Many different environmental scientists have proposed different potential foundations for environmental ethics. Bryan Norton, in particular, proposes the idea of transformative value, which offers respectable and defensible approaches to protecting species and ecosystems. Transformative value has the ability to sort human demand values in a way that provides environmentalists a solid way to not only criticize modern society’s rampant overconsumption and materialism, but also creates a way to defensibly advocate for wild species and ecosystems.
To begin with, transformative value is the ideology that a person’s experience in nature can alter their real-life preferences, specifically in relation to consumption of goods and their ecological footprint. Aesthetic value splits into two different approaches, both of which fall in line with transformative value. Lilly-Marlene Russow follows a traditional approach, which is based on the value of physical experience in nature. People highly value experience; it is why people spend years planning on trips to Greece or to see the Mona Lisa in person. People do not travel across the planet because they have never seen a country or piece of artwork before but because the process of experiencing those things in person is so revered. Species and ecosystems evoke those same kinds of feelings. Visually appealing organisms like birds of paradise or African elephants and similarly appealing ecosystems like coral reefs and tropical rainforests evoke a sense of awe and admiration that is valuable to people, so individuals are more likely to protect them.
The desire to physically see these organisms or habitats further intensifies these feelings. While any person can look up pictures of sloths or vibrant coral, the potential to be close to the physical organism drives a desire to preserve them and their habitats. This also explains why endangered species have more done to protect them when compared to healthy species. Since there is a higher threat of losing the potential experiences forever, more work is put into saving and rebuilding those species rather than a well-populated one. The value of experience creates a ranking system that scientists are able to use to determine which species or ecosystem needs the most assistance and advocacy. In addition, Transformative value largely uses this experience desire as a stepping stone. Individuals who desire these experiences will want to protect these ecosystems and animals until they can have the opportunity to see them up close. Those who are able to actually achieve those experiences usually leave with a solidified respect and admiration for the species or ecosystem they visited. The vast amounts of social media posts about experiences like African safaris and hiking up mountains or scuba diving in the Great Barrier Reef show this change. The positive outcome of that experience solidifies already held values about that species or ecosystem, pushing people to pay more attention to the health of that location or species, specifically in how their own individual behavior affects those places. If a person, for example, tends to enjoy the beautiful colors of the Scarlet Macaw but watches one suffocate on a piece of plastic, they can experience a shift in their behavior. A general, vague admiration for the visual aspect of an animal shifts into an awareness about consumption of plastic, which is overall beneficial. People who are conscious of their ecological footprint and its effects are more likely to reduce that pollution.
Mark Sagoff’s approach is more unconventional when compared to Russow’s proposal. His main argument focuses on the metaphorical values associated with different aspects of nature. Humans place meaning to certain objects and sometimes these objects are species or ecosystems. The meaning associated with these organisms therefore makes them worthy of protection (Norton 198-199). This does not mean that someone deeming a flower as pretty means that it is then worthy of protect, rather this is about society-wide values different organisms have. Sagoff uses America as an example due to the large amount of species that have these meanings placed on them. During the early days of the United States of America, one of its desirable traits was its vast swaths of unexplored wilderness, it presented a chance at a fresh start for many incoming settlers, both those immigrating to the country or just moving west. The untouched land and the experiences that came with exploring and living it began to adopt American ideals like freedom, perseverance, survival, and independence. Sagoff specifically mentions how the bald eagle represents freedom and was adopted as the national bird to maintain that association.
Society reflects its ideals onto organisms like the bald eagle to give a tangible object to represent that meaning. The idea of freedom is complex and so having a wild animal that populates all 50 states represent that idea helps make it more comprehendible to people. Due to the meaning attached to bald eagles, their importance sky rockets and so people’s willingness to protect them follows suit. If such an animal were to go extinct, it would represent an end to such a highly respected value and would reflect back on the morals of the society that allowed that species to go extinct (Norton 199). Therefore, Sagoff’s proposed rationale is that since many species and habitats are associated with these meanings, it provides a basis for protection since the health of the species reflects back on the values of the society.
Transformative value takes Sagoff’s metaphorical approach and applies it to Russow’s ideas. People value meanings associated with different organisms, making their interactions with said organisms more impactful on the individual. The held beliefs about a certain species is reinforced, leaving behind a new solidified respect and admiration, making them more likely to be advocated for. Americans are more likely to advocate for the protection of bison herds because of the independence that has been associated with them. Teaching someone about the value placed on a species or ecosystem can provide a new perspective on said object, transforming, or solidifying how a person perceives nature. The use of aesthetic value in transformative value helps to explain part of why humans care about different aspects of the environment. As more people appreciate nature, so does the amount of protective policies set in place. Untouched environments attract that appreciation. People like to be visitors in a setting that traditionally shows no evidence of human involvement because of the visual that comes with an untouched ecosystem.
