Dimensions · EcoAxes

Environmental Ethics

AnthropocentrismEcocentrism

Does nature matter because people need it, or does it matter in its own right? At one end, duties to the environment are really duties to people, including people not yet born. Further along, biocentrists give moral standing to each living thing, and ecocentrists give it to species, ecosystems and ecological processes taken as wholes.

Anthropocentrism: Nature matters because people depend on it. Our duties to the environment are duties to people, now and in the future.
Ecocentrism: Species, ecosystems and other living things have moral standing of their own. Human interests do not automatically come first.

See Deep Ecology, Ecocentrism, Biocentrism, Land Ethic, Anthropocentrism, Environmental Pragmatism.

Human–Nature Relations

Human SeparationHuman Integration

Should conservation keep people and wild places mostly apart, or should it work within landscapes where people live and make a living? The question runs from wilderness protection at one end to cultural landscapes and lived-in conservation areas at the other.

Human Separation: Nature is best protected by keeping large areas free of settlement and use. Wildness is worth having for its own sake.
Human Integration: People are part of ecosystems. Conservation works best in landscapes that people live in and work, and worst in ones that have been emptied of them.

See Preservationism, Fortress Conservation, Community-Based Conservation, Convivial Conservation, Indigenous Stewardship, Agrarian Conservatism.

Ecological Intervention

NoninterventionActive Stewardship

How far should people manage ecosystems on purpose? This covers restoration, controlling invasive species, bringing predators back, moving species to new ranges as the climate shifts, managing animal numbers and rewilding. One end prefers to let natural processes run with as little human direction as possible. The other favours hands-on management toward goals people have chosen.

Nonintervention: Ecosystems should mostly be left to find their own way. Human management often does more harm than good.
Active Stewardship: Ecosystems need active care. That means restoring them, controlling invasive species, reintroducing lost ones and managing populations.

See Rewilding, Restoration-Centred Conservation, Compassionate Conservation, Preservationism.

Economic Philosophy

Green GrowthPost-Growth

Can economies keep growing while their environmental damage shrinks, through efficiency, new technology and the decoupling of growth from harm? Or does a sustainable future need far less consumption and an economy that no longer depends on growth? Ecological modernisation and green growth sit at one end, degrowth and steady-state economics at the other.

Green Growth: Growth and environmental protection can go together. Efficiency, innovation and investment will lead to a sustainable economy.
Post-Growth: An economy that depends on growth cannot last. Rich economies have to consume less and reorganise around having enough.

See Degrowth, Steady-State Economics, Ecosocialism, Green Growth, Sustainable Development, Bright Green Environmentalism.

Resource Ownership

Private StewardshipCommons Governance

Who should own and run land and natural resources? One end trusts private owners, with property rights and incentives to give them a reason to conserve. The other prefers land held in common, whether by a community, by the public or under customary tenure, and managed collectively.

Private Stewardship: Secure private property gives owners a reason to look after land and resources. Conservation should work through it.
Commons Governance: Land, water and wildlife are best held and governed in common, by communities or the public, and kept out of private hands.

See Market Environmentalism, Libertarian Environmentalism, Community-Based Conservation, Ecosocialism, Social Ecology, Land Back Environmentalism.

Environmental Authority

Centralized AuthorityLocal Autonomy

Who should make environmental decisions? At one end are national agencies, international institutions and expert managers. At the other are communities, town and city governments, and Indigenous nations deciding for the land they live on.

Centralized Authority: Environmental problems need strong central authority, from national agencies and global institutions to expert managers.
Local Autonomy: Decisions about land and nature belong to the people who live with the consequences, such as communities, municipalities and Indigenous nations.

See Eco-Authoritarianism, Planetary Stewardship, Social Ecology, Green Anarchism, Indigenous Stewardship, Community-Based Conservation.

Environmental Justice

Aggregate OutcomesDistributive Justice

When an environmental decision is made, how much weight goes to who pays and who benefits, compared with the best overall result? The fairness end includes historical responsibility, fair procedure and the rights of affected communities. Topics include environmental racism, climate justice, people displaced by conservation, fair access to resources and ecological debt.

Aggregate Outcomes: What matters is the overall result. Policy should do the most total good and the least total harm, wherever the costs land.
Distributive Justice: Who bears the costs and who gains comes first. Historical responsibility, fair process and the rights of affected communities all count.

See Environmental Justice, Climate Justice, Decolonial Ecology, Political Ecology, Market Environmentalism, Ecomodernism.

