and dichotomous notions into gradients of perspectives related to different degrees of local and global ecological and cultural environments. The resulting hybrid vision of perspectives on nature may be helpful in times of global change, where both local and global scales contribute to identify specific problematic asymmetries as well as opportunities for communication among different sociocultural groups.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, South America hosts the world’s greatest di­versity of plants and most animal groups, as well as a variety of environmental movements, involving urban and rural communities. South American academic philosophy, however, has given little consideration to this rich biocultural context. To nourish an emergent regional environmental philosophy three main sources can be identified. First, a variety of ancient and contemporary ecological worldviews and practices offer a rich biocultural array of South American environmental thought that can be disclosed and valued through the work of cultural anthropology, liberation philosophy, liberation pedagogy, liberation theology, ecofeminism, and biocultural conservation. Second, some recent academic environmental philosophy research and teaching teams have been formed in South American universities with the support of the interdisciplinary United Nations Environmental Programme or based on the individual interests of some scattered scholars. Third, social movements have increasingly demanded the incorporation of environmental values into regional policies and decision-making processes. These three sources can foster intercultural, international, and transdisciplinary dialogues to further develop a South American environmental philosophy grounded in its precious biocultural diversity.

We combine ecological calendars and the biocultural ethic. The firstrefers to natural or seasonal calendars and focuses on the temporal scale of life cycles and other ecologicalphenomena observed at a given place. The second emphasizes the vital links among human and non-humanco-inhabitants, their habits (e.g., cultural practices of humans or life cycles of other-than-human species) inshared habitats (the “3Hs” of the biocultural ethic). Close observation of biological and cultural diversity, andtheir interrelationships (in short, biocultural diversity), synchronizes cultural practices with natural processes atspecific places. This synchrony is particularly relevant in the context of climate change because by being locallyattuned, communities enhance their capacity to adapt their activities to the variability of temperature, rainfall,and other climatic events. In this article we use the term biocultural calendars to more closely understand thelinks between different life habits in contrasting habitats and annual seasons. In this way, biocultural calendarsprovide an understanding of biological and cultural heterogeneity in different seasons and regions of the worldthat can help us adapt to a rapidly changing world.

Resumen:Una gran diversidad de seres vivos y valores humanos son invisibles a la cultura global prevaleciente, que asocia la palabra biodiversidad con grandes organismos tales como mamíferos y árboles. Paradójicamente, la mayoría de la biodiversidad está compuesta por pequeños organismos que permanecen invisibles para la sociedad global y son subrepresentados en la filosofía, la ciencia y la educación. Para contribuir a resolver esta “ceguera biocultural” sobre la diversidad biológica y de valores, en este artículo presentamos conceptos y prácticas de la filosofía ambiental de campo. Nos enfocamos en la actividad “ecoturismo con lupa” para ilustrar “lentes conceptuales” que amplifican la apreciación de la diversidad biológica y cultural. Esta actividad integra las ciencias, artes, humanidades y ética para apreciar la belleza y relevancia de los pequeños organismos y los múltiples lenguajes, formas de conocimientos y valores que diferentes tradiciones culturales otorgan a la biodiversidad. Los participantes practican formas de pensamiento analógico para co-crear conocimiento y expresiones bioculturales propias, en vez de ser receptores pasivos de información. Finalmente, la práctica de la filosofía ambiental de campo combina actividades corporales y sensoriales con lecturas teóricas que proveen fundamentos conceptuales para cultivar una ética biocultural que orienta formas de co-habitación con pequeños y grandes co-habitantes, humanos y otros-que-humanos, con quienes compartirnos tanto nuestros hábitats locales como la biosfera global. Palabras claves: biodiversidad; ética biocultural; educación; filosofía ambiental de campo; otredad.

Global culture, forms of governance, economic and development models have become drastically dissociated from biological and cultural diversity and their interrelationships. Global society is exposed to globally homogeneously governed life habits that tend to build globally homogeneous technological and urban habitats in the heterogeneous regions of the planet. Concurrently, these globally homogeneous habitats reinforce globally homogeneous life habits. These feedbacks between globalized habits and habitats generate processes of biocultural homogenization, which represents an overlooked dimension of global changes in the Anthropocene. Biocultural homogenization is both driver and product of complex and pervasive losses of biological and cultural diversity. We maintain that it is technically necessary and ethically imperative to reverse these losses. Toward this aim, we present the “3Hs” conceptual framework of the biocultural ethic, which values the vital links among the diversity of life habits of distinct co-in-habitants that share a common habitat. We offer this philosophical framework as a heuristic model for: better understanding multidimensional and multi-scale processes involved in global changes; designing policies that integrate biocultural diversity into ethical, political, and environmental dimensions of the contemporary technological world; and orienting decision-making processes that can better assess the consequences that development policies might have for the conservation or degradation of habitats, life habits, and welfare of co-inhabitants. In this way, the 3Hs “philosophical lens” of the biocultural ethic can contribute to re-orienting global society toward sustainable forms of co-inhabitation amidst the rapidly changing socio-environmental scenarios of the Anthropocene.

