Definitions

Agroecology, in a broad sense, describes the science and practice of an agriculture that hinges on ecological principles and sustainability. It offers a markedly superior option to industrial agriculture in regard to the needs and wellbeing of wildlife and people. Given the large proportion of the Earth’s land surface that is used by humans for agriculture, a transition to methods that are kinder to all life promises massive potential benefits for biodiversity and the wellbeing of humans, in the present and the future.

Animal rights is the claim that animals – not just humans – possess ‘rights’. A right is an inalienable power or entitlement (a right to do something), or an immunity (a right not to have something done to one) that is lodged in an individual. Such rights are conceived of as existing outside of, or prior to, existing legal systems, and thus as providing a means to critique existing laws. Animal rights is the claim that animals possess a range of such rights simply in virtue of being sentient, or ‘subjects of a life’. They assume, as an axiom, that it is wrong to cause pain, suffering or disruption to any living creature.

Many ecocentrists, those who respect both the Earth, herself, and all life, accept this conviction, and, despite it being possible to find contradictions, they regard all living life forms, no matter what that form may be, as being valuable, both to themselves and to the Earth in general. Also, it is realized that all living entities are subjects, not objects. This creates various rights for living entities including animals. Animal rights are thus a subclass of the rights of all life in general.

Additionally, the sum total of a group of like animals constitutes a species, which is also recognized as valuable by an ecocentrist; the interests of a species sometimes conflict with the animal rights of its constituent individuals, which can, and does, create tensions.

The concerns for the welfare, and rights, of both species and their constituent individuals are fully justified. They fully support the position that it is wrong to cause pain, suffering or disruption to any living creature and also wrong to diminish or to extinguish the species of which the individual is a member. While it is impossible to live and do no harm, doing least harm is a valid goal.

As a corollary, human rights, other than strictly inter-human ones, are invalid, and loaded with anthropocentric bias, unless they extend, in appropriate and divergent ways, to all life. For instance, all life has a right to scarce water, food and habitat, not just the humans of an area.

Anthropocentrism restricts value to human beings, either mostly or entirely. Such an attitude frames the natural world as ‘the environment’, consisting of ‘natural resources’, ‘ecosystem services’, ‘spiritual support’ and so on. That view then permits measuring the value of the natural world in terms of its usefulness to human beings alone. Its value in its own right, to itself, and in ways that resist calibration are sidelined. So are questions of ethics respecting non-humans.

From a broader, deeper and longer point of view, such an approach to nature underwrites ecocide, whether gradual or sudden, as a result of its failure to recognise and address the natural world in ethical terms. In addition, anthropocentrism suffers from crippling limitations including the power of selfish interests, a narrow frame of reference and view of relevant non-human stakeholders, a short-term time scale, our ignorance and our fallibility.

It is sometimes argued that since humans are doing the valuing in this context, anthropocentrism is unavoidable. This is wrong. Humans may be the relevant valuers (although they are far from the only ones), but there is no good reason why what they value – what they put at the centre – must also be human.

* * * * *

For further reading, see: Curry P (2017) Ecological Ethics: An Introduction, Polity Press.

Biophilia, simply put, is the love of nature. The term was popularized by EO Wilson’s 1984 book Biophilia, in which he argued that humans have an innate tendency to seek connections with other forms of life. This idea is known as the ‘biophilia hypothesis’.

More recently, the importance of biophilia as a human trait has been validated by the growing body of evidence suggesting that time spent in contact with, and in the surrounds of, more-than-human life is of great importance for our mental wellbeing.

Conservation biology is a science-driven discipline that, at its core, seeks to slow, to halt, and, ultimately, to begin to reverse the unfolding mass extinction of life on Earth, which is being driven by the actions of modern humans. In seeking to address what is the foremost tragedy of our time (and the gravest existential threat to the ongoing viability of human life), this discipline is surely among the most important branches of science.

Deep Ecology is an ecological philosophy informed by a concern for all life, and the realization that previous philosophies looked at only human desires when considering the environment. Deep Ecology changes the focus from solely human wants and needs to that of all life. It looked ‘deeper’ into the processes of life on Earth than had been done previously.

