Menu utilisateur

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

Should Future Generations be Content with Plastic Trees and Singing Electronic Birds?

Onglets principaux

Télécharger
  • Open access
  • PDF
  • 469.40 K
Zwarthoed, Danielle [UCL]

The aim of this paper is to determine whether the present generation should preserve non-human living things (plants, animals and other organisms) for future generations, even if (i) in the future all the contributions these organisms currently make to human survival in decent conditions were performed by adequate technology and (ii) future people's preferences were satisfied by this state of affairs. The paper argues it would be wrong to leave a world without non-human living plants, animals and other organisms to future generations, because such a world would fail to secure one of the conditions of future people’s autonomy, that is, availability of adequate options. Building upon Joseph Raz’s account of autonomy, the paper shows that the presence of non-human living organisms is part of an adequate range of options insofar as, to be adequate, options must meet a test of variety. According to Raz, options pass this test if they enable human agents to exercise a set of physical, affective, imaginative and cognitive capacities humans normally have an innate drive to exercise. The paper discusses empirical findings as well as psychological theories that provide support to the hypothesis that interactions with non-human living organisms enable human beings to develop and exercise these capacities by shaping these capacities in a special way, different from the way interactions with other environments do.

Type de document Article de périodique (Journal article) – Article de recherche
Type d'accès Accès libre
Année de publication 2016
Langue Anglais
Information sur le périodique "Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics" - Vol. 29, no.2, p. 219-236 (2016)
Peer reviewed oui
Editeur Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht)
issn 1187-7863
e-issn 1573-322X
Statut de la publication Publié
Affiliations UCL - SSH/ISP - Institut supérieur de philosophie
Université de Montréal - Centre de Recherche en Ethique
Mots-clés intergenerational justice ; Joseph Raz ; open options ; autonomy ; nature
Liens
  1. Barry Brian, Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice, 10.3167/004058197783593443
  2. Barry Brian, Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice, Fairness and Futurity (1999) ISBN:9780198294894 p.93-117, 10.1093/0198294891.003.0005
  3. Brown Weiss, E. (1992). In fairness to future generations and sustainable development. American University Journal of International Law and Policy, 8, 19.
  4. Buijs Arjen E., Elands Birgit H.M., Langers Fransje, No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003
  5. DWORKIN GERALD, Is More Choice Better than Less?, 10.1111/j.1475-4975.1982.tb00083.x
  6. GOSSERIES Axel, L'éthique environnementale d'aujourd'hui, 10.2143/rpl.96.3.541895
  7. Gosseries, A. (2001). What do we owe the next generation(s). Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 35, 293.
  8. Gosseries, A. (2004). Penser la justice entre les générations: de l’affaire Perruche à la réforme des retraites. Paris: Aubier.
  9. Gosseries A., Theories of intergenerational justice: a synopsis, 10.5194/sapiens-1-39-2008
  10. Hartig Terry, Mang Marlis, Evans Gary W., Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experiences, 10.1177/0013916591231001
  11. Hartig Terry, van den Berg Agnes E., Hagerhall Caroline M., Tomalak Marek, Bauer Nicole, Hansmann Ralf, Ojala Ann, Syngollitou Efi, Carrus Giuseppe, van Herzele Ann, Bell Simon, Podesta Marie Therese Camilleri, Waaseth Grete, Health Benefits of Nature Experience: Psychological, Social and Cultural Processes, Forests, Trees and Human Health (2011) ISBN:9789048198054 p.127-168, 10.1007/978-90-481-9806-1_5
  12. Herzog Thomas R., Black Andrea M., Fountaine Kimberlee A., Knotts Deborah J., REFLECTION AND ATTENTIONAL RECOVERY AS DISTINCTIVE BENEFITS OF RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS, 10.1006/jevp.1997.0051
  13. Kaplan Stephen, The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework, 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
  14. Katz, E. (1997). Nature as subject: Human obligation and natural community. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
  15. Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In P. H. Kahn & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 117–151). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  16. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington: Island Press.
  17. Knopf, R. (1987). Human behavior, cognition and affect in the natural environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 783–825). Hoboken: Wiley.
  18. Krieger M. H., What's Wrong with Plastic Trees?: Rationales for preserving rare natural environments involve economic, societal, and political factors, 10.1126/science.179.4072.446
  19. Meyer, L. (2008). Intergenerational justice. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/justice-intergenerational .
  20. Newman, R. S. (1980). Alleviating learned helplessness in a wilderness setting: An application of attribution theory to outward bound achievement motivation (pp. 312–345). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-8997-3_14 .
  21. Nussbaum Martha C., Creating Capabilities : The Human Development Approach, ISBN:9780674061200, 10.4159/harvard.9780674061200
  22. Page Edward A., Intergenerational justice of what: Welfare, resources or capabilities?, 10.1080/09644010701251698
  23. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  24. Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Sagoff Mark, On Preserving the Natural Environment, 10.2307/795401
  26. Sen, A. (2004). Rationality and freedom. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  27. Solow, R. M. (1993). Sustainability: An economist's perspective. In R. Dorfman & N. S. Dorfman (Eds.), Economics of the environment: Selected readings (pp. 179–187). New York: Norton.
  28. Tennessen Carolyn M., Cimprich Bernadine, Views to nature: Effects on attention, 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90016-0
  29. Ulrich, R. S. (1999). Effects of gardens on health outcomes. In C. C. Marcus & M. Barnes (Eds.), Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations (pp. 27–86). New York: Wiley.
  30. UN Foundation (2005). The millennium ecosystem assessment. http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/index.aspx .
  31. Voget-Kleschin Lieske, Reasoning Claims for More Sustainable Food Consumption: A Capabilities Perspective, 10.1007/s10806-014-9503-1
  32. Watene Krushil, Nussbaum's Capability Approach and Future Generations, 10.1080/19452829.2012.747488
  33. World Bank (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. World Bank Publications.
Référence bibliographique Zwarthoed, Danielle. Should Future Generations be Content with Plastic Trees and Singing Electronic Birds?. In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 29, no.2, p. 219-236 (2016)
Permalien http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/176690