Search results

Abstract
This essay explores the artist Gregory Chatonsky's development of a new type of image—the extinction image. Emerging as a by-product of new technologies such as deep learning and neural nets, this nonoperative image is typified by a painstaking attempt to come to grips with the current threat of human extinction. It arises as a symptom of numerous crises endemic to the Anthropocene, providing a speculative tool for planetary thinking to develop alternatives in and through what has been called postcinema by scholars such as Steve Shaviro and Shane Denson. For Chatonsky, the Earth itself must now be imagined as a disarticulate user of postcinematic media, producing images that display a stunning indifference to the presence or absence of the human species. Close examination of Chatonsky's work will reveal a radical ecopolitics defined by a concern for what Alexander Galloway has called whatever being. Urging us to think carefully about the planetary emergency presented by climate change and geopolitical unrest, the extinction image serves as a reminder that the future of life on Earth is not a foregone conclusion.

Management of social-ecological systems takes place amidst complex governance processes and cross-scale institutional arrangements that are mediated through politics of scale. Each management scenario generates distinct cross-scale trade-offs in the distribution of pluralistic values. This study explores the hypothesis that conservation-oriented management scenarios generate higher value for international and national scale social organizations, whereas mixed or more balanced management scenarios generate higher value for local scale social organizations. This hypothesis is explored in the management context of Ruaha National Park (RNP), Tanzania, especially the 2006 expansion of RNP that led to the eviction of many pastoralists and farmers. Five management scenarios for RNP, i.e., national park, game reserve, game control area, multiple use area, and open area, are evaluated in a multicriteria decision analytical framework on six valuation criteria: economic welfare; good governance; socio-cultural values; social equity; ecosystem services; and biodiversity protection; and at three spatial scales: local, national, and international. Based upon this evaluation, we discuss the politics of scale that ensue from the implementation of management alternatives with different mixes of conservation and development goals in social-ecological systems. Copyright © 2011 by the author(s).

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Figures and Tables -- Preface -- Introduction: The Roots of Moral Austerity in Environmental Policy Discourse -- Part I. Moral Principles and Environmental Policy: Basic Issues and Dilemmas -- Issue 1: Science as a Substitute for Moral Principle? Science as a Substitute for Moral Principle -- Science Is No Substitute for Moral Principle -- Issue 2: Environmental Justice without Social Justice? Why Environmental Thought and Action Must Include Considerations of Social Justice -- Environmental Justice: Private Preference or Public Necessity? -- Issue 3: Nature Has Only an Instrumental Value Sustainability: Descriptive or Performative? -- Are Environmental Values All Instrumental? -- Issue 4: Intrinsic Value Implies No Use and a Threat to Democratic Governance A Practical Concept of Nature's Intrinsic Value -- On Intrinsic Value and Environmental Ethics -- Part II. Case Studies in Sustainable Environmental Policy and Law -- Introduction -- The Subnational Role in Sustainable Development: Lessons from American States and Canadian Provinces -- Sustainable Development and Natural Hazards Mitigation -- Sustainable Governance -- Sustainability in the United States: Legal Tools and Initiatives -- Sustainable Development and the Use of Public Lands -- The Impact of Political Institutions on Preservation of U.S. and Canadian National Parks -- Global Environmental Accountability: The Missing Link in the Pursuit of Sustainable Development? -- Part III. Moral Principles and Sustainable Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Ends and Means -- Introduction -- Issue 1: Science and Sustainability Sustainability, Sustainable Development, and Values -- Saving All the Parts: Science and Sustainability -- Discussion -- Issue 2: Environmental Policy, Sustainability, and Social Justice Why Environmental Public Policy Analysis Must Include Explicit Normative Considerations: Reflections on Seven Illustrations -- Sustainability and Environmental Justice: A Necessary Connection -- Discussion -- Issue 3: A Sustainable Environment as an Instrumental Value? The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Environment -- Why Not Foxy Hedgehogs? -- Discussion -- Issue 4: A Sustainable Environment as an Intrinsic Value? Sustainability: Restricting the Policy Debate -- Comments on Sustainability -- Discussion -- Conclusion: Democratic Competence, Accountability, and Education in the Twenty-first Century -- Notes -- References -- Contributors -- Index

A major strength of the ecosystem services (ESS) concept is that it allows a succinct description of how human well-being depends on nature, showing that the neglect of such dependencies has negative consequences on human well-being and the economy. As ESS refer to human needs and interests, values are to be considered when dealing with the concept in practice. As a result we argue that in using the concept there is a need to be clear about what different dimensions of value are involved, and be aware of ethical issues that might be associated with the concept. A systematic analysis of the ethical implications associated to the ESS concept is still lacking. We address this deficiency by scrutinising value dimensions associated with the concept, and use this to explore the associated ethical implications. We then highlight how improved transparency in the use of the ESS concept can contribute to using its strengths without succumbing to possible drawbacks arising from ethical problems. These problems concern the dangers that some uses of the concept have in obscuring certain types of value, and in masking unevenness in the distribution of costs and benefits that can arise in the management of ESS.