Civilisation, artifice, domination, autonomy – divining a moral ethic for wild nature


Whenever I see praise for the knowledge of indigenous people, the assertion that they are the best guardians of the world's biodiversity 1) that they hold the key to natural cures and remedies (2) I feel that the people behind this praise must wallow in a warm bath of ambiguity and contradiction, whereas I feel unengaged by the animist force that appears to drive these cultures, and which just doesn’t have widespread purchase on an increasingly humanist Anthropocene. That animists believe the spiritual idea that the universe, and all natural objects within the universe, have souls or spirits is immaterial when all human cultures have the capacity to do damage to wild nature because of their own self-interest. The healing forests of Peru exemplify this in the contradiction of the incompatibility between the open landscapes of the swiddens, the shifting cultivation through slash and burn that is practiced, and the need now for regeneration of forest to create the shady conditions that are required for many of the fungi and vines with healing properties to grow (2). The ambiguity in virtue comes from knowledge clearly being used as power and currency, the influence of shamans in holding that knowledge, the alleged “maestros” being provided with a source of income from these regenerating healing forests, and the self-interest in not sharing the accumulated knowledge of these healing forests - “This isn’t a book for non-Matsés to see. Don’t let non-indigenous people see it” (3). It is also the usual story of indigenous people railing at exclusion of their extractive activities like swiddens from protected areas (3). Isn’t anyone going to stick up for the wild nature from which this land was appropriated when people first settled into the area, their presence there a drop in the ocean compared to the time that the indigenous wild nature had been there? Doesn’t anybody recognise that the dispersal of modern humans out of southern Africa was a massive land grab from wild nature?

That which is in itself, and is conceived through itself

The 17th century Dutch philosopher Benedict De Spinoza (1632—1677) recognised this essential self-interestedness of the human species in his philosophical treatise Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order written between 1664 and 1665 and posthumously published in 1677. In each part, Spinoza puts forward some definitions and axioms from which he attempts to derive numerous propositions and outcomes that are a metaphysical exploration of the human condition, and especially our emotions and whether we act with free will – “That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone” (4). Spinoza ventured that human motivation was driven by what was useful to it, without necessarily pondering how it came into existence:
“Further, as they find in themselves and outside themselves many means which assist them not a little in the search for what is useful, for instance, eyes for seeing, teeth for chewing, herbs and animals for yielding food, the sun for giving light, the sea for breeding fish, &c., they come to look on the whole of nature as a means for obtaining such conveniences….. As they look upon things as means, they cannot believe them to be self—created; but, judging from the means which they are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with human freedom, who have arranged and adapted everything for human use”

Spinosa wasn’t against human self-interest per se as the “human body is composed of very numerous parts, of diverse nature, which continually stand in need of fresh and varied nourishment”, but he was clear that there were limits, recognising that monetisation of the value of necessities raised up coinage to be the arbiter of pleasure:
“This result is the fault only of those, who seek money, not from poverty or to supply their necessary wants, but because they have learned the arts of gain, wherewith they bring themselves to great splendour. Certainly they nourish their bodies, according to custom, but scantily, believing that they lose as much of their wealth as they spend on the preservation of their body. But they who know the true use of money, and who fix the measure of wealth solely with regard to their actual needs, live content with little”

Spinoza noted the arrogance of the human species in seeing itself above nature, so that man “disturbs rather than follows nature's order, that he has absolute control over his actions, and that he is determined solely by himself”. Moreover, Spinoza reflects that man regards his own actions as without imperfection, and which thus separates him from natural phenomena guided by the hand of his ruler (Spinoza as a pantheist believed his deity was nature, that it was everything). So, when the human species beheld something in nature that did not conform to its preconception, Spinoza was critical of their reaction - “Nature has fallen short or has blundered, and has left her work incomplete. Thus we see that men are wont to style natural phenomena perfect or imperfect rather from their own prejudices, than from true knowledge of what they pronounce upon”. Nevertheless, Spinoza considered that humans were part of nature, and could not ignore its basic laws, thus denying that they had free will:
“Nothing comes to pass in nature, which can be set down to a flaw therein; for nature is always the same, and everywhere one and the same in her efficacy and power of action; that is, nature's laws and ordinances, whereby all things come to pass and change from one form to another, are everywhere and always the same; so that there should be one and the same method of understanding the nature of all things whatsoever, namely, through nature's universal laws and rules”

