The critical challenge we face today centers around how to combat climate degradation effectively. A viable approach is to significantly expand woodlands and allow them to thrive through natural processes.
Forests play a vital role by purifying and cooling the air, storing carbon, and collecting water—ecosystems we cannot afford to see diminish.
In his book Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, E.O. Wilson advocates for the creation of larger forest cores connected to other wooded areas, wetlands, and grasslands.
Freedoms
While more nations are establishing protected areas, it remains inadequate compared to what has been lost.
Every organism contributes to the health of ecosystems, and under intense human-related pressures, essential functions like seed dispersal, pollination, plant growth, soil aeration, and population equilibrium diminish significantly.
Caroline Fraser asserts in Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution that reforestation is an “ethical obligation” that arises from the “scientific necessity” resulting from human exploitation of wildlife environments.
Politicians and business leaders who steer the economy often wish to exert control over organic life as well.
A harmonious forest ecosystem seeks equitable freedoms so that all plants and animals can prosper free from human interference.
Consumption
The rightful stewards of forest resources are the nonhuman inhabitants that have nurtured them, not contemporary humans who exploit the work of flora and fauna for profit at the forest’s expense.
If one nation invades another for its resources, it elicits moral outrage; however, such actions are politically endorsed against Gaia. With a few exceptions like conservationists, our ethical obligations seem to cease at the forest’s edge.
There is a high demand for forest resources, indicating that compensation should flow to those who have cultivated these woods, waters, and minerals.
Still, these organisms are often displaced or pushed to extinction due to human exploitation, underscoring the necessity of forest sovereignty.
Capitalist motivations do not prioritize the collective well-being of Gaia.
There may be ways to responsibly harvest resources, but a more effective option is to shift cultural perceptions to reduce consumption in industrialized countries. A strong public outcry could compel politicians to expand habitats for flora and fauna.
Profit
Given the environmental devastation caused by industrial societies over recent centuries, contemporary humans should not retain control over the climate-enhancing assets of the world’s forests, whether tropical or boreal.
While some negotiations might be possible, forest sovereignty should be a baseline principle. Gaia’s inhabitants willingly perform essential roles for the benefit of all. This interaction defies the traditional principles of free-market economics, where humans thrive while forests suffer losses.
Humans infringe upon the property rights of Gaia for selfish gain. Free-market capitalism often leads to environmental degradation and compromises the autonomy of natural organisms.
In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith mentions an “invisible hand” that supposedly guides capitalists towards outcomes benefiting others.
This principle does not apply to the state of Gaia, where improvements for plants and animals are conspicuously absent; instead, humans reap financial rewards.
Inclusivity
Capitalist interests fail to foster a greater common good for Gaia. The natural flow of resources is clear until disrupted by overt human activity.
Deprived of the capacity to adapt, populations might encounter the fate Rachel Carson warned of in her 1962 book, Silent Spring: biotic annihilation.
Just as cultural norms have evolved in movements for civil rights and feminism, we must reconsider moral evolution regarding forest creatures.
Our understanding of reality must be grounded in moral reasoning supported by empirical data, rather than nebulous personal beliefs, partisan agendas, or commercial interests.
The moral mindset can adapt and, rather than veering away from compassion for others, shift towards inclusivity of both humans and nonhuman life forms.
Dilemma
Despite many people’s empathetic feelings towards animals, a psychological barrier persists that allows us to harm, exploit, and consume them.
This predatory mindset represents moral regression, distancing us from the symbiotic bonds that ancient humans and many contemporary Indigenous cultures maintain with nature.
Throughout human history, the tendency to dominate prevails. A change is necessary: we must transcend authoritarian attitudes towards nature and establish an ecological ethic instead.
Conflicts can arise between humans, plants, and animals over land and resources. Like all cultural practices, ethics are not fixed and have the potential to shift positively rather than retreat into the past.