The other explanation comes from economic value. Since transformative value uses human demands, economic value falls under that category. Economic value also creates a ranking system under transformative value. Monetary value placed on different natural resources allows scientists to rank the importance of various situations. Also, it gives the layperson a way to understand the importance of different natural resources in terms that are familiar to them. The degradation of the everglades in south Florida is an example of this. Lake Okeechobee typically gathers all the nitrogen and phosphorous rich runoff water from local farms, causing a surplus in the lake’s ecosystem. While lake Okeechobee used to be able to divert its excess water to the Everglades for filtration, the drastic shrinkage of the marshland has led to the excess water is diverted to either coastline. Without the natural filtration system provided by the grass in the Everglades, all the phosphorous and nitrogen is pumped into coastal waters, propagating intense algal blooms that irritate the lungs, eyes, and nose while killing coastal marine life. Restoration of the everglades effectively reverses the lost income from decreased tourism and damaged coastlines. Since the everglades are worth having, it is worth paying for its restoration. When this type of thinking is applied to issues, it gives environmentalists to not only criticize the actions that caused the issues but to also advocate for the non-traditionally pleasing organisms, like insects. Identifying the economic toll caused by people’s over consumptive behavior allows scientists to try to change public policies since the positive, easy access to goods, is outweighed by the negative, the diminishing of crucial resources like wood.
Cost-benefit analysis takes that price tag placed on natural resources and applies it to governmental decision making. The potential positive net sum that comes out of a restoration project is weighed against any potential losses, like money, to determine if the environmental problem is worth solving. Transformative value uses human demands to let cost-benefit analysis ranks the importance of different issues and the best solutions to fix them. Considering all the factors present in an issue and taking the course of action with the most beneficial outcome is a rational world view, usually built off of previous effective decisions and defensible reasoning. Norton claims that this type of rational world view is necessary for ranking and solving environmental issues (Norton 189). Insect populations can be used in this line of thinking. Roughly 80% of foliage is pollinated by insects from flies to beetles to bees, making them a crucial part of any ecosystem (The Good 4). Losing pollination insects damages crop yields and even wild ecosystems. While crops could instead by pollinated by hand, that requires a lot more time and effort than utilizing the natural processes. Their importance allows scientists to advocate for their preservation because of not only their economic value but also because of the rational world view, since it does not make sense to give up pollinating insects in favor of manual pollination.
Finally, philosophers like Paul Taylor and Gary Varner place a lot of emphasis on the idea of intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the idea that all species inherently have value regardless of whether humans’ value them or not. Bryan Norton downplays the importance of intrinsic value but does provide a decent rationale as to why it should not be a corner stone of someone’s argument. Specifically, Norton mentions “felt” and “considered” preferences. Felt preferences are wants or desires are temporary and can change on a whim, while considered preferences are wants or desires that withstand situations that test the strength of those feelings (Norton 208). Since transformative value uses the idea that nature can cause fundamental shifts in a person’s behavior, felt preferences can likewise change into considered preferences. These considered preferences are decidedly more crucial to the preservation of species and ecosystems than the importance of recognizing intrinsic value. Intrinsic value can be a hard concept for most people to understand who are outside the scientific field because they most likely do not initially see species this way. Explaining the concept does little to change a person’s behavior and teach them to care about other species. However, a person’s felt preferences changing into considered preferences does change a person’s behavior. As mentioned earlier, a person viewing a scarlet macaw suffocating on a piece of trash causes a shift from the preference of convenient single use plastic bags to a desire to protect birds from litter to avoid another situation like that one. Ultimately, a person changing their preferences is more effective to promote positive behavior shifts instead of attempting to teach individuals that species are valuable even if people do not care about them. Intrinsic value is important and can be woven into a person’s worldview once that considered preference is created. But it is not effective when compared to a hand’s on experience with species that are traditionally cared about.
In essence, while transformative value is an anthropocentric way to view nature, at the end of the day humans are the deciding factor on whether certain species and ecosystems survive regardless of their intrinsic value. Therefore, an anthropocentric view focused on changing people’s core values is needed to garner enough successful activism and political support to thoroughly preserve nature. Transformative value provides enough structure to address human demands but also allows ranking systems to emerge that benefit wild species and untouched ecosystems.
2019-4-18-1555599470