I was looking for something else when I came to Spinoza, but found these insights as compelling as the one I was seeking. References to nature, natural objects and natural phenomenon recur throughout Spinosa’s ethical treatise, sometimes in ways uncomplimentary to the human species – “many actions are observed in the lower animals, which far transcend human sagacity”. However, more telling was his understanding that nature is self-determining, by necessity existing without being dependent on any other being. He termed this as “natura naturans”, which translates from the Latin as naturing nature or nature making nature – “I wish here to explain, what we should understand by nature viewed as active (natura naturans)…. that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself”

Pathology of natural resource management

Spinoza recognised the self-will of nature some 300 years before Jay West deduced it from an etymological analysis of the word wilderness, albeit perhaps Spinoza’s analysis owing more to philosophy than direct observation (5). Either way, the unfettered action of wild nature is always risked on the assumption that humans can be, and still are, a part of nature. This at least was a flaw in Spinoza’s reasoning because, from the age of agriculture, a duality has existed, the human species increasingly withdrawing itself from basic natural laws. Instead, the civilising of the human species made it become increasingly the exceptional species, predominantly free of predation and master of the natural world around it – “People lived in a world mostly of their making, fostering a duality that had not been present for pre-agricultural people” (6). The transition to domestication of plant and animal species, or even just the manipulation of landscapes to ensure maximisation of natural resource harvest, was an agrarian ethos that broke the relationship between the human species and the natural world. Thus it has been the over-riding instinct of agrarianism to move human or ecosystem behaviours to a predetermined, predictable state in order to harvest its products, reduce its threats, and establish highly predictable outcomes for the short-term benefit of humanity (7). This has been described as the “pathology of natural resource management” since a command and control approach to nature reduces the range of natural variation through modifying and simplifying, and which ultimately reduces the resilience of natural ecosystems (7):
“The surprises and crises created by the pathology are not only the consequence of incomplete knowledge of how to control nature's variability or improper controls being applied. They also include ignorance of the constructive role that variation plays in maintaining the integrity of ecosystem function in the face of unexpected events”

There is a strong argument that the natural resource management of the human species should strive to retain critical types and ranges of natural variation in ecosystems by facilitating existing processes and variabilities rather than changing or controlling them (7) but this is just the limitation the human species should put on itself in terms of its needs for its own existence. Is that adequate or in any way good enough in meeting the needs of wild nature to ensure its existence? Does it allow the true genius of wild nature to be revealed? Where duality once meant the divergence of the human species from basic natural laws, it has now become a pejorative term thrown against those that see the necessity of completely removing the influence of human extractive activities from wild and protected areas (8,9). Swiss political geographer Prof. Juliet Fall quotes the late David Given, known for his work on indigenous plant conservation (10) in the principles he set out endorsing the idea that local populations should remain within designated protected areas and be part of the management process, implying that the boundaries of the protected areas should take account of the existence and livelihood of these people (11). One of these principles was that the protected area should be sufficiently large enough to accommodate its dual function – a reserve for nature with lands for indigenous people, and that the protected area planning must accommodate population increase and cultural change. However, Fall saw in this "a strong undertone of insider/outsider, with the [indigenous people] being seen as a ‘legitimate’ partner in the process, implicitly ‘more natural’ than outsiders, and deserving ‘protection’ and ‘non-contamination’". Fall believes that "traditional societies must not systematically be mistaken for an idyllic Garden of Eden, with ‘primitive’ humans living in symbiosis with nature". She notes the warning that “Indigenous societies probably were and are neither significantly better nor worse than European societies at preserving their environments” and "rejects the environmental determinism of a simplistic nature-culture causal linkage, and its romanticized representation of "traditional" indigenous cultures living in harmony with the environment".

Why do we need to manage the autonomous natural world?

