by Europe’s “wolf problem” is fast becoming a source of social and political tension. The relative success of conservation across the continent has led to calls for action from concerned politicians and farming and hunting groups. And the European Commission has now proposed a change in its international status, from “strictly protected” to “protected”, which could allow people to hunt wolves.
However, changing the protection status may not be the best solution, especially since only three of the nine wolf populations in the EU have achieved favorable conservation status.
Instead, perhaps the time is ripe for a renewed focus on learning to live – again – with wolves. Proven prevention strategies, such as fencing and the use of guard dogs, play a vital role.
But the question may be fundamentally philosophical. In other words, it is about how to be together – and the cultivation of ethical principles and values that form the basis of successful coexistence.
‘Deep ecology’ and the equal right to exist
In this task, the work of the Norwegian environmental philosopher Arne Næss (1912-2009) could be helpful. Næss is known as the father of “deep ecology”, an ethical theory that argues that all life has intrinsic value. Næss argued that all beings, whether human or non-human, have an equal right to exist and flourish, a principle he called “biospheric egalitarianism”.
As this relates to wolves, Næss was clear: wolves have as much right to be here as we do.
Næss wrote an essay with the biologist Ivar Mysterud saying: “The well-being of the wolf species has value in itself as part of human and non-human life on Earth!” As a result, they argued, “humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity, including wolf habitats and races, except to satisfy vital needs!”
Despite this seemingly radical challenge to human-centered ethical norms, Næss presented a pragmatic approach to how the principle of biospheric equality was applied in practice. For example, he considered the important contextual factors involved in local wolf-human interactions, writing:
For some sheep owners, it is vital today to protect their sheep from wolves or to receive compensation in some way. It means protecting the base of their economy and their 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 important because humans have reduced the ability of these species to evade wolves.
Mouflon, the wild ancestor of domestic sheep, do their best to avoid large predators as they flee into the mountains. In contrast, after thousands of years of selective breeding, modern livestock have fewer genetic safeguards and are left to fend for themselves in fenced fields.
A man has a heart, not just a brain
Næss avoided a one-size-fits-all answer to the wolf question (a position criticized by other scholars). But his focus on articulating general ethical principles as a background to contextual decisions may be important in the increasingly political nature of this debate.
For example, Næss used the term “mixed community” to denote places that include people and those species that play a clear role in human affairs. Challenging the tendency to define community in purely human terms, Næss argued that this framing helps to “break down some of the barriers commonly maintained between humans and any other form of life within our common space”.
In doing so, this can open avenues for increased recognition and empathy for nonhumans – a capacity that Næss believed all humans possess, arising from an innate continuity between human and nonhuman life.
Indeed, as the pioneering American conservationist Aldo Leopold similarly argued, a prerequisite for moral action is to perceive ourselves in community with others. In this case, it helps to think concretely about whether wolves should exist – they are members of the community just like us.
Applying this ethical framework of “mixed communities” in current EU discussions may have certain advantages. For example, it could encourage the further development of creative, mutually beneficial solutions such as economic compensation for livestock losses – a measure called for by Næss – as well as improving the prevention of wolf attacks. It can also play an effective role in combating the often unfounded fear and hysteria surrounding wolves (Næss blamed the Grimm brothers for the animals’ bad public image).
Perhaps most important of all, however, is the potential to connect with our emotional aspects. As Næss said: “A man has a heart, not just a brain.”
To move towards sustainable coexistence, it is not enough to appeal to abstractions about scientific advantages or to devise truly effective compensation schemes. This must also come from a sense of solidarity with other species – a full recognition, in the words of Næss: “That humans are not alone on this planet.”
Interestingly, as a recent study has shown, most people living in rural communities in the EU already believe that wolves have a right to exist, in line with Næss’s relative optimism about the possibility of a mixed community . This is even more important to remember given the worrying political divide surrounding Europe’s so-called wolf problem.
This article from The Conversation is republished under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Nora Ward does not work for, consult with, or own shares in, or receive funding from, any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and she has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond her academic appointment.