Technological Outlook

Technological OptimismEcological Precaution

How much should we trust new technology to solve environmental problems? The question covers geoengineering, genetically modified organisms, synthetic biology, carbon removal and ecological engineering. Confidence in these tools sits at one end. The precautionary principle and doubt about technical fixes sit at the other.

Technological Optimism: Technology is the main way out of environmental problems. Build and deploy new tools quickly, and deal with the risks as they arise.
Ecological Precaution: Technical fixes tend to cause new problems. Powerful interventions should wait until their effects are understood.

See Ecomodernism, Bright Green Environmentalism, Eco-Accelerationism, Precautionary Environmentalism, Appropriate Technology, Anarcho-Primitivism.

Energy Philosophy

Energy AbundanceEnergy Sufficiency

Should the aim be plentiful clean energy for everyone, or less energy use overall? One end wants more low-carbon supply, from nuclear and renewables, and more energy for the people who lack it. The other puts cutting demand first, especially in wealthy, high-consumption societies.

Energy Abundance: The goal is plentiful, cheap, clean energy for everyone, from nuclear and renewables alike. People should have more energy, not less.
Energy Sufficiency: Wealthy societies use far too much energy. Using less matters more than building new supply.

See Ecomodernism, Green Growth, Eco-Accelerationism, Degrowth, Appropriate Technology, Anarcho-Primitivism.

Conservation Strategy

Sustainable UseStrict Protection

Is wildlife best conserved by letting people use land and wild resources under rules, or by setting large areas aside with strict limits on extraction and disturbance? The question covers protected areas, community conservation, regulated hunting and fishing, logging and strict reserves.

Sustainable Use: Nature is best conserved when people have a stake in it, through regulated hunting, fishing, forestry and grazing.
Strict Protection: Biodiversity needs large areas where extraction and disturbance are tightly limited. Use should be the exception.

See Sustainable-Use Conservation, Conservationism, Community-Based Conservation, Preservationism, Fortress Conservation, Biocentrism.

Human–Wildlife Relations

Human PriorityWildlife Accommodation

When wild animals and people come into conflict, whose interests win? This covers large predators, animals that raid crops or kill livestock, dangerous species, compensation schemes, fencing and other ways of living alongside wildlife, relocating animals, and killing them.

Human Priority: Where wildlife seriously threatens people's safety, crops or livestock, people come first, and that can mean killing the animals.
Wildlife Accommodation: People should learn to live alongside wildlife, even dangerous and costly species, and avoid killing animals in conflict.

See Compassionate Conservation, Biocentrism, Rewilding, Sustainable-Use Conservation, Community-Based Conservation, Agrarian Conservatism.

Agricultural Ecology

Land SparingLand Sharing

Is it better to farm a small area intensively and leave the rest to nature, or to farm in ways that let wildlife live on the farmland itself? The first is called land sparing, the second land sharing. The question touches agroecology, intensive farming, pesticides and the links between patches of habitat.

Land Sparing: Grow as much food as possible on as little land as possible, and protect the land that frees up. High-yield farming helps nature.
Land Sharing: Farmland should be habitat too. Diverse, low-input farms can support wildlife and people at the same time.

See Ecomodernism, Food Sovereignty, Agrarian Conservatism, Sustainable Development, Green Growth.

Global Responsibility

National SovereigntyInternational Ecological Obligation

Who is responsible for the environment across borders? This covers biodiversity treaties, climate finance, ecological debt, international funding for conservation, the global commons, and each country's control of its own resources. The questions treat cooperation and obligation between countries as separate from one country forcing its will on another.

National Sovereignty: Each country is responsible for its own environment. International bodies should not tell a nation how to use its land.
International Ecological Obligation: Climate and biodiversity are shared. Rich, high-emitting nations owe real obligations to others, and the global commons needs binding rules.

See Environmental Nationalism, Climate Justice, Planetary Stewardship, Sustainable Development, Decolonial Ecology.

Ecological Political Priority

Incremental ReformTransformative Change

Can environmental problems be solved by steady reform within today's institutions, or do economic, political, legal and social systems have to change at the root? Wanting radical change is not counted as caring more about the environment.

Incremental Reform: Existing institutions can solve environmental problems through steady reform, with better laws, prices, standards and technology.
Transformative Change: Environmental crises come from the current economic and political order. Solving them means transforming it.

See Green Liberalism, Green Growth, Green Conservatism, Ecosocialism, Degrowth, Social Ecology, Green Anarchism.