Reconciling utilitarian and non-utilitarian approaches to biodiversity conservation

Abstract

Two broad types of approaches have been used in biodiversity conservation: (1) non- utilitarian approaches, which put the emphasis on the aesthetic, emotional, spiritual, and ethical values of nature, and (2) utilitarian approaches, which put the emphasis on species and ecosys- tems as resources or service suppliers for humans. Here, I argue that the long-standing divide between utilitarian and non-utilitarian perspectives is a reflection of the separation between humankind and nature that lies at the root of the global ecological crisis. Neither perspective chal- lenges this separation fundamentally; therefore; neither alone offers a solid foundation for biodi- versity conservation. Resolving the current ecological crisis requires, first and foremost, reconcil- ing humans with their own nature, which in turn requires refocusing both human development and nature conservation on fundamental human needs. Contrary to a widely held idea, funda- mental human needs do not involve a purely utilitarian or anthropocentric worldview. Quite the opposite, they provide powerful non-utilitarian arguments for nature conservation, and they are fully compatible with the recognition or attribution of intrinsic values in the human and non- human world. Human nature is neither fundamentally selfish and utilitarian, nor fundamentally altruistic and non-utilitarian; humans simply have a set of fundamental needs that require satis- faction, and these needs include respecting and loving the world around them.