In the early to mid-1980s, Arne Naess developed the powerful Eight Points of Deep Ecology and which anyone interested in Deep Ecology must consult. Since the original version is life centered, or biocentric, in that it considers only the interests of life as opposed to those of the Earth, this version shows the first four points in two forms, the first in the original and the second in an ecocentric form. The last four points of the original are already ecocentric.

Since Deep Ecology was a radical departure from previous philosophies, it had some detractors who badmouthed it, in error, as being misanthropic. In reality, it added all the rest of life to our focus of concern, and did not exclude humans. Slowly, ecocentrism, with its focus on the Earth and all Her life, has developed out of Deep Ecology, and, for many people, succeeded it.

Ecocentrism recognises and respects the ultimate value of the Earth as a whole, including its living ecosystems, wild places, natural processes and creatures, as the matrix of life. Integral to all of those are non-organic components which are a key part of (for example) soil, water, air and so on. Ecocentrism thus explicitly acknowledges that they too are appropriate objects of ethical concern.

In contrast, biocentrism – as the word implies – puts the living elements of the Earth at the centre of concern but leaves the non-organic dimension as merely implicit or assumed. From an ecocentric point of view, that is to underestimate the latter’s importance and value.

In practice, biocentrics tend to concentrate on the importance of living organisms, that is, animals of all kinds. These are included within ecocentric concern, but alongside more holistic entities such as ecosystems, places and processes.

* * * * *

For further reading, see: Mosquin T and Rowe S (2004) A Manifesto for Earth. Biodiversity 5(1): 3–9.

Intrinsic value (also sometimes called ‘inherent value’) is value which is ultimate. It neither can be, nor needs to be, further grounded or justified. Something with intrinsic value has value in and as itself, for its own sake.

Instrumental value is valuable for being useful. Something with instrumental value is valued because it helps one to actualise some other goal or purpose whose value, relative to the instrumental item, is intrinsic. Questions of usefulness or effectiveness can arise, but questions of value still pertain to the final goal.

There is no reason why something cannot have both intrinsic and instrumental value, depending on context and perspective.

There is sometimes unnecessary confusion over whether intrinsic value is ‘objective’ or ‘subjective’ (usually ‘merely’ so). Like most things that matter, value requires both a world with certain properties and at least one valuer to become real or meaningful in our experience. It is therefore both objective – ‘really there’ – and personal or psychological: ‘for us’. The fact that it really exists doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be apprehended, and the fact that it needs to be apprehended doesn’t mean it doesn’t really exist.

* * * * *

For further reading, see: Curry P (2017) Ecological Ethics: An Introduction, Polity Press.

In 1944, 29 moose were introduced to St Matthew Island, by 1963 there were 6000, by 1965 there were 42 and by 1984 none. The Island was good habitat for a few moose who quickly multiplied to many times the number that the Island could support. Then the population, now unsupportable, crashed, and ultimately died out. Note that when the population diminished to somewhat sensible numbers, the island’s habitat for moose was unable to recover in time to support the survival of any moose.

Many people believe that human population dynamics are currently mirroring that of the St Matthew’s Island moose epidemic. Currently it would take approximately 1.7 Earths to support the rapidly growing human population. The difference is being made up by a drawdown of the Earth: Her animal people and her plant people.

For 2020, the Earth Overshoot Day was 22 August; it was 29 July the year before. Three or four months of drawdown. This has developed since 1970 and is paralleled by a reduction in life on Earth. For instance, vertebrates have suffered a two-thirds decline in this period. At the same time the human population has more than doubled, from 3.7 billion to 7.8 billion.

Ecocentrism recognises the Earth as the ultimate source of value, meaning and enablement for all beings, including – but not only – human beings. For this reason the Earth, its places and creatures have intrinsic and not merely instrumental value. Ecocentrics therefore believe that we should put them at the centre of our ethical, intellectual and practical deliberations. ‘The Earth’ here means its living parts plus its non-organic components, all of which are necessary to the ecological integrity of the Earth’s ecosystems, wild places, and natural processes. We humans, like the rest of life, are completely dependent upon that integrity. Wild animals also play vital roles in maintaining it. And since all natural entities are (in their own ways) agents and subjects, the key focus of ecocentrism is on the quality of our relationships with others, both human and non-human. That includes taking responsibility for how we affect them, so ethics is not an optional add-on but fundamental.

