SUBJECT: Education and diversity
AUTHOR: Caspian Richards
DATE: 22nd April 2003

KEYWORDS: intrinsic value, diversity, communication, environmental education

SUMMARY: The author argues that there is an inherent tension between a search for universal values such as a sense of the intrinsic value of all living things, and the notion of cultural diversity where different values are celebrated. Biodiversity conservation research should aim to determine which aspects of human experiences of nature have the potential to develop into universal values, and which are necessarily diverse.


The philosopher Immanuel Kant devoted much of his thought to the question of how political structures could transcend the national units that fought amongst themselves in his day in order to pursue fundamental ethical principles he believed would be shared by all of humanity, if only all of humanity lived in conditions which allowed them to think properly about ethical issues. At the same time, he was also interested in the apparently contradictory question of cosmopolitanism, which we might perhaps call diversity, consisting of an understanding of and respect for regional differences.

It seems to me that this describes perfectly the two kinds of approach to biodiversity conservation that are being discussed here: on the one hand we have been talking about the need to reach a common understanding of the intrinsic value of living things; on the other we are advocating the need to better understand different conflicting utilitarian concerns as they apply to specific conservation projects or policies with a real and practical impact. As with Kant's programme, there is a tension between the two - we applaud the principle of diversity of ideas ('culture') as well as of life-forms, but we also hope to persuade others to share our view that living things have an intrinsic value, thereby reducing the diversity of ideas by finding common agreement. This is, I would suggest, one of the main reasons for misunderstandings between natural and social scientists in particular: natural scientists often tend to look to advance the former programme, trying to gain acceptance for their own sense of the intrinsic value of living things (hence the talk of e.g. environmental education); social scientists, on the other hand, tend to bridle at talk of 'education', seeing it as indoctrination which fails to respect the diversity of human values and cultures.

I wouldn't want to give the impression that there are any easy answers to this dichotomy, and I'm sure that the kind of collaborative discussions and projects that Sandra Bell suggests would be invaluable in working to reduce differences between the two approaches. At the same time, however, I would suggest that discussions of this kind, aiming to develop a common approach to biodiversity, really need to be conducted on a much wider scale than among the academic community, as if there is to be any prospect of a wider recognition of the intrinsic value of living things then people will have to actively develop such a sense for themselves (through discussion, observation, contemplation) rather than having it communicated to them. One may nevertheless look for ways of facilitating the process, and here as researchers we have a lot to learn from the best teachers as well as from certain religious movements etc.

To my mind, then, the most urgent research need is to better understand how such a sense of the intrinsic value of living things is developed. This means firstly looking at the conditions which facilitate or prevent its development. Environmental education programmes, provided they are based on the kind of education which looks to develop faculties rather than to teach doctrine, can help to provide some answers, but we also require a sociological understanding of the relationships between e.g. poverty and the experience of nature which goes beyond statistical correlations to look at causes. The question of shared experience is also critical, and as Sandra has proposed, one which collaborative research can help to foster among researchers. Working with each other, but also (especially) with people outside the research community will enable us to examine where and why commonalities and differences develop when people share similar experiences, and thereby to speculate as to what aspects of the human experience of nature might under certain conditions become universal, and which are necessarily diverse. That in turn will lead us to be able to better differentiate between those aspects of our understanding of biodiversity we should seek to discuss widely (which I believe will be of the order of the sense of the intrinsic value of living things), and those which will have only fleeting influence, but which may at times be used in order to persuade non-believers of the merits of particular projects (and here I would place most 'utilitarian' arguments).

A contribution by:

Dr. Caspian Richards
The Macaulay Institute
Craigiebuckler
Aberdeen
AB15 8QH
Scotland, UK