Humanity’s Domination of Nature is Part of the Problem: A Response to Kareiva and Marvier

In “What is conservation science?”, Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier (2012) argue that “human domination is now so widespread and profound that it can no longer be ignored in any conservation decision” (p. 965). They note that in recent decades, human populations and the per capita consumption of energy and materials have increased immensely, whereas “managed ecosystems increasingly dominate the planet” (p. 964) because of ever-expanding human economies. Their article raises a key question: Does true conservation require humanity to set limits to our domination of nature? Kareiva and Marvier answer this question in the negative. None of their “normative postulates” involves limiting human demands on the biosphere, either as a matter of justice toward other species or as prudent self-interest. Conservation centered on keeping lands wild is “socially unjust” (p. 965), they assert, since it may move people off the land or reduce their economic opportunities. At no point do the authors acknowledge that people ever act unjustly by displacing other species or degrading their habitats, through road building, urban sprawl, farming new lands, and so on. Their ideology appears to reflect anthropocentric bias grounded in human exceptionalism.