Markku Oksanen

Many key concepts in conservation biology such as ‘endangered species’ and ‘natural’ or ‘historic range’ are universalistic, nation-blind and do not implicate the existence of geopolitical borders and sovereign states. However, it is impossible to consider biodiversity conservation without any reference to sovereign states. Consequently, the units of biodiversity and their ranges transform into legal concepts and categories. This paper explores the area that results from this transformation of the universalist idea into national policy targets. Conservation sovereignty denotes to right of each state to design and carry out its own conservation policies. To illustrate the problematic nature of conservation sovereignty, the paper focuses on two cases where the borders and the state play the key role: (1) the global division of conservation labour and (2) assisted migration. All in all, this paper takes a critical look upon the anomalies in universalism and conservation sovereignty.

This review provides an overview of the ethics of extinctions with a focus on the Western analytical environmental ethics literature. It thereby gives special attention to the possible philosophical grounds for Michael Soulé’s assertion that the untimely ‘extinction of populations and species is bad’. Illustrating such debates in environmental ethics, the guiding question for this review concerns why – or when – anthropogenic extinctions are bad or wrong, which also includes the question of when that might not be the case (i.e. which extinctions are even desirable). After providing an explanation of the disciplinary perspective taken (section “Introduction”), the concept of extinction and its history within that literature are introduced (section “Understanding extinction”). Then, in section “Why (or when) might anthropogenic extinctions be morally problematic?”, different reasons for why anthropogenic extinctions might be morally problematic are presented based on the loss of species’ value, harm to nonhuman individuals, the loss of valuable biological variety and duties to future generations. This section concludes by also considering cases where anthropogenic extinctions might be justified. Section “How to respond to extinctions?” then addresses a selection of topics concerning risks and de-extinction technologies. Finally, the section on “Extinction studies” introduces other viewpoints on the ethics of extinction from the extinction studies literature, followed by the “Conclusion”.

The article considers how the preservation of biodiversity is morally justified in some of the key texts on environmental ethics, i.e. whether or not biodiversity can be justified as a moral end in itself. The views are classified according to the criteria which they hold to be the ultimate moral beneficiaries; positions are named as anthropocentrism, biocentrism and ecocentrism. In general, they are not in favor of regarding biodiversity as intrinsically valuable, but think its moral value as derivative. This means that the myriad characters of life on Earth are to be maintained as diverse because of their instrumental value for the constituents. It seems that Naess's deep ecology is the only major position that argues for biodiversity's intrinsic value, but this view has proved to be problematic.

Climate change poses grave risks to food security, and mitigation and adaptation actions have so far been insufficient to lessen the risk of climate-induced violations of the right to food. Could safeguarding the right to food, then, justify some forms of geoengineering? This article examines geoengineering through the analytical lens of the right to food. We look at the components of food security and consider how the acceptability of geoengineering relates to the right to food via its impacts on these components. Our examination shows that results vary greatly between different forms of geoengineering: while some forms of geoengineering fail to respect the right to food, certain other forms may even become obligatory to protect the right to food. It appears that there is no support for aerosol-based solar radiation management, whereas some carbon dioxide removal methods can help protect or promote the right to food. The ethical challenges related to carbon dioxide removal methods are, we note, similar to those that will also be faced in the course of climate change mitigation.

Feministisessä filosofiassa on paljon pohdittu sitä, mitä sukupuolella tarkoitetaan ja miten sukupuoli on olemassa, ja ratkaisut näihin määrittävät sitä, keiden intressejä tai kenen emansipaatiota feministisen filosofian on tarkoitus edistää. Näitä kysymyksiä tarkastelee myös Mari Mikkola kirjassaan The Wrong of Injustice. Mikkola lähestyy aihepiiriä feministisestä filosofiasta käsin analyyttisellä otteella. Hän hyödyntää enimmäkseen feministisen filosofian kirjallisuutta, arvostellen siinä vallitsevia peruskäsityksiä naisesta ja ylipäänsä sukupuolesta, puolustaen niiden sijaan humanistista feminismiä. Siten vaikka ei olisi kiinnostunut feministisen filosofian keskusteluista vaan pikemminkin epäoikeudenmukaisuudesta, vääryydestä sekä ihmisyyden riistämisen kysymyksestä, Mikkola tarjoaa kiinnostavan näkökulman sukupuolisensitiiviseen ja poliittisesti tiedostavaan analyyttiseen filosofiseen antropologiaan.

This important collection focuses on the nature and importance of biodiversity. The concept is clarified and its intrinsic and instrumental value are discussed. Even though the term biodiversity was invented in the 1980s to promote the cause of species conservation, discussions on biological diversity go back to Plato. There are many controversies surrounding biodiversity and a few of them are examined here: What is worthy of protection or restoration and what is the acceptable level of costs? Is it permissible to kill sentient animals to promote native populations? Can species be reintroduced if they have disappeared a long time ago? How should the responsibilities for biodiversity be shared? This book will be of interest to philosophers of science and biologists, but also to anyone interested in conservation and the environment.