To a unique extent, of course, the impact of one species – humans – tends to degrade or destroy ecological integrity. Ecocentrics thus urge that human numbers and activities (such as ‘development’) need to be self-limited in order to become truly sustainable. In particular, when there is a conflict between relatively narrow or short-term human interests and ecological health, the former must give way. Ecocentrics therefore try to promote cultures, societies and economies in which such an outcome is possible, even encouraged.

The relevant contrast is with anthropocentrism.

* * * * *

For further reading, see: Curry P (2017) Ecological Ethics: An Introduction, Polity Press.

An ecological footprint can be defined as the individual’s or a group’s demand on nature. It is a relatively convenient way of expressing a complicated calculation as a single, and therefore, while valid, an over-generalized number.

A lot of its validity depends on the initial assumptions: does it assume that humans take it all, or is a healthy amount left inviolate for the rest of life? If the latter, how much is that?

If the footprint number is over one, and presently, for the Earth it is approximately 1.7, then humanity is in overshoot. We didn’t see this at first because nature is vast, but now she is, visibly and rapidly, contracting. For example, insects are vanishing and vertebrates have been reduced by two thirds in the last 50 years. Countries with a footprint over one are devastating their own ecologies, and that of other countries, to support what amounts to their gluttony.

Since 1970, while Earth’s human population more than doubled and its vertebrate people’s population more than halved, the human footprint has gone up from approximately one Earth to approximately 1.7 Earths.

* * * * *

For further reading, see the original book on the subject: Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (New Catalyst Bioregional Series, 1996).

Originating from a theistic and predominantly Christian perspective, in combination with feudal politics, stewardship posits that humans are uniquely placed to govern the ecosphere.

Although the stewardship model establishes a basic duty of care toward the more-than-human world, it is inherently anthropocentric since it implies that we have the right and the knowledge to rule. This paternalistic approach treats the Earth as a garden to be managed and other lifeforms as subjects of the sovereign human figure.

From a secular and scientific perspective, it is important to acknowledge that the human species has great influence over its surroundings; however, it is equally true that we are fallible, causing great harm to the world, and remain entirely dependent on nature. Despite this, the language of stewardship is widely used today due to the dominance of resourcism in conservation.

It may be acceptable for humans to steward nature in a very restricted sense, such as humane animal husbandry and the continuation of traditionally co-created habitats like coppiced woodlands, hay meadows and heathland. Ultimately, however, stewardship is a non-ecological approach since life is best expressed as a co-operation between all beings, including humans. Most non-humans do not need human stewardship and deserve to live life on their own terms.

* * * * *

For further reading, see: Berry RJ, ed. (2006) Environmental Stewardship: Critical Perspectives, Past and Present, Bloomsbury.

Habitat fragmentation refers to a reduction in the total area of habitat and its division into smaller patches, which become isolated within a surrounding matrix of unsuitable habitat. Fragmentation is a major consequence of human-caused habitat destruction and land-use change, predominantly urban development and agricultural expansion.

As a core area becomes fragmented the proportion of edge increases, causing microclimatic changes in light, temperature and wind. Although these conditions can boost biodiversity in some contexts, for example by favouring hardier generalists, many interior species typically associated with long-established ecosystems, such as semi-natural ancient woodland, are often outcompeted, predated upon, and exposed to disease-bearing domestic animals.

At a larger scale, the dissection and diminishment of habitats drives biodiversity loss by reducing a region’s overall biomass, disrupting nutrient cycling and impeding species dispersal. Moreover, the isolation of patches exacerbates genetic drift and inbreeding, preventing gene flow and making populations less adaptable to environmental fluctuations and ultimately more susceptible to extinction.

It is generally accepted that large unfragmented habitats provide more stability, ensuring improved biodiversity and genetic diversity in the long term. Thus, rather than thinking in terms of localised and piecemeal conservation, we must take a wider view. This can be achieved theoretically by understanding the interactions of organisms and physical processes at the landscape scale to discern spatial patterns. Practical measures may also be taken, including establishing wildlife corridors and increasing the permeability of the landscape through wildlife-friendly farming and agroforestry initiatives.