Ecologists formulate their scientific theories influenced by ethical values, and in turn, environmental ethicists value nature based on scientific theories. Darwinian evolutionary theory provides clear examples of these complex links, illustrating how these reciprocal relationships do not constitute a closed system, but are undetermined and open to the influences of two broader worlds: the sociocultural and the natural environment. On the one hand, the Darwinian conception of a common evolutionary origin and ecological connectedness has promoted a respect for all forms of life. On the other hand, the metaphors of struggle for existence and natural selection appear as problematic because they foist onto nature the Hobbesian model of a liberal state, a Malthusian model of the economy, and the productive practice of artificial selection, all of which reaffirm modern individualism and the profit motive that are at the roots of our current environmental crisis. These metaphors were included in the original definitions of ecology and environmental ethics by Haeckel and Leopold respectively, and are still pervasive among both ecologists and ethicists. To suppose that these Darwinian notions, derived from a modern-liberal worldview, are a fact of nature constitutes a misleading interpretation. Such supposition represents a serious impediment to our aim of transforming our relationship with the natural world in order to overcome the environmental crisis. To achieve a radical transformation in environmental ethics, we need a new vision of nature.

Ecological sciences have informed environmental ethics from its inception as a scholarly pursuit in the 1970s-so much so that we now have ecological ethics, Deep Ecology, and ecofeminism. Throughout the 20th century, however, most ecologists remained enthralled by the myth that science is value-free. Closer study of science by philosophers reveals that metaphors are inescapable and cognitively indispensable to science, but that metaphors are value-laden. As we confront the enormous challenges of the 21st century-the prospect of a 6th mass extinction, acidifying oceans, rising sea level, and global warming-ecologists can no longer remain aloof from public discourse about what actions to take to address these problems. And that means that 21st century ecologists understand that right action is guided by ethics. However, integration of ethical ideas into academic curricula and ecologists' research agendas is still meager. Aldo Leopold, 1947 President of the Ecological Society of America, keenly understood that latent in ecological sciences is an organizing worldview, with implications for reordering societal values and expanding ethics to embrace "soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land." Going beyond Leopold's land ethic, contemporary environmental ethics includes eco-social justice and the realization that as important as biodiversity is cultural diversity, inter-cultural, inter-institutional, and international collaboration requiring a novel approach known as biocultural conservation. Right action in confronting the challenges of the 21st century requires science and ethics to be seamlessly integrated. Contemporary science proposes the concept of the inclusive ecosystem that recognizes humans as components. In this book, this "inclusive conviction is endorsed, fortunately, by over forty contributors sharing their accounts, of living well in place, combining nature and culture, residing on landscapes: biocultural ethics" (Holmes Rolston, III).

La cultura de la sociedad global habitualmente asocia la palabra animal con vertebrados. Paradójicamente, la mayor parte de la diversidad animal está compuesta por pequeños organismos que permanecen invisibles en la cultura global y están sub-representados en la filosofía, las ciencias y la educación. La ciencia del siglo veintiuno ha desentrañado que muchos invertebrados tienen conciencia y capacidad de sentir dolor. Estos descubrimientos apelan a los filósofos de la ética animal a ser más inclusivos y reevaluar la participación de los invertebrados en la comunidad moral. La ciencia también ha advertido sobre la desaparición de los pequeños co-habitantes animales en medio de la sexta extinción masiva. Esta extinción “invisible” apela a los filósofos ambientales a visibilizar a los invertebrados, cuya existencia es preciosa en sí misma y para el funcionamiento de los ecosistemas de los cuales dependen la biodiversidad y las sociedades humanas. Con un enfoque biocultural que integra dimensiones biofísicas y culturales de la biodiversidad, investigo las raíces del chovinismo taxonómico asociado con la sub-representación y la subordinación de los invertebrados en la filosofía y las ciencias modernas. Las malas noticias son que constatamos un marcado vertebratismo en el imaginario animal. Las buenas noticias son que David Hume, Charles Darwin y la ética biocultural proporcionan bases conceptuales para cultivar un aprecio por los pequeños co-habitantes con quienes compartimos nuestros hábitats locales y la biosfera global.

The culture of global society commonly associates the word animal with vertebrates. Paradoxically, most of animal diversity is composed of small organisms that remain invisible in the global culture and are underrepresented in philosophy, science, and education. Twenty-first century science has revealed that many invertebrates have consciousness and the capacity to feel pain. These discoveries urge animal ethicists to be more inclusive and to reevaluate the participation of invertebrates in the moral community. Science also has warned of the disappearance of small animal co-inhabitants that is occurring in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. This “invisible extinction” compels environmental philosophers to make visible invertebrates, whose existence is precious in itself and for the functioning of ecosystems on which biodiversity and human societies depend. With a biocultural approach that integrates the biophysical and cultural dimensions of biodiversity, I investigate the roots of taxonomic chauvinism associated with the under-representation and subordination of invertebrates in modern philosophy and science. The bad news is the confirmation of a marked vertebratism in animal imagery. The good news is that David Hume, Charles Darwin, and biocultural ethics provide conceptual foundations for cultivating an appreciation of the small co-inhabitants with whom we share our local habitats and the global biosphere.

