Marion Hourdequin

Success is a teleological concept, defined in terms of a particular type of goal or outcome. From a biological point of view, organism-level evolutionary success is typically defined in relation to organismic fitness. At the species level, success might be assessed based on the _persistence_ or _proliferation_ of a particular species. This chapter argues that neither a persistence nor a proliferation approach to human success adequately captures the _ethical_ dimensions of human success, and thus neither is satisfactory as a general conception of human success. For example, biological conceptions of human success that focus on persistence and proliferation of _Homo sapiens_ relative to other species cannot be easily squared with broader conceptions of human success that focus on the ethical value of humans’ coexistence with other species. Prominent biological conceptions of success, though appropriate for certain contexts, can’t account for the diverse ways that human success might reasonably be conceived.

In light of rapid environmental change, the role of history in mediating our relationship to the natural world is increasingly contentious. For ecological restoration, the challenge is particularly acute, as restoration has traditionally looked to the past in establishing goals and judging success. Here, the debate over history often centers on two opposing poles: one in which historical, predisturbance conditions remain the touchstone for restoration, and the other in which both history and nature are viewed as passé. By breaking down traditional binaristic categories, hybrid landscapes such as former military sites can disrupt these polarities, opening new possibilities for ecological restoration. This chapter argues that national wildlife refuges at former US military sites—and the diverse narratives surrounding them—offer the potential to creatively explore relationships between nature, culture, and history in ecological restoration, showing how natural and cultural histories remain relevant, even in the face of significant environmental change.

The widely-heralded arrival of the “Anthropocene” era seems to call the existence and value of the natural world into question. Is the world prior to human alteration of it something worth preserving? Can and should we attempt to restore ecological conditions prior to human disturbance? Ecological restoration has traditionally used the past as a reference point in establishing standards and assessing the value of restored landscapes. In many landscapes, however, the traditional notion of historical fidelity provides inadequate guidance because contemporary and future social, ecological, or climate contexts differ, or will differ, radically from those that historically prevailed. Thus, some scholars recommend that we move toward restoration that looks to the future instead of the past. Others propose a “narrative ethics” that accounts for the past while allowing a place to evolve in ways that fit its unfolding story. Both futuristic and narrative approaches to restoration accommodate change and acknowledge a role for social values. However, both have been criticized as overly anthropocentric, and neither is strongly action guiding. Using examples of restoration at former military sites, I consider how we might develop an ethics of ecological restoration that acknowledges change while taking account of the past.

Global climate change raises critical issues of intergenerational ethics. One of these issues involves what Stephen Gardiner calls intergenera­tional buck-passing (IGBP)—a pattern through which each generation does little to address climate change and instead passes the problem along to the next, progressively amplifying the climate crisis over time. My goal in this paper to explore two key questions: (1) What is at the root of intergenera­tional buck-passing? and (2) What changes might help to disrupt it? To an­swer these questions, I argue that we need to understand and address the role of moral ambivalence in reinforcing the status quo and creating friction that impedes climate action. Confronting moral ambivalence may enable more thoughtful and just responses to climate change that support intergenerational solidarity and mutual flourishing.

Some proponents of the Anthropocene argue that it is time adopt a future-oriented outlook: natural baselines no longer matter, and humans should remake the planet for the better. This raises questions about whose vision should guide such remaking, and whether the past deserves any consideration in adapting for the future. I argue that the past remains relevant, because the natural, cultural, and social worlds people enter into – shaped by those who came before us – matter. On this view, there are reasons to value ‘nature’, even in a human-altered world, and climate adaptation should take that into account.

Global-scale solar geoengineering raises critical ethical questions, including questions of distributive, procedural, and intergenerational justice. Although geoengineering is sometimes framed as a response to injustice, insofar as it might benefit those most vulnerable to climate-related harms, geoengineering also has the potential to exacerbate climate injustice, especially if control of research, governance, and potential plans for deployment remains concentrated in the hands of a few. The scope and scale of solar geoengineering, the diverse concerns it raises, and the lack of consensus surrounding it pose particular challenges for justice. I argue that addressing these challenges requires an inclusive, dialogical approach that takes seriously diverse perspectives, particularly the perspectives of those who are most affected by climate change and those who have had the least voice in decisions surrounding it. The concept of recognition––as developed in the work of Nancy Fraser, David Schlosberg, and others––offers a normative ground for this approach and can help guide the development of institutions and practices directed toward geoengineering justice.

ABSTRACTIn recent work, Joshua Horton and David Keith argue on distributive and consequentialist grounds that research into solar radiation management geoengineering is justified because the resulting knowledge has the potential to benefit everyone, particularly the ‘global poor.’ I argue that this view overlooks procedural and recognitional justice, and thus relegates to the background questions of how SRM research should be governed. In response to Horton and Keith, I argue for a multidimensional approach to geoengineering justice, which entails that questions of how to govern SRM research should be addressed from the very outset – that is, now.

Ecosystem management is an integrative, systems-based approach developed in response to the inadequacy of land management strategies centered on single species or resources such as timber. Contemporary ecosystem management acknowledges the dynamism of natural systems, need for ongoing adaptive learning, and importance of citizen engagement, especially in managing public lands. However, ecosystem management faces both conceptual and ethical challenges. Core concepts—such as ecosystem, stability, health, and resilience—remain difficult to define and operationalize. In addition, rapid directional changes in ecological systems have destabilized the use of historical baselines for management. One response to this challenge is to seek new moorings in an “ecosystem services” approach, focused on the role of ecological systems in supporting human interests and needs. Although ecosystem management began as a way to broaden beyond a focus on maximizing yields of particular resources, ecosystem services approaches may—ironically—reintroduce reductionistic tendencies that thwart this original goal.