4.3. Multispecies sustainability

In the mainstream of the sustainability debate, the objective of sustainability means a state in which the opportunities of both current and future humans to pursue good life are secured. This idea was already shaped in the Brundtland’s Our Common Future report in 1987. The report presented a spectrum of sustainable development and sustainability, and gave definitions for sustainable development. Even though there are many definitions and concepts, the majority of them include the above understanding of the state of sustainability.

From the perspective of planetary well-being, a world that secures the possibilities of good life for humans, however, is not yet sustainable. The well-being of other species and ecosystems is also intrinsically valuable, and that is what sets the bar much higher: In the context of planetary well-being, the objective of sustainability is a state in which the opportunities of both current and future humans and non-humans to pursue good life, including the chance to live in their natural habitats, are secured. When developments such as climate change and land-use change are considered, anthropocentric sustainability and multi-species sustainability require very different objectives and measures.

Extending the anthropocentric conception of well-being to cover more species has also been discussed in human-animal studies and posthumanist research. Just as planetary well-being, such perspectives often include other species besides humans in their discussion of sustainability. A posthumanist perspective might, for example, ask in what ways humans and other beings co-create worlds in which all have the possibility for a good life. Environmental researcher Pieta Hyvärinen (2020) has examined forest ecosystems as multi-species economies in which livelihood, well-being and meaningful relations are produced. Hyvärinen mentions picking mushrooms as a sustainable economic practice which also participates in the operation of the multispecies web of life: when picking mushrooms, a human observes the forest ecosystem and cooperates with it. 

Many other approaches that seek to improve multispecies sustainability are connected, in one way or another, to the economy and to the food system: one example group could be farming practices and principles which aim to increase the well-being of other species. Such practices include organic agriculture, biodynamic agriculture, regenerative agriculture, permaculture and agroforestry. Biodiversity loss has raised awareness of the well-being of soil organisms and pollinating insects in particular – after all, micro-organisms and insects are fundamental actors in every functional ecosystem. When the systems of food production are also considered from the perspective of ecosystems, attention is paid to a larger whole than just the nourishment and economic profits of humans.

A multispecies perspective on sustainability therefore places stricter conditions on sustainability than an anthropocentric view, while still maintaining a similar view on the principles and direction of the sustainability transformation.




Image. A close-up of an insect hotel. A wall-like insect hotel has been built from pieces of pots and natural materials such as pieces of wood with holes made to them. (Image by Manfred Richter from Pixabay. Free to use under the Pixabay License.)


Animal rights

Discussion on the rights of animals can be considered an early example of improving multi-species sustainability. Animal rights are agreements made between people on how animals should be treated. Animal themselves cannot defend their rights, so their rights rely on human action and human conceptions of animals. The definitions and contents of animal rights are constantly renegotiated. The history of human-animal relations introduced in chapter 2.4 has influenced the fact that animals are historically not given many rights in Western countries (though there are exceptions). As we learned earlier, in Western culture, animals have been excluded from ethics and moral or the reasons for their moral treatment has been based on anthropocentric thinking. The utilisation of animals as food and clothes in modern culture is therefore based on long historical traditions.

On the other hand, the very idea of someone or something having “rights” is a concept stemming from the Western philosophy of universal humanism. Animal rights were first promoted in the era of the 19th century liberation movements, which also saw the promotion of the rights of women and slaves. Vegetarian philosophers, such as Lewis Gombertz (1779–1861), Henry Salt (1851–1939) and J. Howard Moore (1862–1916), demanded moral and legal rights for animals. According to them, the eating of animals should not be permitted because animals and humans are socially, psychologically and ethically equal. Modern animal rights also stem from these ideas. For example, animal cruelty has long been condemned in Western societies.

All in all, the aim of the animal rights movement is the recognition of the moral rights and social status of animals. For example, in Finland, animals’ right to a life without suffering is recorded in the law against cruelty to animals. The Treaty of Lisbon, one of the founding agreements of the European Union, also states that sentient beings and the preconditions for their well-being must be considered in all human activity. In this sense, animals do have rights. It is an entirely different matter, however, how the rights on animals are realised in practice. For example, the lives of farmed animals or animals used for fur production often include significant suffering, as they are deprived of the possibility for species-specific behaviour.

