Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodiversity should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. Critics argue that there are 3 core reasons harming animals is acceptable in conservation programs: the primary purpose of conservation is biodiversity protection; conservation is already compassionate to animals; and conservation should prioritize compassion to humans. We used argument analysis to clarify the values and logics underlying the debate around compassionate conservation. We found that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of a categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognizing all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies the individual is owed respect and should not be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to sentient animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of members of other species legitimates the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the living worlds, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. Embracing compassion can help dismantle human exceptionalism, recognize nonhuman personhood, and navigate a more expansive moral space. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13494 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
In this chapter I would like to introduce the knowledge management concept known as communities of practice (CoPs) and show a direct link between CoPs and human resource development (HRD). CoPs are a proven way to effectively manage knowledge as well as promote organizational learning, so it is a logical step to aim HRD initiatives towards developing and supporting them. It is my experience that both the vision and operational goals of an organization’s HR department is exceptionally crucial in designing and supporting a learning organization and that CoPs are one strategy to achieving these goals. The set up of the chapter is as follows; in this section I present some of the advantages that communities can have for the organization and the individual. Then I give an introduction to what CoPs actually are and how they function, followed by a discussion of the link between HRD, CoPs and organizational learning. In section four I look at what kind of support CoPs need in order to thrive and in section five, I expand these concepts to include global communities. The following section looks at how technology enables CoPs – both local and global – and describes general guidelines for deciding which technology is appropriate for facilitating communities. My closing remarks consider the increasing role of Cops in HRM as well as some of their possible down-sides.
The first part of this paper provides a series of conceptual critiques to illustrate how the recent move to inaugurate a “post-nature” world works to vindicate anthropocentric perspectives and a techno-managerial approach to the environmental crisis. We contend with this premise and suggest that troubling nature has profound implications for education. In the second part, we provide case studies from nature-based programs in The Netherlands and Canada to demonstrate how anthropocentric thinking can be reinscribed even as we work towards “sustainability”. Despite the tenacity of human hubris and the advent of the Anthropocene, we suggest these troubled times are also rich with emerging “post-anthropocentric” perspectives and practices. As such we offer “rewilding” as a means to think about education that moves beyond the romantic vestiges of “Nature” without lapsing into delusions of human exceptionalism. http://dx.doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/2334 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
