T RADE OFF

We have seen that many species do have instrumental value for human beings, but we have also seen that it is not always easy to tell whether this value is strong enough to explain the moral indignation when our encroachments in nature cause species to go extinct.

Encroachments that contribute to the extinction of other species are done for a reason, and the instrumental value of the threatened species has to be weighed against the value of the things we will have to abstain from if we are to protect the species. I.e. the instrumental value of a species has to compete with other instrumental values.⁹⁷ To preserve species can also be quite expensive,⁹⁸ and it is at least not inconceivable that in a number of such situations the instrumental value of the destructive alternative may be greater for us than the instrumental value of the destructed species. Even though this in many cases may be a matter of short-sightedness,⁹⁹ we cannot assume that it is always so. It might be that the alternative that contributes to extinction is sometimes more instrumentally valuable even if we consider the long-term effects.

Alan Randall is conservatively optimistic regarding the outcome of trade-offs between human values that favour preservation and human values that favour exploitation. He argues that cost-benefit analyses¹⁰⁰ often turn out in favour of the “pro-environment” alternative.¹⁰¹ He does not (understandably) attempt to estimate how often this happens, but he draws the

96 I am aware of the immense problems of finding a common unit in which to compare different goods. To transform all values into monetary value is something that many economists are working on not least when it comes to different kinds of value in nature. The problems involved are great and I do not take stand here on whether it is possible to solve them. In this section as well as in all other cases of comparison between different values I will just assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic value of different goods on an intuitive level.

97 Johansson, Birgitta 2005:1 pp.8,14,17, Melin 2001 p.114

98 Bodegård 2005 p.22, passim, Johansson, Birgitta 2005 1p.8,9, Melin 2001 p.15,114

99 As pointed out by e.g. Ricklefs 1997 p.598

100 In the cases Randall discuss, benefits are stated in terms of “willingness-to-pay” and costs are stated in terms of “willingness-to-accept”.

101 Randall 1986 p.95. “Pro-environment” can of course mean different things, but since the paper is about preservation, I assume that the meaning of the term in the context it appears is not totally irrelevant to our question.

relatively modest though very important conclusion that “… commercial interests do not hold a monopoly on economic arguments.”¹⁰²

Norman Myers supplies us with a real life example of a fruit called ‘durian’. It is native to Southeast Asia, and is said to be most exquisite. It contributes (1990) with $100 million a year to the local economies. The problem is that it is pollinated by one particular species of bat, which is threatened by different kinds of human encroachment. The swamps where the bats find most of their food (apart from the nectar from the durian tree), is claimed for human buildings. Human constructions also threaten the caves where the bats live since the caves are exploited for limestone used to make concrete.¹⁰³

In order then to find out whether the disappearance of the tree and the bats is a bad thing according to anthropocentric instrumentalism, we have to weigh the positive effects of the buildings against the negative effects of losing the durian fruit. The negative effects for human beings are that many people will no longer be able to enjoy this exquisite fruit, and that the local economies will lose about $100 million a year. The positive effects for human beings are not clearly spelled out by Myers, but there ought to be a non-negligible economic gain. People in the area will get access to new apartments, and there will be quite a few jobs on the line. Given the information we have got, it is not possible to say what the total result will be. It illustrates however that it is seldom quite obvious whether conservation or exploitation is the most rational option in a particular situation from the point of view of anthropocentric instrumentalism. This is obviously a problem for the usefulness of this theory when it comes to explaining why extinction is generally seen as morally problematic – especially since this intuition often appears as very clear.

Some of those who have thought about the subject of trade-offs between preservation and other values are quite pessimistic:

Thomas Lovejoy believes that a choice between the economic value of a particular species and the economic value of an encroachment turning out to favour the species does not happen very often.¹⁰⁴

Petra Andersson considers it “not unbelievable” that if we cut down the forest of the Parc des volcans national park in Rwanda, and have it cultivated by human beings, the total sum of happiness would be larger than if we keep it protected.¹⁰⁵

102 Randall 1986 p.95. By ‘commercial’ I assume the author in this context means something like

“exploitative”.

103 Myers 1990 p.21f

104 Lovejoy 1986 p.22

105 Andersson 2005 p.91

The economist Kenneth Hermele believes that there is an opposition between economic growth and species preservation, at least in a short perspective, but he indicates some pessimism even in the long turn.¹⁰⁶

On top of that, Bryan G. Norton – who in general is positive towards the idea that anthropocentrism favours species preservation – points out that in a future with more humans, the negative instrumental value of a species that e.g. competes with human beings for food or habitat, will increase and maybe even override its positive instrumental value.

Therefore, anthropocentric instrumentalism will according to Norton be a continuously weaker reason for preservation.¹⁰⁷

The scenarios of the Millennium Assessment report on biodiversity show that many of the things we need to do in order to counter human poverty and enhance development, are likely to further impoverish biodiversity.¹⁰⁸ The report indicates that the development paths for relieving today’s poverty, hunger and health problems for human beings during the next 50 years also mean continued loss of biodiversity (even though the worst scenario in terms of achieving the human welfare goals is also worst in terms of for instance species loss).¹⁰⁹ This means that in at least some situations where we have to choose between preservation and extinction, the alternative that implies extinction will from an anthropocentric instrumental point of view actually be preferable.

The Millennium assessment group also points out that even though it is often possible for a community to make money through preservation by e.g. ecotourism or a sustainable use of forest products, the communities would in general make more money by exploiting the area in a way that can lead to a loss of species.¹¹⁰ They also believe that if we only consider what they call “utilitarian”¹¹¹ reasons for protecting biodiversity, we will actually get by with a lower diversity than we have today.¹¹² This means that even though we will need some species, we will apparently not need all of them.

The millennium assessors conclude that win-win situations may not be as common as has been hoped in situations where both conservation and development is at stake. They also

106 Hermele 2002 p.153

107 Norton 1982 pp.18,21f

108 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 p.77

109 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 p.15

110 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 p.12,90 The same thing is indicated by Doole 2005 describing a visit to a Chinese village where the inhabitants have exchanged logging for ecotourism. They manage to make a living from ecotourism but their income had fallen as a result of the change. The number of tourists where growing and the village leader believed that they would gain income in a longer perspective.

111 ‘Utilitarian’ in reports like these generally means ‘instrumental’, and should not be confused with the normal meaning of the term ‘utilitarian’ in ethics.

tell us that conflict between the two is more common than interplay, and they finally claim that it would be naïve to believe that we can always have both. The Millennium assessors therefore advice us to think more of how to make trade-offs between development and species protection.¹¹³

This list of pessimistic assessments concerning the outcomes of trade off-situations shows that we may do well in being careful in what we can expect from anthropocentric instrumentalism as a basis for preservation.

Norman Myers writes that our lifestyle with “cheap supplies of hamburger beef, hardwood timber, and other tropical forest products” is a large threat to the rain forest.¹¹⁴ This goes not just for the rain forest, but for many other habitats and their species as well.

Since our demands for food and other utilities from nature historically have been the main cause of human induced extinction, maybe references to these demands are not the best basis for a defence of biodiversity?

On the other hand, Myers also claims that

the continuing decline of tropical forests [and we might add other ecosystems and species] will eventually levy a heavy price on our temperate-zone lifestyles, through the loss of many potential sources of new foods, drugs, industrial raw materials, even sources of energy.¹¹⁵

This is also an important point that seems to be right in line with the statements by Sörlin in the beginning of this chapter. It also underlines the point we have made earlier that it is not necessarily always the case that our wasteful use of natural resources follows from anthropocentric instrumentalism. On the other hand, we could not exclude that what looks like short-sighted and wasteful use may in some cases actually be the most rational from a strictly anthropocentric instrumental viewpoint. In order to be able to continue to utilise other species we have to be aware not to use them faster than they can reproduce themselves.

If we demand large quantities at a low cost of whatever it is that a certain species supplies, and the species cannot sustain that demand in the long term, we have to ask another question: Is it better to satisfy the demand to a high degree for a short time, or to satisfy it to a lower degree for a longer time? The answer is not as obvious as proponents of a “wise use”

112 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 p.7

113 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 p.74

114 Myers 1990 p.22

of natural resources often assume. It looks quite obvious that the latter option is the best one in the long term especially if the total amount of good we can get from the species in the long term is much larger than what we can get if we choose the more “short-sighted”

alternative. If we take the actual behaviour by consumers and suppliers as an indicator of their interests however, the answer seems to be that they quite often prefer a high degree of satisfaction of a demand for a short time rather than a low degree of satisfaction for a long time. This could of course be explained by saying that people are irrational, but it might also be explained by the instability of people’s preferences – at least of their instrumental preferences. There may be different ways of satisfying our intrinsic preferences, and if the favoured ways of satisfying the consumers’ preferences shift – as we know they do – then our case for conservation will turn out to be weak. The durian fruit mentioned by Myers may be exquisite, but there are many delicious fruits, as well as other means of pleasing our taste buds, and human taste tends to shift. So maybe in some situations it is best from an anthropocentric instrumental point of view to get as much as possible out of a species while it is in fashion even if it means that it will disappear eventually.