A repeated tragic conflict arises when animal populations’ needs clash with human activities in shared environments, such as the interactions between elephants and villagers in Africa or wolves and cattle ranchers in the Western United States.
Sprawl
The answer may lie in stepping back—fostering ecological cities rather than sprawling urban development. This approach could transform extensive areas into wildlands once more.
Forest-like areas near urban centers could improve air quality, combat soil erosion, assist in carbon capture, and store water effectively.
In a world rich with diverse species, the urgent task is to extend forests and conserve animal habitats. The primary concern revolves around how we acknowledge nature’s self-sustaining ability, which is essential for a healthy ecosphere.
We should endeavor to coexist more harmoniously with nonhuman cohabitants by allowing them to manage ecosystems as natural engineers.
Humans frequently harm other life forms through activities like hunting, mining, logging, cattle farming, urban development, and wetland drainage.
Struggle
Nevertheless, our planet’s flora, fauna, and fungi contribute significantly to air purification, water cleanliness, and carbon capture, serving as custodians of the land and waterways.
Aside from predatory interactions and natural boundaries, forest animal freedoms are primarily unrestricted.
This dynamic shifts drastically when deforestation encroaches on habitats or human activity contaminates bio-networks.
Generally, within Gaia, animals enjoy relative freedom from artificial constraints. However, human intrusion restricts the roaming, foraging, and socializing of land and flying creatures, which inhibits many of their inherent behaviors vital to ecosystem engineering.
As Charles Darwin noted, struggle for survival is fundamental to nature, but it is also crucial to Gaia’s ecological balance.
Territory
Forest-dwelling animals have developed adaptations that enhance their safety, such as arboreal primates evading larger predators or species that change coloration, produce toxins, or seek camouflage.
Expansive forests, coupled with wetlands and grasslands, act as climate stabilizers and deserve restoration and ongoing protection, given the life-enhancing qualities they harbor.
Allowing these majestic forests to flourish undisturbed is an ethical obligation. Concerned about rights and freedoms, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison drew on John Locke’s philosophies while crafting the U.S. Constitution.
In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Locke champions acceptance and condemns persecution, arguing that violations of property rights warrant consequences.
What follows is not merely territorial encroachment but the destruction of animals’ ways of life, leaving them traumatized, wounded, and confined.
Askew
Animals engage in self-care and innately understand that a thriving forest benefits all organisms, from the tiniest microbes to the grandest trees.
Within their own territories, Locke might argue that there exists a set of liberties beyond legal strictures, provided these actions do not harm the common good.
Given that natural processes do not negatively impact society, activities that John Stuart Mill would describe as self-regarding should qualify plants and animals as innocent and worthy of protection from destruction.
It is clear that our beliefs and values are what ultimately damage the natural world. Humans could show greater tolerance toward nature, consistent with Locke’s principle that all beings, including plants and animals, are entitled to equal rights.
Once we meddle with the natural synergies within biological networks, we disrupt sustainable systems. Our role should encompass expanded protections for forests—be they boreal, temperate, or tropical—because Gaia’s self-regulating systems benefit all life.
Advocate
Where can we find security for forest flora, fauna, and fungi that combat climate change through their unique adaptations? By allowing commercial exploitation of vast areas of forest land, we do not safeguard public health or environmental integrity.
As informed voters, we possess the capacity to incite change. Ultimately, the freedoms of countless individuals, whether in developed or developing nations, will be jeopardized due to ignorance or indifference to climate change.
Forest microbes, insects, and animals need freedom from constraints to fulfill their crucial roles in maintaining the health and longevity of soil, plants, and trees.
Regardless of whether you are a citizen, philosopher, environmental scientist, animal rights advocate, or Indigenous advocate, it’s time to share this vital message.
This Author
Gregory F Tague is professor emeritus of English and Interdisciplinary Studies and founder and senior developer of The Evolutionary Studies Collaborative at St. Francis College, N.Y. He is the author of Forest Sovereignty: Wildlife Sustainability and Ethics.
