The cumulative effects of human actions over past centuries such as widespread deforestation and the abundant use of fossil fuels has caused changes in the present climate state that would otherwise not have occurred. This trend of an increase in the global average temperature shows no evidence of slowing into the future, which suggests that uncomfortable climate change will persist in the centuries to come. Most of the problematic aspects of climate change involve its negative impact on humans. This includes shifts in farmable regions of the world, destabilization of parts of the world due to fluctuating food prices, changes in flooding and drought patterns, and forced migration due to sea level rise.
A warming planet might pose problems for humans, but how would climate change affect the welfare of other species on Earth? In a recent paper titled “Is climate change morally good from non-anthropocentric perspectives?” and published in Ethics, Policy and Environment, Toby Svoboda and I examine the impact of climate change on non-human organisms. If we temporarily set aside the interests of humans, might it be possible that climate change provides net benefits to other organisms?
The context of this study is the belief by some people in “nonanthropocentrism” or “anti-humanism” as a philosophy. Such beliefs tend to place human interests beneath those of other organisms in Earth’s community of life. If such philosophical positions are accepted at face value, then this might suggest that climate change is in fact a good thing. Climate change might cause the decline of civilization and even a reduction in biodiversity, but it might allow other organisms to flourish as a result. The net effect could be a much more thriving planet, albeit one in which humans are worse off.
This is not to say that we should ignore the effects of climate change on humans. Instead, this analysis demonstrates that nonanthropocentrism and anti-humanism may be in conflict with modern attempts at mitigating climate change. Our analysis therefore challenges adherents of nonanthropocentric ethics to examine the extent to which non-human interests should take priority over the collective interests of human civilization.