The need for an ethics of responsibility in biodiversity

Abstract

Bernstein draws much needed attention to the catastrophic loss of biodiversity. I agree we need to think hard about medicine’s environmental impact, but we should go further than just reducing medicine’s ecological footprint. Bernstein argues we need to conserve biodiversity because we might benefit from possible future medical developments using other living organisms. This is a mindset where human beings are seen as separate from the rest of nature, and where the value of other life forms is defined by their usefulness to us. Heidegger referred to this as classifying the world around us as merely raw material for manipulation, with nature regarded as a standing reserve to be used or discarded at will. Arguably the crises of climate disruption and mass extinctions are the result of precisely this form of dualism, with an underlying assumption that the environment will somehow deal with whatever we discard. Environmental humanities would argue that human beings are not separate from nature, but are an integral part of a joyful, complex, co-evolved, and mutually dependent web of life. This poses ethical challenges for how we practise medicine. For instance, Rose proposes we should regard other creatures as kin, while Jonas argued the need to practise an ethics of responsibility towards all purposive creatures. Furthermore, our increasingly powerful biomedical technologies are changing the very nature of who we are. Because this power is now so great, the needs and wishes of future generations, both human and more than human, must be considered. These needs and wishes may include a planet worth living on. Doctors should be on the front line to preserve biodiversity—its loss threatens our physical health but also impairs our emotional and spiritual health and makes us far less than we could be.