As we learned on the “Introduction to planetary well-being” course, in 2013, India recognised dolphins as non-human persons who have certain rights that are comparable to human rights. In 2015, a court of justice in Argentina ruled that an orangutan who has lived in a zoo for 25 years has the rights of a non-human person, including the right to freedom. Great apes around the world have also gained rights comparable to human rights in various parts of the world, though the cases have been individual and local. However, even in these cases it may be difficult to perceive what such rights mean in practice and how their realisation is ensured. Because non-human persons cannot represent themselves in a human society, it has been suggested that they should be appointed legal guardians.


Good life according to the IPBES

In the reports of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES, the relations between the good life of humans and nature are mostly discussed from an instrumentalising perspective: the functioning of nature provides humans with well-being and opportunities for good life. This anthropocentric conception is described with the terms “ecosystem services” or “Nature’s contributions to people”. Ecosystems are considered to provide humans with services, some of which, such as the production of clean water, air and nutrition, are vital and irreplaceable. At the same time, IPBES highlights the fact that widely shared conceptions about the contents of good life affect the well-being of nature. IPBES therefore seeks to promote multispecies sustainability, albeit from fairly anthropocentric premises.

According to the IPBES, one of the most important factors that leads to the excessive use of nature is the conception of good life that is bound to increasing consumption and high material living standards. The dominant model of thought in the global capitalist culture equates good life with increasing material consumption and considers a high income and purchasing power as signs of success. However, as is well known and demonstrated, good life can also be achieved without exploiting ecosystems.

According to the IPBES, the task of political institutions, such as nation states and municipalities, is to enable and support choices that cause less pressure to ecosystems. In addition to individual (subjective) preferences and general (objective) preconditions, the conditions that enable good life also include social and cultural (intersubjective) factors. Influencing the social and cultural factors in particular, common conceptions of what good life is can be changed.

IPBES’ report emphasises that it is important to support the visions of good life that are based on relationality instead of consumption. Relationality means that both interpersonal relations and the relations between humans and other species (for example, the relation with nature, and relations with plants and animals) are perceived as meaningful, and their meaningfulness is also appreciated on a social and cultural level, for example through customs, celebrations and rituals. The IPBES report mentions the following examples of sustainable visions of good life that emphasise relational values: the South American buen vivir thinking, the Convivialist Manifesto declaration, the degrowth movement, the Transition Town movement, as well as the cultural conceptions of most indigenous peoples on how the well-being of human and nature are interdependent. The visions of good life can also be included in legislation, like in Ecuador, where the fundamental rights of Mother Earth (Pachamama) are secured in the constitution. You can learn about these movements and ideas through the links below.

Even though it is also important to define the preconditions of good life objectively, the IPBES report stresses that it is crucial that people have the chance to make their own decisions on what their good life should entail. Instead of patronising, political institutions can support sustainable life choices (for example, by offering accessible public transportation and spaces for socially sustainable activity) and dismantle social structures that prevent making sustainable choices or guide people towards unsustainable consumption (for example, monetary support for environmentally harmful work or monetary support for certain industries). According to the IPBES, it is especially important that people can participate in making the political decisions that affect their lives and that adequate public space is reserved for, e.g., discussions on values and principles.


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

  • buen vivir
    • https://degrowth.info/de/about-us/project/buen-vivir
    • https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/buen-vivir-a-concept-on-the-rise-in-europe/
  • Convivialist Manifesto
    • https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/the-convivialist-manifesto/
  • degrowth- eli kohtuusliike
    • https://degrowth.info/en/degrowth
    • https://kohtuusliike.fi/
  • Transition Town
    • https://transitionnetwork.org/about-the-movement/what-is-transition/ 
    • https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/transition-towns-the-quiet-networked-revolution/
  • Pachamaman perusoikeude
    • https://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/constitution-republic-ecuador-pachamama-has-rights
    • https://theparliamentofthings.org/article/mother-earth-the-rights-of-pachamama/


Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.

Viimeksi muutettu: tiistaina 16. toukokuuta 2023, 20.16