In this commentary, as philosophers of evolutionary biology, we will consider the evolutionary framework used in the Target Article by: (i) emphasising the fruitfulness of the interdisciplinary approach employed; (ii) highlighting some potentially controversial aspects of the proposal; and finally (iii) outlining some ideas for further integration within the UAL framework. The critical analysis will focus on the relationship between learning and consciousness, on the assumed need for a function for consciousness, and on the type of phylogenetic demarcation introduced by (...) UAL. (shrink)

In the face of the current climate and environmental crisis, not only pragmatic solutions but also a theoretical shift is needed. A philosophical and ethical reflection is most necessary to guide our actions by promoting a renewed relationship between human and non-human nature, providing the theoretical and ethical foundations to initiate a new path of coexistence on this Planet. In this paper, I will make the case for the relevance of evolutionary biology knowledge to current challenges in environmental ethics. I (...) argue that by acknowledging biological evidence, philosophy can fruitfully reconsider the complex issue of the human-nature relationship from a non-anthropocentric perspective. Evolutionary biology approaches the human-nature relation problem from an ecological dimension and a deep-time perspective. Contra anthropocentric theories, scientific evidence shows (i) that there has never been any ontological separation between humans and the rest of the natural world, and (ii) that considering the profound evolutionary interdependence between these two spheres is essential to understand the ongoing climatic and environmental crises. In considering some specific cases – namely, the relational approach to ecosystems, the holobiont theory, and the niche construction theory – , I put into focus the fallacy of the anthropocentric vision that marks the current development model pursued by globalized Western societies, and contrast this with an approach of ‘humanistic ecocentrism’. I argue that this approach is consistent with scientific evidence, and that overcoming the present crisis will require a profound transformation in societal and individual values, which can only be achieved through a scientifically and ethically based ‘ecological education’. (shrink)

In times of unprecedented ecological change led by human activities, a global ethical framework is most needed to support the rapid transformation of current development models, to ensure the protection of human and non-human nature. Geoethics offers such a universal system of values. We assess to what extent geoethics maintains an anthropocentric perspective and examine the ethical challenges raised by this statement, arguing that (i) geoscientific knowledge, which investigates the interrelations between the biotic and abiotic world in a deep-time perspective, (...) should imply the adoption of an eco-centric or even geocentric perspective; (ii) the assumption of an anthropocentric perspective should be outlined more precisely, by clarifying the utilitarian and deontological reasons to maintain a weak anthropocentric approach and to avoid the theoretical bias underlying many anthropocentric narratives. Then, we claim that a non-anthropocentric geoethics would allow a better understanding of the role Homo sapiens as a species plays within the biosphere and geosphere. To provide evidence for our hypothesis, we will discuss two case studies: (i) climate change as a monumental niche construction process, where the ambivalence of human nature is seen in action; (ii) the co-evolution and interconnection between biological and cultural diversity, which support each other in an inextricable link. We claim that a humanistic, eco-centric geoethics can support the necessary transition towards a new conceptual framework in which humans are not separate from, but part of the biosphere. This approach is part of the philosophy of biology, a field that programmatically converges humanities and the life sciences. (shrink)

The history of life on Earth has been shaken in the last half billion years by five mass extinctions that have killed at least three-quarters of biodiversity in a geologically short time. These five extinctions were due to major ecological upheavals, with endogenous or exogenous drivers (volcanic eruptions, impact of asteroids, etc.). Today, many data show that the current extinction rate is comparable to or even worse than that of the Big Five mass extinctions of the past. The difference is (...) that this time the asteroid is one species: Homo sapiens. There are good reasons to include the Sixth Mass Extinction in the definition of the Anthropocene. This drastic reduction in biodiversity will leave an irreversible geological and paleontological mark. It interacts with climate change, with a multiplicative effect. It contributes to the environmental crisis that reduces ecosystem services and threatens human health (i.e., likelihood of spillovers). (shrink)