* * * * *

For further reading, see: Lindenmayer DB and Fischer J (2006) Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis, Island Press.

Human supremacy is the dominant worldview of human superiority and entitlement. It asserts that humans are separate from and above all other life forms. Human supremacy includes the precepts: Planet Earth belongs to humanity; Earth consists of ‘resources’ that are useful, profitable, or desirable; humans exhibit a form of consciousness that is essentially distinct from that of every other species; and humans rightfully possess absolute power of life and death over all non-humans and absolute power to possess and control all geographical space. While these precepts are broadly shared, fortunately they are also being increasingly contested.

Human supremacy is a worldview, rather than an ideology, for two reasons. One, it constitutes an implicit belief-system, i.e., it is not explicitly articulated and championed. Two, human supremacy reflects and informs how humans relate to everything non-human (living and non-living), and it manifests as an enormous gamut of actions, laws, practices, assumptions, vocabulary, and institutions. Given the tacit nature of human supremacy and its universal scope, human beings ‘believe’ (without actually thinking about it) that it is normal to colonize the planet, do violence to wild and domestic non-humans, act without restraint in the ecosphere, and drive a mass extinction event.

The worldview of human supremacy is arguably the lynchpin of the eco-social crisis that is imperiling all life on Earth. For the belief-system that humans are superior and entitled gives permission to human expansionism (demographic, economic, trade, infrastructural) to stay on course. Human supremacy can also be understood as a form of solipsism: human affairs unfold on the seeming assumption that social systems can keep growing and endlessly encroaching as if they are self-referential and independent from the rest of life and planetary realities.

The human-supremacist worldview blinds humans to the magnificence of what we are irreparably destroying, disables our awe towards life and existence, eradicates our capacity for humility, and sponsors endless forms of violence toward the non-human realm. What’s more, the dominant culture cannot yet see that human supremacy utterly robs humanity of its dignity. Human supremacy also confers a false sense of security – humanity appears to be under the impression that humans are so smart, resourceful, and technologically adroit that they can overcome any challenge.

Letting go of human supremacy would enable a new human identity and another world to emerge in which humanity recognizes that Earth is a living cauldron of exquisite diversity, complexity, and abundance that we have the great fortune to belong with.

This term was devised by David Abram (Spell of the Sensuous, 1996) to describe qualities or attributes found in nature which include but exceed those of human beings: for example, sentience, emotion, intelligence, purpose and agency. Part of its point is to throw into question the claims that such attributes apply to humans alone (see ‘Human supremacy’). Scientific evidence as well as common sense and observation make such claims untenable.

In contrast, the term ‘non-human natural world’, by excluding humans, is more restrictive, although perfectly defensible in its proper context. The umbrella term ‘nature’ is often ambiguous with respect to whether more-than-human or non-human is meant.

The conservation biologist Thomas Fleischner has defined natural history in two distinct ways. The first description is the “practice of intentional focused attentiveness and receptivity to the more-than-human world, guided by honesty and accuracy.” Humans have engaged in such a practice since the birth of our species, in order to better understand the intricacies of life around us. While our daily routines are becoming increasingly cut off from our natural heritage, the discipline remains hugely important for humanity. It continually reminds us that we belong to nature (and not vice versa). It fosters empathy and respectful relationships with the other-than-human. And it opens us up to reverence for the extraordinary family of Earth-born actors with whom we share a home of almost impossible beauty. This last point anticipates Fleischner’s second definition for natural history: “the practice of falling in love with the world.”

* * * * *

For further reading, see: Fleischner TL (2025) The enduring and elemental importance of natural history. The Ecological Citizen 8(1): epub-115.

Nature Needs Half, and the closely related Half-Earth project, are campaigns calling for at least 50% of the Earth’s land and sea to be safeguarded for nature protection, with good representation across all major kinds of ecosystem. The target of 50%, it is thought, would offer a long-term future for around 85% of species. (An ethic respecting all life demands that humans go substantially beyond this first target.)

By championing protected areas, the campaigns acknowledge that habitat destruction and over-exploitation of wild beings are the two major forces driving the unfolding mass extinction of life on Earth.