During our current free market era, a prevailing utilitarian ethics centered on monetary cost benefit analyses continues overriding incessantly a plethora of diverse forms of ecological knowledge and ethics present in the communities of South America, and other regions of the world. For the first time in human history, more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities, and speaks only one of eleven dominant languages, loosing contact with the vast biodiversity and the 7,000 languages that are still spoken around the planet. This global urban enclosure and biocultural homogenization generates physical barriers and conceptual barriers that hinder the understanding of the inextricable links between the habitats of a region, the inhabitants and their habits. However, these vital links are acutely recognized in at least three families of worldviews: contemporary ecological sciences, ancestral Amerindian ecological knowledge, and Western pre-Socratic philosophical roots expressed in the archaic meaning of ethos, and ethics. South American post-Columbian history shows that large-scale exploitation, as well as monocultures that replace native habitats, have been repeatedly associated with ephemeral economic booms that left behind degraded social and ecological environments. A historical analysis of post-Columbian Chile illustrates how a unique mosaic of ecosystems and biological species, cultures, and languages have been progressively replaced by a few biological species and a uniform language and culture. These biocultural homogenization processes are the outcome of a violent conquest, overpowering the resistance of local inhabitants, and today’s scale of violent suppression of biological and cultural diversity is greater than ever. Instead of a post-colonial period we are living in the middle of an ultra-colonial era. To counterbalance these trends, at the southern end of the Americas, through inter-institutional and international collaborations led by the Chilean University of Magallanes and the Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity and the University of North Texas in the US, we developed a methodological approach that we call “field environmental philosophy."

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, South America hosts the world’s greatest di­versity of plants and most animal groups, as well as a variety of environmental movements, involving urban and rural communities. South American academic philosophy, however, has given little consideration to this rich biocultural context. To nourish an emergent regional environmental philosophy three main sources can be identified. First, a variety of ancient and contemporary ecological worldviews and practices offer a rich biocultural array of South American environmental thought that can be disclosed and valued through the work of cultural anthropology, liberation philosophy, liberation pedagogy, liberation theology, ecofeminism, and biocultural conservation. Second, some recent academic environmental philosophy research and teaching teams have been formed in South American universities with the support of the interdisciplinary United Nations Environmental Programme or based on the individual interests of some scattered scholars. Third, social movements have increasingly demanded the incorporation of environmental values into regional policies and decision-making processes. These three sources can foster intercultural, international, and transdisciplinary dialogues to further develop a South American environmental philosophy grounded in its precious biocultural diversity.

True ecotourism requires us to regain an understanding of the inextricable links between the habitats of a region, including its inhabitants, and their habits. With this systemic approach that integrates economic, ecological, and ethical dimensions, we define ecotourism as “an invitation to a journey (‘tour’) to appreciate and share the ‘homes’ (oikos) of diverse human and non-human inhabitants, their singular habits and habitats.” Today, mass nature tourism often denies theselinks and is generating biocultural homogenization, socio-ecological degradation, and marked distributive injustices in iconic places, such as Costa Rica, the Galapagos and Cape Horn. In order to implement genuine ecotourism in Latin America and elsewhere, it is imperative to overcome marketing ambiguities, and pay close attention to local autonomy and biocultural diversity.

Long-term ecological research (LTER), addressing problems that encompass decadal or longer time frames, began as a formal term and program in the United States in 1980. While long-term ecological studies and observation began as early as the 1400s and 1800s in Asia and Europe, respectively, the long-term approach was not formalized until the establishment of the U.S. long-term ecological research programs. These programs permitted ecosystem-level experiments and cross-site comparisons that led to insights into the biosphere’s structure and function. The holistic ecosystem approach of this initiative also allowed the incorporation of the human-dimension of ecology and recently has given rise to a new concept of long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER). Today, long-term ecological research programs exist in at least thirty-two countries (i.e., members of the International Long-Term Ecological Research Network, ILTER). However, consolidation of the international network within the long-term socio-ecological research paradigm still requires: (1) inclusion of certain remote regions of the world, such as southwestern South America, that are still poorly represented; (2) modifications of the type of research conducted, such as integrating social and natural sciences with the humanities and ethics; and (3) the incorporation of findings and results into broader social and political processes. In this context, a nascent long-term socio-ecological research network in Chile, which extends over the longest latitudinal range of temperate forest in the Southern Hemisphere, adds a new remote region to international long-term ecological research previously overlooked. In addition, collaboration with the University of North Texas and other international partners helps to further develop an interdisciplinary approach for the integration of the ecological sciences and environmental philosophy together with traditional ecological knowledge, informal and formal education, policy, the humanities, socio-political processes, and biocultural conservation.