This article proposes a universal duty of care for biodiversity, suggesting legal reforms rooted in evolutionary theory for improved conservation outcomes.
Legal and ethical treatment of animals within South Africa’s conservation policy landscape is contentious. This article reflects on welfare, well-being, and rights, showing how conflicting ethical framings, often rooted in anthropocentrism, shape selective concern for certain species. We propose grounding legal obligations in evolutionary theory, which highlights humans’ dependence on biodiversity for survival. This perspective supports a universal duty of care that embraces animals’ evolved coping strategies as passive rights. Instead of relying on subjective ethics, we argue for adaptive legal tools to support resilience, restoration, and biodiversity’s real-life needs. By situating duty of care as a universal legal principle already present in South African law, we present a more practical, inclusive foundation for biodiversity governance. This approach can strengthen ecological sustainability and ensure well-being for both people and nature, now and for generations to come.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tanneback et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: