La cultura de la sociedad global habitualmente asocia la palabra animal con vertebrados. Paradójicamente, la mayor parte de la diversidad animal está compuesta por pequeños organismos que permanecen invisibles en la cultura global y están sub-representados en la filosofía, las ciencias y la educación. La ciencia del siglo veintiuno ha desentrañado que muchos invertebrados tienen conciencia y capacidad de sentir dolor. Estos descubrimientos apelan a los filósofos de la ética animal a ser más inclusivos y reevaluar la participación de los invertebrados en la comunidad moral. La ciencia también ha advertido sobre la desaparición de los pequeños co-habitantes animales en medio de la sexta extinción masiva. Esta extinción “invisible” apela a los filósofos ambientales a visibilizar a los invertebrados, cuya existencia es preciosa en sí misma y para el funcionamiento de los ecosistemas de los cuales dependen la biodiversidad y las sociedades humanas. Con un enfoque biocultural que integra dimensiones biofísicas y culturales de la biodiversidad, investigo las raíces del chovinismo taxonómico asociado con la sub-representación y la subordinación de los invertebrados en la filosofía y las ciencias modernas. Las malas noticias son que constatamos un marcado vertebratismo en el imaginario animal. Las buenas noticias son que David Hume, Charles Darwin y la ética biocultural proporcionan bases conceptuales para cultivar un aprecio por los pequeños co-habitantes con quienes compartimos nuestros hábitats locales y la biosfera global.

Centering Indigenous philosophical considerations, ecologies are best understood as kinship arrangements among humans, other-than-human beings, and spiritual and abiotic entities who together through the land share a sphere of responsibility based on both care and what Daniel Wildcat calls “multigenerational spatial knowledge.” Ecologically speaking, all kin can become persons by participating in processes of socialization whereby one engages in practices and performances that support responsible relations both within and across ecologies. Spheres of responsibility are not operable strictly within human relationships, nor do what count as responsibilities necessarily center on the human. No being is born a person or automatically earns this status. Personhood must be gained and can be lost. Indeed, under current ecological conditions across the planet, we arguably inhabit a world full of marginal cases.

The hegemonic discourse of sustainable development adopted as an international alternative solution to the socio-ecological crisis has implied a progression of the modern utopian project and most importantly, an intrinsic contradiction and omission that positions sustainable development as something that is not in any place. To understand, discuss, and transcend this oxymoron, we first review the modern utopian project and analyze its paradigmatic and ontological assumptions about knowledge, time, and space. Second, we show that sustainable development just re-adapted the founding premises of the modern utopias. Third, to transcend the modern utopian facet of sustainable development, we suggest an understanding of sustainability that stems from a topographical way of thinking. We suggest this approach allows us to seek alternatives to the modern epistemology and ontology that have shaped the current dominant vision of sustainable development. Finally, we propose to move from the modern utopia of sustainable development to the praxis of topographical sustainabilities to trigger a more comprehensive and relational praxis of sustainability.

Scientific cognitivism, a main position in Western environmental aesthetics, claims scientific knowledge plays a major role in the aesthetic appreciation of nature. However, the claim is controversial. This study reexamines the history of United States environmental attitudes around the nineteenth century and claims art has played the main role in nature appreciation, even with the emphasis on scientific knowledge. This paper proposes a tri-stage, Scientific Knowledge-Aesthetic Value Transformation Model and argues nature appreciation is indirectly related to knowledge. Scientific knowledge plays a part in the first, pre-appreciation stage and helps build the impression of nature that bridges scientific cognition with aesthetic appreciation in the second, impression-rebuilt stage. Finally, the engagement model is required in the third, appreciation stage. This paper also presents a two-dimensional evaluation criterion to assess various approaches of nature appreciation and artworks.

Tragic moral conflicts are situations from within which whatever one does—including abstaining from action—will be seriously wrong; even the overall right decision involves violating a moral responsibility. This article offers an account of recovery predicaments, a particular kind of tragic conflict that characterizes the current extinction crisis. Recovery predicaments occur when the human-caused extinction of a species or population cannot be prevented without breaching moral responsibilities to animals by doing violence to or otherwise severely dominating them. Recognizing the harm of acting from within recovery conflicts adds force to appeals for interrogating and dismantling the systems of thinking, valuing, and acting that bring species to the brink of extinction.