One aspect that may be important is that the less common something is the higher is usually the price. This in turn means that it is often in fact more economically worthwhile to exploit threatened species.¹¹⁶ On the other hand, the exploitation also often means a larger cost since it takes more effort to collect the last specimens of a species. This is not always true however. Lovejoy uses whales as an example of this phenomenon, but not all species are scattered over the world’s oceans. Technological improvement should not be underestimated either when it comes to increasing our capacity to exploit smaller and more scattered resources.

It seems that the answer to whether sustainable use or fast exploitation of a species is the best option from an anthropocentric instrumental point of view depend to a large degree on the nature the instrumental value of the species – and especially on whether it is exchangeable. Some demands can only be satisfied in one way. We should therefore distinguish between exchangeable and non-exchangeable instrumental value. Exchangeable instrumental value comes in degrees. The size of an instrumental value is in part determined by the size of the intrinsic value it serves as a means to, and in part of how effective a means it is to promote this value, but it is also determined by the availability and effectiveness of alternative means to promote the same intrinsic value. Non-exchangeable instrumental value

115 Myers 1990 p.22

has only the first dimension: Its value is decided by the size of the intrinsic value it is a means to.

Some things of course have both instrumental and intrinsic value, and many things have instrumental value in relation to more than one intrinsic value. Often we are also dealing with chains of instrumental value. Finally, some (or most) things seem to have both positive and negative values that have to be weighed together.

The fact that there are non-exchangeable functions does not necessarily mean that there are non-exchangeable species, but it is not implausible that there are. To identify them will however probably be quite difficult and it will certainly not apply to all species.

One thing that has to be remembered when we talk about exchangeability is that it excludes the possibility of assigning a monetary value to non-exchangeable entities. To assign monetary value to something implies that we have also decided how many or how much of some other entity it takes to achieve the same value. If we put a monetary value on breathable air, no matter how high, it is always possible to accumulate enough of something with a lower value that can outweigh the value of the air. This would be absurd. If we assign the value of $1 000 000 000 to breathable air we would in fact be able to say that we could substitute the breathable air if we instead manufacture one billion copies of a $1 pen. That would obviously be absurd since if we do not have any air to breath, we cannot utilise the things we have manufactured anyway. The only thing that could replace breathable air would be something that can produce the same benefit, not something that just produces something else of equal economic value, and it is very unlikely that we could find something that can give us the same benefits as clean air.

This complicates further the already complex process of making a rational trade-off according to the principles of anthropocentric instrumentalism. My points are that it is hard to know the outcome of all trade-offs between acts that preserve and acts that contributes to extinction, and in some instances it might not even be practically possible. When it is possible, we can however expect that a number of trade-offs might favour encroachments that contributes to extinction if we look at them from a purely anthropocentric instrumental perspective even though they intuitively seem at least morally problematic, and often as clearly wrong. This in turn seems to weaken the usefulness of anthropocentric instrumentalism as a way of answering our question.

116 Lovejoy 1986 p.21

One thing we have to consider though is that there is no consensus in ethics that the rather utilitarian way of calculating we have used in this chapter is the correct way of making ethical decisions. If we accept a more deontological approach to ethics, we have to consider the fact that sometimes the best total trade-off can imply unacceptable costs to certain individuals. It might for instance at some occasions be the case that a project that leads to the extinction of a species turns out to give the best total outcome, but also turns out to be a death blow to a small rain forest tribe whose life is dependent on the species. In that case, it might still be the case that extinction is deemed to be immoral. On the other hand, this argument can sometimes also go in the opposite direction. It might e.g. turn out that a certain insect species supplies humanity on the whole with more positive than negative effects, but at the same time causes great havoc for the local populations of humans. In cases like that a deontological ethic may conclude that the best thing to do after all would be to exterminate the species.