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.

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