Image top: installation ‚florae obscurae‘ by Farangis.
The moral and the ethical aspects of environmental destruction need to be addressed for the sake of “nature”/nonhuman spaces/communities/life themselves.
The form of thinking that “nature” and nonhuman spaces exist for societal gains – in either direction constructive or destructive – poses a problem.
Our dependence on “nature” doesn’t legitimate our fundamentally hegemonial-anthropocenic attitudes towards “nature”.
The notion that nature and nonhuman spaces ought to serve human interests implies that we assume
a.) nature as a “resource”
and that b.) nature was void of autonomous meaning and ecosocial completeness.
Both notions are presumably the core ones that lead to destructive behaviour towards “nature”/nonhuman spaces.
Harming and polluting “nature” and nonhuman spaces are actions of anthropogenic ethical disregard for “nature” itself.
Antibiologistic Animal Sociology