American environmental ethicist Eric Katz was less interested in Fall’s distinction of insiders/outsiders, than in taking - in his collection of essays written between 1979 and 1996 - the straightforward view that it was inadequate to base environmental ethics on human interests (12). Instead, he defends a non-anthropocentric, holistic, and communal environmental philosophy that addresses the human domination of nature that he believes oppresses and denies it autonomy – “As with any autonomous subject, nature thus has a value that can be subverted and destroyed by the process of human domination”. He explains that complex holistic natural systems and communities exhibit autonomy, in that they are independent from external design, purpose, and control, making the distinction between human-made objects and naturally evolving entities – “The crucial distinction is that artifacts are always the result of a human plan or design, while natural entities are not…..Natural entities, processes, and systems can be truly autonomous, while artifacts cannot. Once we plan or control natural processes, we turn Nature into an artifact, an entity that is no longer subject to its own development”. He notes that animals have intrinsic or inherent value based on some aspect of their existence, and not simply an instrumental value for humans. He criticises the individualistic environmental ethic that considers natural entities as inherently valuable because of some utilitarian property they possess, because the essential elements of utilitarianism only provide a justification for the satisfaction of human need. Thus he argues that if the natural world is valued merely for the maximization of human satisfaction or goods, it will only be preserved conditionally upon it continuing to satisfy those needs, and which is an insufficient basis for a sustained existence of that wild nature. His focus on autonomy and domination leads him to conclude that humanity has a moral obligation to the natural world to preserve its integrity, identity, and free development.

Katz was not without his detractors, even amongst fellow American environmental ethicists/philosophers. Ned Hettinger and Wayne Ouderkirk were critical of the messages in his essay collection, both claiming that Katz distinction between artefacts and natural entities made impossible all restoration efforts in the natural world, that he seemed to lack a positive vision of an interdependent community of humanity and nature, and that he failed to articulate or to explain the positive role for human beings in the natural world (13,14). Ouderkirk claimed that Katz used the fact of human intentionality – our engagement with nature so that we understand it well enough to meet our needs - to separate both humans and their artefacts from the natural world. Hettinger criticized Katz for seeming to claim that that all human interference in the natural world was bad, when he should be differentiating between different kinds of restoration projects, as Hettinger believed some were open to benign interference with nature, especially when they sought  to rehabilitate natural processes and areas. In addition, Hettinger wanted a standard of environmental ethics that was less absolute so that we were free to intervene in the natural world for good purposes.

It is in his responses to these criticisms that Katz laid out a fundamentally cautious approach to wild nature, that until we know what we can justifiably do to intervene, we should as much as possible leave nature alone – “To “let it be” seems to me to be the highest form of respect we can muster. And while I leave it alone, I try to learn as much as possible about it, so that knowledge, respect, and love can all grow together” (15). Katz admitted that he places human artefacts outside of the natural world, but he thought it an illegitimate jump to say that he therefore placed humans outside of the natural world. He insisted that the things humans create, build, make, imagine, are all artefactual, and thus outside of the realm of naturally occurring entities, processes, and systems –“Our artifacts, our culture, would not exist if we humans had not intentionally interfered with and molded the natural world. Nature alone could not create the world in which we now find ourselves”. Katz does believe that the remediation of damaged ecosystems is a better policy than letting the blighted landscape remain as is, but he also says that that we should never have damaged the natural ecosystem in the first place, and then cautions that “once we begin to adopt a general policy of remediation and restoration, we may come to feel omnipotent in the manipulation and management of nature. And thus we will create for ourselves a totally artifactual world”.

It’s a question for Katz of the development of an adequate criterion of intervention to know when it is morally justifiable to intervene in the development of an autonomous natural entity or system. He didn’t think that there had been much progress on elucidating that criterion of intervention, likely thinking it improbable anyway, but he was clear that until we came closer to determining it, then he claimed it was dangerous to articulate a positive vision of the human role for intervention in the natural world because it would endorse an environmental philosophy that is essentially an ethic of management – “I do not offer a positive vision of the human role in the management of nature—I am not interested in developing an environmental ethic that is a management ethic”. Katz goal, he asserts, was to accentuate the difference between the natural world and the world of human culture and artefacts, a dualism that he says we must learn from so that we treat autonomous nature in a different way from the way we treat our artefacts (15):
“We must not treat nature as a mere commodity for the furtherance of human satisfaction. We leave nature alone. Such a commitment does not prevent us from acting in the largely artifactual world to solve environmental problems such as pollution, environmental racism, sustainable development, or overpopulation. But why do we need to manage the autonomous natural world?”

