The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, 2nd Edition

Environmental philosophy

2.5 Conservationism and preservationism

Conservationism and preservationism were two

early currents of environmental thinking that

gave birth to the first wave of ‘environmental’

pressure groups in the nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries.

‘Resource conservationism’ refers to the

ideas of modern land management popularised

by Gifford Pinchot early in the twentieth

century. His doctrine of conservation abhorred

the wasteful exploitation of nature. Pinchot

commended the use of scientific management

techniques in developing land for the wider

benefit of society rather than for a privileged

few.

‘Preservationism’ represents an attitude of

reverence towards nature, especially for the

wilderness of the USA and Australia. Its leading

exponent was John Muir of the Sierra Club,

whose writings had a greater emphasis on the

interrelation of humanity and nature.

Both approaches were clearly

anthropocentric, although in preservationism

humans were not the sole source of value.

Conservation involves managing a resource for

later consumption whereas preservation will

protect a resource from any interference. Or, as

Eckersley ( 1992 ) puts it, ‘whereas Pinchot was

concerned toconservenaturefordevelopment,

Muir’s concern was topreservenaturefrom

development’ (p. 39).

See Eckersley ( 1992 : ch. 2) and

Oelschlaeger ( 1991 ).

explicitly traverses the anthropocentric–ecocentric divide by granting moral
consideration to non-humans. Yet animal liberationists employ ethical argu-
ments that have set them apart from ecocentric theory. In part this diver-
gence can be explained by the origins of the animal rights movement.
Whereas contemporary environmentalism is rooted in early conservationist
and preservationist movements (see Box2.5), animal liberationism emerged
from the separate animal protection tradition. Animal liberationists have
mobilised their arguments in support of vegetarianism, and in opposition
tohunting, the fur trade, modern farming practices and vivisection. The
animal liberation literature has focused on protecting individual creatures
(rather than whole species) by employing prevailing moral discourses to
argue that the moral consideration shown to humans should be extended
toarange of non-human creatures. The two main approaches within ani-
mal liberationism – utilitarianism and animal rights – are represented by
the leading theorists, Peter Singer and Tom Regan.
Singer ( 1976 , 1979)proposes a utilitarian argument in which actions
should be judged by their consequences, i.e. the pleasure or pain, happiness
or well-being they produce. He develops Jeremy Bentham’s observation that
todetermine which creatures should receive moral consideration, the ques-
tion we should ask is ‘not, Can theyreason?norCan theytalkbut,Can they
suffer?’ (Singer 1979 : 50). Singer argues thatsentience–‘thecapacity to suf-
fer orexperience enjoyment or happiness’ (ibid.: 50) – is ‘a prerequisite for
having interests at all’. What he broadly means by ‘interests’ here is the
opportunity for creatures to live their lives to the full. Without sentience,
Singer argues, we can have no interests. A stone has no feelings and can-
not suffer, so a boy kicking it along the street is not harming its interests.