Europe has a wolf problem, and a late Norwegian philosopher had the solution. Norwegian environmental philosopher Arne N忙ss is known as the father of ‘deep ecology.'
This article was written by Nora Ward, Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Galway. It was first published by our friends at .
Europe鈥檚 鈥渨olf problem鈥� is fast becoming a source of social and political tension. Relative聽聽across the continent has led to calls for action from worried politicians and farming and hunting groups. And the European Commission has now proposed a聽, from 鈥渟trictly protected鈥� to 鈥減rotected鈥�, which could allow people to hunt wolves.
However, changing the protection status may not be the best solution, especially as only聽聽in the EU have reached聽.
Instead, perhaps the time is ripe for a renewed focus on learning to live 鈥� again 鈥� with wolves. Proven prevention strategies, such as fencing and the use of guard dogs, play a critical role in this.
But the question may be fundamentally philosophical. Namely, it boils down to how to coexist 鈥� and the cultivation of ethical principles and values which undergird a successful coexistence.
鈥楧eep ecology鈥� and the equal right to exist
In this task, the work of Norwegian environmental philosopher Arne N忙ss (1912-2009) might be of help. N忙ss is known as the father of 鈥渄eep ecology鈥�, an ethical theory that contends that all life has intrinsic value.
N忙ss argued that all beings, whether human or nonhuman, have an equal right to exist and flourish, a principle he called 鈥渂iospherical egalitarianism鈥�.
As this applies to wolves, N忙ss was clear: wolves have just as much a right to be here as we do.
N忙ss wrote an with biologist Ivar Mysterud stating: 鈥淭he well-being of the species wolf as part of human and nonhuman life on Earth has value in itself!鈥� As a result, they argued, 鈥渉umans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity, including wolf habitats and races, except to satisfy vital needs!鈥�
Despite this ostensibly radical challenge to human-centred ethical norms, N忙ss demonstrated a pragmatic approach in how the principle of biospherical egalitarianism was applied in practice. For example, he considered the important contextual factors of local wolf-human interactions, writing:
For some sheep holders, the need to protect their sheep from wolves or to be in some way compensated is today vital. It means protecting the basis of their economy and home where they have lived for generations.
In addition to human interests, he also took seriously the moral obligation to reduce the suffering of sheep and other domestic animals. This is especially salient as humans have reduced the capacity of these species to evade wolves.
Mouflon, the wild ancestor of domestic sheep, do their best to avoid large predators by fleeing into mountains. In contrast, after thousands of years of selective breeding, modern livestock have fewer genetic defences and are left to fend for themselves in fenced-in fields.
Man has a heart, not just a brain
N忙ss avoided a one-size-fits-all answer to the question of wolves (a position other scholars聽). But his focus on articulating general ethical principles to serve as a backdrop for contextual decisions may have importance in the increasingly heated and political nature of this rewilding debate.
For example, N忙ss used the term聽聽to denote places which comprise humans and those species who play a clear role in human affairs. Challenging the tendency to define community only in human terms, N忙ss contended that this framing helps to 鈥渂reak down some of the barriers commonly erected between humans and any other forms of life within our common space鈥�.
In doing so, this can open pathways for increased identification and empathy for nonhuman others 鈥� a capacity N忙ss believed all humans have, stemming from an inherent continuity between human and nonhuman life.
Indeed, as the pioneering American conservationist聽聽similarly maintained, perceiving ourselves in a community with others is a prerequisite for moral action. In this case, it helps to make concrete the idea of a wolf鈥檚 right to exist 鈥� they are members of the community just like us.
Applying this ethical framework of 鈥渕ixed communities鈥� to current EU deliberations can have some benefits. For example, it may inspire the further development of creative, mutually beneficial solutions such as economic compensation for livestock losses 鈥� a move which N忙ss called for 鈥� as well as improving wolf-attack prevention. It may also play an effective role in countering the often-baseless fear and hysteria around wolves (N忙ss blamed the brothers Grimm for the animals鈥� bad public image).
Perhaps most important of all, though, is the potential for connecting with our emotional elements. As N忙ss said: 鈥淢an has a heart, not only a brain.鈥�
To move towards a sustainable coexistence, it is not enough to appeal to abstractions about scientific benefits or devise perfectly efficient compensation schemes. This must also derive from a sense of solidarity with other species 鈥� a full recognition that, in N忙ss鈥檚 words: 鈥淗umans are not alone on this planet.鈥�
Interestingly, as a聽聽showed, most people living in rural communities in the EU already believe that wolves have a right to exist, corresponding with N忙ss鈥檚 relative optimism about the possibility of mixed communities. This is all the more important to remember in light of the worrying political divisiveness in relation to Europe鈥檚 so-called wolf problem.
This article was written by Nora Ward, Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Galway. It was first published by our friends at .
