Eric Katz on ”De-Extinction”: Ontology, Value and Normativity

IF 1.5 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Ethics Policy & Environment Pub Date : 2022-05-04 DOI:10.1080/21550085.2022.2071554
R. Sandler, E. D. Stabell, Ryan Baylon, Cora Lundgren, Philine Weisbeek, Benjamin Yelle, Markus Zaba
{"title":"Eric Katz on ”De-Extinction”: Ontology, Value and Normativity","authors":"R. Sandler, E. D. Stabell, Ryan Baylon, Cora Lundgren, Philine Weisbeek, Benjamin Yelle, Markus Zaba","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2022.2071554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Eric Katz (1992) influentially argued that ecological restoration involves the ‘big lie’ that a successful restoration re-establishes or re-creates all of what was lost through human degradation, and that because of this we should be wary of restoration as a conservation practice and in conservation policy. In ‘Considering De-Extinction’ he makes the analogous argument against ‘de-extinction’ (Katz, 2022). Central to his critique is a claim about the relationship between ontology and value, as well as an inference about the normative significance of that relationship for policy and practice. In this response we argue that Katz is correct that there is a connection between ontology and value that supports (to some extent) his critique of ‘de-extinction’ as a preservationist activity, but it does not apply to all cases of creating genetic likenesses of individuals from extinct species (hereafter CGL) for conservation purposes. There can be cases where CGL is well justified from a conservation perspective. We begin with a reconstruction of the relevant portions of Katz’s argument.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"7 1","pages":"104 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics Policy & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2022.2071554","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Eric Katz (1992) influentially argued that ecological restoration involves the ‘big lie’ that a successful restoration re-establishes or re-creates all of what was lost through human degradation, and that because of this we should be wary of restoration as a conservation practice and in conservation policy. In ‘Considering De-Extinction’ he makes the analogous argument against ‘de-extinction’ (Katz, 2022). Central to his critique is a claim about the relationship between ontology and value, as well as an inference about the normative significance of that relationship for policy and practice. In this response we argue that Katz is correct that there is a connection between ontology and value that supports (to some extent) his critique of ‘de-extinction’ as a preservationist activity, but it does not apply to all cases of creating genetic likenesses of individuals from extinct species (hereafter CGL) for conservation purposes. There can be cases where CGL is well justified from a conservation perspective. We begin with a reconstruction of the relevant portions of Katz’s argument.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
埃里克·卡茨论“去灭绝”:本体论、价值与规范性
埃里克·卡茨(1992)有影响力地认为,生态恢复涉及一个“大谎言”,即成功的恢复重建或重新创造了所有因人类退化而失去的东西,正因为如此,我们应该警惕恢复作为一种保护实践和保护政策。在“考虑去灭绝”中,他提出了类似的反对“去灭绝”的论点(Katz, 2022)。他批判的核心是关于本体论和价值之间关系的主张,以及关于这种关系对政策和实践的规范性意义的推论。在这个回应中,我们认为卡茨是正确的,本体论和价值之间存在联系,这在某种程度上支持了他对“去灭绝”作为一种保护主义活动的批评,但这并不适用于为保护目的而从灭绝物种(以下简称CGL)中创造个体遗传相似性的所有案例。有些情况下,从保护的角度来看,CGL是合理的。我们从重建卡茨论证的相关部分开始。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics Policy & Environment
Ethics Policy & Environment ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Revising the Keystone Species Concept for Conservation: Value Neutrality and Non-Nativeness Why Conceptions of Scale Matter to Artificity Arguments in SRM Ethics Animal Dignity: Philosophical Reflections on Non-Human Existence Justice and Sustainability Tensions in Agriculture: Wicked Problems in the Case of Dutch Manure Policy Covert Moral Enhancement: Are Dirty Hands Needed to Save the Planet?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1