Challenges at the intersection of conservation and ethics: Reply to Meyer et al. 2021

Abstract

When axioms (i.e., important yet assumed beliefs or principles) come to be accepted as authoritative and incontrovertible truths, they can become dogma. In conservation science, the belief that “conservation is engaged in the protection of the integrity and continuity of natural processes, not the welfare of individuals” (Soulé 1985) has come to be accepted somewhat dogmatically; so, too, has the practice of excluding non-native species in biodiversity calculations. Although proponents of this practice often refer to Soulé (1985) as justification, in a later work Soulé (1990) claims the distinction between native and non-native species is incoherent and advocates that species extinct in their historical ranges may be best conserved elsewhere. Against this backdrop,Wallach et al. (2020) opens a new perspective, one that emerges by challenging these 2 dogmas of conservation. Motivated by the sense that individuals matter morally and by the hidden subjectivity inherent in judgments of nativeness, especially in scientific discourse, we wonder how the inclusion of species typically considered nonnative changes assessments of biodiversity loss.

Citation

Nelson, Michael Paul; Batavia, Chelsea; Brandis, Kate J.; Carroll, Scott P.; Celermajer, Danielle; Linklater, Wayne; Lundgren, Erick; Ramp, Daniel; Steer, Jamie; Yanco, Esty; Wallach, Arian D. 2021. Challenges at the intersection of conservation and ethics: Reply to Meyer et al. 2021. Conservation Biology. 35(1): 373-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13666.