It is important to note that these campaigns are not calling for the exclusion of humans from large areas of the Earth’s surface. Rather, they note that projected areas can range from places that are uninhabited to those in which humans are very much a part of the landscape but practise truly sustainable livelihoods. What protected areas cannot support, however, is the kind of human presence that simplifies ecosystems and destroys the life around it.

* * * * *

For further reading, including a description of the research underpinning the argument that 50% protects 85% of species, see: Wilson E (2017) Half-Earth, Liveright.

Overpopulation is an ecological term describing populations of organisms, including humans, exceeding the carrying capacity of their ecosystems.

What does it mean to say that our species has exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet? The most telling criterion is that today humanity, one species among millions, uses half of Earth’s ice-free surface to grow food and has demolished marine life abundance by over-extraction of sea life and destruction of habitats. As a result, Earth’s ecosystems and wildlife are in freefall, while contamination by industrial civilization burgeons. Both these woes, ecological devastation and global toxification, continue to spiral planetary health out of bounds. Overpopulation – sheer numbers of people – is a major factor behind them.

Exceeding carrying capacity is not only connected to human numbers but to how much humanity chooses to consume. For the most part, humanity has opted for a modern lifestyle, which is inherently hyper-consumptive, what with its burgeoning commodities, amenities, technologies, mobility, and interconnectivity. While the excesses and inequality of this lifestyle need to be corrected, human numbers must also be lowered if we want to preempt the modern way of life from causing ecocide, which commits flagrant injustice to the nonhuman world and will bequeath all posterity with an impoverished planet. A number of environmental scientists have argued that a sustainable global human population is in the ballpark of 2 to 3 billion people living equitably with each other and with all life on Earth.

In recent decades, however, the subject of human overpopulation has become taboo. The stigma around the subject arose following the association of overpopulation with perspectives that disproportionately blamed the world’s high-fertility poor regions for the ecological crisis, some of which also led to coercive policies that violated human rights. While such perspectives and policies must be denounced, the scientific and ecological basis of the fact that we are overpopulated cannot be denied.

Population degrowth is achievable within a human-rights framework. Indeed, the term “overpopulation” can be reclaimed as a feminist concept. Seen through a lens of social justice, overpopulation is the result of pronatalism, driven by patriarchal forces that compel people, especially girls and women, to have children and large families regardless of their authentic preference. Pronatalism not only undermines reproductive choice but also the rights of children to be born into conditions conducive to their wellbeing – socially, materially, and ecologically. By countering pronatalism and empowering reproductive choice, motherhood (and parenthood) can be uplifted into a deliberate and mindful decision. We need to transform sociocultural norms worldwide, so that to have a child or children, or to remain childfree, are equally valid decisions, freely chosen. We also need to create a global community with zero tolerance for “child brides,” and the egregious abuse and stunting of prospects that cultural practice perpetrates against girls.

Decades of demographic research show that when women achieve reproductive freedom and the means to regulate their fertility, they tend to have few or no children. Empowering girls and women, specifically by confronting harmful patriarchal and pronatalist norms, is the main pathway to a smaller global population that can enjoy a high quality life within an ecologically flourishing planet.

Overpopulation is a term describing excessive human presence that damages the natural world through overdraw and through enormous waste flows. Overpopulation is thus ecologically unjust. But it is also founded on social injustice, for it is driven by patriarchal pronatalist forces that pressure, or even coerce, girls and women to reproduce.

In brief, achieving a lower human population promises enormous existential benefits to nonhuman and human worlds alike.

* * * * *

For further reading, see the following:

Bajaj N and Stade K (2023) Challenging pronatalism is key to advancing reproductive rights and a sustainable population. Journal of Population and Sustainability 7(1): 39–70.

Rees W (2020) Ecological economics for humanity’s plague phase. Ecological Economics 169: 106519.

Rewilding is a practice-focused subdiscipline of conservation biology. Advocate John Davis has described it succinctly as: “giving the land back to wildlife, and wildlife back to the land.” This a positive and exciting vision that promises a much fairer distribution of the Earth between species rather than one heavily skewed towards modern humans.