The collapse of civilisation

I find myself in agreement with Katz, as he articulates my instincts and ethic for wild nature, of a self-willed land where I tread lightly without reimagining or managing. The artefactual in that space is glaringly obvious to me, and is a sure sign of human reimagining and management (a bugbear is the pointless act of brutalising trees in woodlands by inexpertly removing branches when they pose little inconvenience to passage). There are other strands of environmental ethic that see wildness matters enough for its loss to provoke a moral condemnation of civilisation, its agriculture and industry. It is a recognition that civilisation has alienated humans from nature, so making us blind to its destruction. For some, the belief is that learning primitive skills that enable self-reliance is a way to isolate themselves from civilisation and reacquaint themselves with the natural world (16). However, this primitivism is characterised by personal development in aspiring to emulate indigenous peoples, and less about the autonomy of ecosystems. In contrast, a precocious information science and journalism student, John Jacobi, at the University of North Carolina (17) writes about Wildism, which is less concerned with this reskilling, what he caustically describes as the “noble savage narrative”, but in understanding the tensions between civilisation and nature (18). Its primary concern is the autonomy of nature, recognising that a wild will through "release of human control" is the "first step towards increasing the naturalness of the world":
“This belief in the non-instrumental value of nature compels wildists to be fundamentally concerned with increasing and respecting nature’s autonomy, which, put differently, is at its core a contention about human control and domination, an assertion that humans simply shouldn’t have as much control as they do”

In essence, Wildism is an ethical philosophy that asserts that wildness matters enough that production at the level of industry and civilized agriculture is morally unjustifiable, while simultaneously recognizing practical limits. The tenet is that industry is almost certainly incompatible with wild nature, leaving the collapse of industry as the only viable solution to our moral problems – as Jacobi notes, the "collapses of civilizations have historically been beneficial to nature". He asserts that the collapse of the artificialness of industry would make way for smaller-scale cultivation that would reduce nature’s domination, but valuing nature and nature’s autonomy in this smaller-scale cultivation would require "a benchmark of production from before civilized agriculture". This is not the same as Katz criterion of intervention (see above) since that was about a possible allowable intervention in wild nature. The intention of Wildism's re-evaluation of human intervention and resource use is to lessen the domination of nature, not make intervention fit for a presence in wild nature. Wildism views the Material World as a spectrum, with human Artifice at one end, and Wild Nature at the other (see Fig. 1 in (18)). The important concept of this spectrum is that Artifice is shown as not being any part of nature, but that the space in between that and Wild Nature is shown as Dominated Nature. Wild Nature and Dominated Nature are thus bracketed together as nature in this spectrum. The implication of the spectrum is that the human species must move the world closer to naturalness by passing out of the Artifice of civilisation, transform its (agri)culture so that there is less and less domination of nature, and thus ultimately preserving and giving more autonomy back to nature. The extent of transformation depends on the scale of phasedown – current restoration focuses on localised removal of human influence and technologies, much larger scale restoration would require the removal of civilization from large regions.

Wildism comes across as political advocacy of strategies for a new world through spreading an ethical philosophy of Wildism to challenge the industrial destruction of wild nature, rather than just being about a personal development in primitivistic reskilling. Another difference is that wildlands conservation is a major aim, and which seeks to directly protect that which Wildists are most concerned about (18). I don’t believe giving back autonomy to nature is a dichotomy, a duality too far to have spaces entirely left for wild nature. I also believe that it is impossible to separate the ethical issues of wild nature from the civilisation that surrounds it. While I know that technological advance is as much a factor as population increase in the evolving pressure on wild nature – as is suggested by the Ehrlich or IPAT equation in (19,20) – but the fact that world population has nearly trebled in my lifetime of 64 years (21) makes it hard for me to resile from a fear of its impact. American conservation biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, along with John Holdren, devised the IPAT equation, and have a track record of articulating concerns about population rise (22). They recently questioned whether the collapse of global civilisation could be avoided, given the historical knowledge that many past local or regional civilizations eventually underwent collapse, a loss of socio-political-economic complexity usually accompanied by a dramatic decline in population size (23). Their motivation for asking the question was that they believed for the first time, humanity’s technological and highly interconnected global civilization was threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems, including climate disruption, overpopulation, and overconsumption of natural resources, as well as the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies. They illustrated the overconsumption by an estimate, based on how far current human population was above the planet’s long-term carrying capacity, that humans "would require roughly half an additional planet". After reviewing many factors, such as the scientific community repeatedly warning humanity in the past of its peril, like that from the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1992 (24) and the earlier warnings about the risks of population expansion and the ‘limits to growth’, their conclusion was that dramatic social and political change was needed to avert the collapse (23):
“Unfortunately, awareness among scientists that humanity is in deep trouble has not been accompanied by popular awareness and pressure to counter the political and economic influences implicated in the current crisis. Without significant pressure from the public demanding action, we fear there is little chance of changing course fast enough to forestall disaster”