At a local scale, the main features of rewilding include: one, the ceasing or easing of human management; two, the removal of infrastructure such as dams; and, three, the reintroduction of extirpated organisms (those lost from an area owing to human actions), including large herbivores and carnivores, or the introduction of organisms considered to be their ecological analogues. Here, the objective is to enable localities that have been simplified by human management to become, over time, more ecologically complex, richer in ecological processes, and less depauperate. A crucial dynamic within this is the knock-on impact of reintroduced (or introduced) organisms in creating and maintaining niches for a suite of other species.

At a broader geographical scale (up to that of entire large continents), the overarching goal of rewilding is to allow a rich diversity of wildlife to coexist with modern humans on the Earth in the long term. Its fundamental facets have been referred to as the three C’s: cores, corridors, and carnivores. Cores are large protected areas with limited influence from modern humans, while corridors are passages that connect such areas, enabling long-distance movement (including migrations) and facilitating genetic flow between populations within a species. And the inclusion of carnivores among the fundamental facets emphasizes the vital importance of such species in thriving ecosystems, especially apex predators (those at the top of intact food chains).

The Rights of Nature movement argues that non-human nature possesses inherent and inalienable rights. In thus extending the concept of a right from humans to the rest of nature, the movement transcends the anthropocentric worldview of nature as property and other-than-human beings as exploitable objects. It calls for non-human rights to be expressed and respected via a range of legally enforceable mechanisms, including constitutions, treaties, statutes, ordinances, and decisions reached in courtrooms. Drawing on indigenous worldviews, it is a direct challenge to the human supremacist ideology.

Well-reported examples of early successes for the movement include constitutional reform in Ecuador to recognize the inherent rights of nature, legislature in Bolivia to uphold the ‘Rights of Mother Earth’, and a treaty to establish the legal personhood of the Whanganui River in New Zealand. The movement gains momentum with every passing month.

The Sixth Mass Extinction is the human-driven mass extinction event currently underway. Scientists define mass extinction as the loss of 75 per cent or more of Earth’s species due to a catastrophic event. There have been five mass extinctions in the last 550 million years, during which complex multicellular life evolved. Hence, the anthropogenic one underway is called the Sixth.

Mass extinctions are rare. What normally prevails is referred to as background (or natural) extinction. This type of extinction does not cause a setback to Earth’s diversity of species. On the contrary, the birth of new species occurs slightly faster than background extinction. Thus, biodiversity slowly increases over geological time.

The rate of extinction today is estimated to be 1000 times greater than background extinction. If humanity persists with its destructive ways, this rate of loss will accelerate further within this century and beyond. The primary drivers are agriculture (generically referred to as land-use change or habitat destruction) and killing (sometimes called overexploitation). Additional causes play a big role: pollution, climate change, invasive species, and other forms of habitat destruction. Most species threatened with extinction today are afflicted by more than one of the above drivers. Scientists call this the ‘one–two’ or ‘one–two–three’ punch.

The root causes behind the direct hits are an oversized human population, consuming increasing amounts of resources, putting out inordinate amounts of waste (garbage, nitrogen, plastic, greenhouse gases, etc.), expanding infrastructures without restraint, and eating too high on the food chain. Arguably, the deepest cause is the dominant worldview that permits and sponsors the root causes: Namely, the worldview of anthropocentrism or human supremacy, which confers unquestionable entitlement to human beings, while belittling the rest of life as meriting no (or far less) moral consideration.

Mass extinctions impoverish Earth for millions of years. While the previous five were caused by inexorable physical or cosmic forces, the Sixth is being driven by humanity’s unjust ethical tenets and overweening socioeconomic systems. The Sixth Mass Extinction has not yet occurred: We have the choice to avert it. It is imperative that we do so for the sake of non-human life, all future human generations, and for the redemption of human identity from violent, arrogant, and alienated to loving family with all our Earthling kin.

Sustainable means the ability to continue forever. That the Earth’s inputs will be forever available as will be the Earth’s ability to absorb the outputs in perpetuity and neither of these capacities will be diminished as time passes.

Strictly speaking ecocentrism ensures that all life, and the Earth’s ecosystems, are included in the definitions of that which is to be left undiminished.

If a process is sustainable, its inputs it will not result in clearcut forests, polluted rivers, oceanic dead areas or huge loss of life, and its processes will not result in persistent toxins. Rivers will still flow as they have in times past. Its outputs will not be toxic or disruptive, and will not exceed the ability of whatever processes are relied upon to recycle or neutralize them.

Few, if any, of human activities are sustainable as shown by the above analysis. Fortunately, it would be relatively easy to make many activities more so. For instance, it would be easy to use much less plastic, and a deposit system could easily be used to keep it out of the environment.

Wilderness refers to large, intact natural areas in which ecological processes function with minimal human interference. Wilderness nurtures abundant wildlife populations, ensuring their genetic diversity and proper dispersal, which in turn supports species resilience, complete trophic webs (including apex predators), and evolutionary processes. Thus, conserving wilderness is vital for biodiversity, scientific research, and inspiring a deep sense of wonder. However, wild places face challenges from two main groups: those who seek to exploit them for profit and academics who question their very existence.

While developers and resource extractors have long opposed conservation efforts, postmodern scholars argue that uninhabited wilderness is a construct shaped by colonial and Romantic ideals. They argue that this narrative has overshadowed indigenous land-use history. And while some academics critique only the cultural associations of wilderness, this discourse can still weaken real-world protections, ultimately benefiting those who seek to harm the wild. Such an alliance is especially dangerous when supported by anthropocentric social constructivism, which considers the external reality of nature a mere product of the human mind.

Ecocentric thinkers maintain that, although human influence has always existed – and the term “wilderness” should be seen as a celebration of indigenous connection to the land rather than a rejection of it – the existence of remote and expansive wild areas must nevertheless be acknowledged. Ultimately, wilderness, rather than a rigid dichotomy, exists on a continuum: some areas are more influenced by humans, while others remain largely untouched and deserve strong protection to maintain their ecological integrity.

* * * * *

For further reading, see the following:

Callicott B and Nelson M, eds. (2008) The Wilderness Debate Rages On, University of Georgia Press.

Washington H (2019) A Sense of Wonder Towards Nature: Healing the Planet through Belonging, Routledge.

Many of us have experienced a sense of wonder towards nature, taking flight not with but as a soaring bird or breathing with the lush trees in a forest. Such moments can make life worth living, yet it is sometimes difficult to parse what they tell us about our fellow Earthlings given their often elusive and fleeting character.

Wonder is fundamentally relational since some person, place or phenomenon is always the subject of our joy or astonishment. And for any relationship to occur, there must be differences and gaps to be bridged. Such connections extol the radical uniqueness of the enchanting other, for whom we wish only continued prosperity. Thus, far from being only a precursor to fuller knowledge, wonder reveals mysterious inner lives through an experience that is simultaneously rooted in the world and deeply unplumbable. This sensuous, pluralistic and perspectival understanding opposes two prevailing worldviews, which disenchant by dividing life into the purely spiritual or material.

Religious supernaturalism locates ultimate meaning in a transcendent source above or added to nature, devaluing the phenomenal world and all its concrete particulars. Monotheism is particularly problematic since it has upheld a singular and universal way to truth beyond Earth, as well as having restricted wonder to certain accepted theistic conclusions. Scientific materialism on the other hand disenchants when it seeks underlying causes or processes deemed more significant. Attempting to solve the puzzle of nature, it morphs into faith-based scientism. Both approaches therefore glorify the will over non-instrumental wonder. And wonder for its own sake has no sure footing when the attainment of further control is at stake. However, religion at least acknowledges existence’s ineffability and retains a spiritual dimension to life, while secular modernity has attempted to abolish both on highly anthropocentric terms.

A stance of wonderment is best expressed through animism. Rather than viewing nature as a series of partially dissected objects, an animist ontology sets us within a more-than-human world comprised of myriad potential subjects, each with their own experiential realms and agendas. This form of sacralisation enhances the relational dynamics of life and sets limits to our reach, inciting us to act ethically in our encounters with other-being.

Animism can play an important role in a post-secular and Earth-centred ethics of sacrality, especially in tandem with a revitalisation of the other in society and the acknowledgment of the centrality of wonder to our lives.

* * * * *

For further reading, see: Curry P (2019) Enchantment: Wonder in Modern Life, Floris Books.