World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity

I do not lie awake, fearful of the collapse of civilisation. My upbringing in the 1950-60s was an outdoor life that equipped me with skills of self-reliance, and so I would have a better chance of survival than most if it did collapse (25). I never set out not to have any have children, but that is how it has worked out. There have been, though elements of conscientiousness: I have been composting my vegetable waste for over 30 years, grew a lot of my own food for a long time, and gave up eating sheep meat some 14 years ago. It was land use and the impact of it, contrasted with places I visited where this use was excluded and nature had autonomy, which set me on this course of wildland advocacy. I do have a self-limiting ordinance where I try not to stray from my central message – to reuse a phrase “it’s the ecology, stupid!” – and thus steer clear of issues like technology, population or climate disruption. However, in early September, I was alerted by a colleague in Hungary to a call for the world’s scientists to sign up to a second Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, 25 years after that first warning (see above). The second Scientists’ Warning was articulated in a draft Viewpoint paper that looked back to 1992 to see if there had been any sufficient progress in solving the environmental challenges identified. The Viewpoint paper is now published and, other than the decline in ozone-depleting substances, every other indicator had got worse, including deforestation, rise in the numbers of livestock and people, drop in vertebrate species numbers, and a drop in freshwater resources (26):
“Humanity is now being given a second notice, as illustrated by these alarming trends. We are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our intense but geographically and demographically uneven material consumption and by not perceiving continued rapid population growth as a primary driver behind many ecological and even societal threats. By failing to adequately limit population growth, reassess the role of an economy rooted in growth, reduce greenhouse gases, incentivize renewable energy, protect habitat, restore ecosystems, curb pollution, halt defaunation, and constrain invasive alien species, humanity is not taking the urgent steps needed to safeguard our imperilled biosphere”

As well as being alerted to the Scientists’ Warning, I was given evidence that Paul Jepson, he of the candyfloss-spun towers of nonsense about “rewilding”, and a board member of “Rewilding" Europe (27) had sought to have the wording changed in the draft Viewpoint paper in relation to the need for “rewilding”, taking away the reference to apex predators, and replacing it with “functional species” to restore “socio-ecological processes” - for functional species, think domestic species as surrogates for wild herbivores (28,29). His contention was that the concepts of naturalness and wildness were becoming increasingly blurred and contentious, given the cultural landscapes of Europe. This is pretty much the disingenuous but typical reframing of reality that “Rewilding” Europe use to suit and pursue its own agenda – it should really be called REFARMING Europe (30).

In response to this attempt by Jepson, my colleague and I corresponded with two of the draft Viewpoint paper's authors about not changing the sentence on “rewilding”. We explained that there was a concern over a dilution in the meaning of “rewilding” that particularly de-emphasised the role of large carnivores, even to the extent of ignoring them, which was being pushed to become the norm in Europe by a minority interest that did not represent an overall view of European experts. I told them that this was amongst the concerns that had led to a decision to set-up a science-based movement for “rewilding” and which had now been mandated by IUCN to set up a Rewilding Task Force, of which I am a member (31). As importantly, my colleague objected to the notion that the process of “rewilding” should be inclusive of people and their economy, as this was the antithesis of giving autonomy back to nature, and so he responded that he could not see the point of mixing social processes with ecological ones within the “rewilding” process and - at the same time - leaving the reference to predators out.

I signed up to the Scientists’ Warning, as did my colleague at the Wildland Research Institute Steve Carver (but Jepson did not) along with 15,362 other scientists from 184 countries (32) and waited for its publication as a Viewpoint in the journal BioScience. I doubt I needed to influence the outcome, but the sentence was not changed, nestled amongst a list of examples of steps that humanity can take to transition in reducing its impact, not least further reducing fertility rates and estimating a scientifically defensible human population size for the long term, coupled with other examples like restoring native plant communities at large scales, particularly forest landscapes; and the one I absolutely endorse (26):
“rewilding regions with native species, especially apex predators, to restore ecological processes and dynamics”

Whereas the Ehrlich’s hoped for the public demanding action through popular awareness and pressure on political and economic influences (see above) the Scientists’ Warning suggests a wider constituency as being effective, noting that because most political leaders respond to pressure, then scientists, media influencers, and lay citizens must insist that their governments take immediate action as a moral imperative to current and future generations of human and other life (26). Being a signatory to the Scientists’ Warning, I was enrolled into an Alliance of World Scientists, an independent, grass-roots organization comprised of scientists from around the world committed to being a collective international voice for the well-being of the planet (33). We are being encouraged to spread the message directly to politicians and business leaders. As it is, the Scientists’ Warning has already had an astonishing reach, having been featured in 129 news outlets so far, and is trending to be one of the most discussed papers of 2017 (34). Perhaps we should also learn a lesson from Japan's Basic Policy on Conservation of the Natural Environment from 1978 in which civil society is encouraged from an early age to engage with the natural world (35):
" In order to sufficiently preserve the natural environment, it is essential that every citizen learns the spirit of conservation and conservation as a habit. For this reason, we actively promote environmental education in schools and communities, deepen our understanding of the mechanisms of nature and the correct relationship between humans and nature, and strive to cultivate love and morals for nature"

I will bring news of this Alliance and the IUCN Task Force as and when there is something to report. First, though, I really must not delay any further in laying out next how that all important example from the Scientists’ Warning, on restoration of ecological processes and dynamics, has natural potential in Britain.

Mark Fisher 18 December 2017

(1) ‘Indigenous peoples are the best guardians of world's biodiversity’, David Hill, Guardian 9 August 2017

(2) Volume II of Traditional Medicine Encyclopedia Completed!  Christopher Herndon and William Park, November 2017 Field Update, Acaté Amazon Conservation November 17, 2017

(3) Amazon tribe saves plant lore with ‘healing forests’ and encyclopedia, David Hill, Guardian 24 November 2017

(4) Spinoza, B. D. (16xx) The Ethics (Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata)”, translated by RHM Elwes

(5) Wild Park, Brighton - not so wild now, Self-willed land December 2013

(6) Krall, L. (2007). Between wilderness and the middle landscape: A rocky road. In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet; Dean, Liese, comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium; September 30-October 6, 2005; Anchorage, AK. Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 134-140

(7) Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation biology, 10(2), 328-337

(8) Cronon, W. (1996). The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental History, 1(1), 7-28.

(9) Fall, J. (2002). Divide and rule: Constructing human boundaries in ‘boundless nature’. GeoJournal, 58(4), 243-251

(10) Given, D. R. (1994) Principles and Practice of Plant Conservation, London: Chapman and Hall

(11) Fall, Juliet Jane (2005) Drawing The Line: Nature, Hybridity And Politics In Transboundary Spaces. Ashgate Publishing Limited

(12) Katz, E. (1997).Nature as subject: Human obligation and natural community. Rowman & Littlefield.

(13) Ouderkirk, W. (2002). Katz's problematic dualism and its" seismic" effects on his theory. Ethics & the Environment, 7(1), 124-137.

(14) Hettinger, N. (2002). The problem of finding a positive role for humans in the natural world. Ethics & the Environment, 7(1), 109-123.

(15) Katz, E. (2002). Understanding moral limits in the duality of artifacts and nature: A reply to critics. Ethics & the Environment, 7(1): 138-146


(17) John Jacobi, University of North Carolina

(18) Jacobi, J. (2016). The foundations of wildist ethics. Hunter/Gatherer, 1(1), 6-55.

(19) Human Population Growth, The Rewilding Institute

(20) The IPAT Equation, The Sustainable Scale Project

(21) World Population by Year, worldometers

(22) Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (2009). The population bomb revisited. The electronic journal of sustainable development, 1(3), 63-71

(23) Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH. (2013) Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? Proceedings of the Royal Society 280: 20122845.

(24) 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, Union of Concerned Scientists

(25) About the author and articles, Self-willed land November 2012

(26) Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T.M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M.I., Laurance, W.F. and 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries (2017) World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. BioScience 67(12): 1026-1028

(27) Moving past process to outcome – the manifestation of wild land, Self-willed land September 2017

(28) A challenge to Rewilding Britain, Self-willed land August 2015

(29) Bison habitat preference becomes a pawn in the disputed natural vegetation cover of Europe, November 2015

(30) What is rewilding?, Self-willed land September 2013

(31) Task Force on Rewilding, IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management

(32) Signatories, Alliance of World Scientists (Signed before October 23, 2017)

(33) World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice, Alliance of World Scientists 2017

(34) World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. Overview of attention for article published in BioScience, November 2017 OUP - Altmetric

(35) Basic policy on conservation of natural environment, Prime minister's notice 30 issue, Date of promulgation: November 6, 1978, Laws, notices, notifications, Ministry of the Environment, Japan (in Japanese)