Conversations about climate change generally focus on human activity, suffering, and solutions. They often include or imply a critique of anthropocentrism, and yet our attention to the seemingly infinite variety of life forms on the planet remains extraordinarily limited and superficial. Earth is not only our home, and humans are not the only climate refugees.

In his recently published book Humankind, Tim Morton argues that we are severed from other forms of life through agriculture and industrialization. He calls it “The Severing,” a Game of Thrones style trope. One aspect of this split is a very passive relationship to animal and plant life. Unless we are directly involved with animals, in agriculture or wildlife management, for example, we simply don’t appreciate the activity, suffering, and creativity of non-human beings. We also tend to view animals as passive. Though animals must be actively adapting to climate change, we don’t generally observe or appreciate their adaptive behavior.

We have also lost our emotional connection to animals, in various ways. Contemporary animal ethics are typically founded on rational, legalistic arguments. Animals should be afforded consideration or rights because they are like us—intelligent, emotional, and self-conscious. But these arguments miss the most basic and common foundation of human ethical behavior. Love.

If reproduction is the key to species survival, and animals form emotional attachments as humans do, then various forms of love are likely a common characteristic of animal life. But is love only reserved for members of our own species? What does it mean that human children love non-human animals? When and why do children stop being fascinated by animals? It seems that society cultivates an interest in and love of animals in children, and then (for no apparent reason) expects adolescents and adults to stop loving and caring for them.

Why do pet-owners love their pets as if they were people? Is it because they engage with them—in person? Anyone who has had a pet has experienced getting to know the pet. We form personal relationships with them. They become part of the family. If we spent more time engaged with non-human animals could we cultivate or reclaim the capacity to love all animals?

We remember the principle “love they neighbor” but often forget the origin and end of this principle is to love the stranger, the “alien.” Surely non-human animals, however strange or alien, are also our neighbors.

Colleagues in academia and beyond have cautioned me, on more than one occasion, against appearing to prioritize animal welfare over human welfare. Focusing on animal rights in impoverished areas, for example, can be interpreted as a challenge to human dignity. Recognizing animals a climate refugees is out of line (out of order), in the midst of multiple and ongoing human refugee crises. This advice is pragmatic and rhetorically savvy, but is it ethically defensible?

A Guardian article recently posted on Environmental Critique gives a moving account of a refugee, Mansour Shoushtari, who occupies himself caring for animals while detained in Manus prison. (He has been waiting four years to be resettled.) While being treated as a less than human stranger, he has retained his humanity, or should I say his sense of solidarity with other animals. Here is an illustrative quote from the Guardian interview:

I asked him: “Do you love animals more than humans?” He smiled once again. He responded in a humorous way: “You’re asking some really tough questions today! The question you ask is similar to asking the question: do you love your father more than your mother? It’s an extremely tough question to answer. I love human beings and I also love animals. But I have a special affection for birds.”

Why should human suffering tacitly give us permission to abuse animals or to shut down conversations about animal welfare? Who among us, well-fed and literate, deserves consideration if sympathy can only be afforded the most downtrodden humans? Can suffering justify suffering? Returning to the subject of love, is there ever a reason not to extend love and compassion to another living creature?

“The Severing” also results in a dark underworld of violence against non-human animals. Factory farming, habitat destruction, and mass murders that are never reported in the evening news. Is there any relationship between human violence against animals, and a general culture of violence? Again Shoushtari offers insight: “It’s love. In my opinion one does not need to give reasons for love. Love is a personal matter, love is an existential state. But in my view if a human being does not love animals they are incapable of loving human beings.” Human beings do love selectively, of course, as do cultures. Sadly, we are not only taught but also encouraged to love selectively, and even to hate.

Love thy neighbor. Love the stranger. Love all living creatures. These are certainly not pragmatic solutions or policy guidelines. But neither pragmatism nor policy should prevent us from questioning and exploring ethical, dare I say moral, principles.

So I do say, impudently, non-human animals are climate refugees, as are plants, and future generations of every kind. And we have no right to destroy their home.

Interesting question, Kirk. The old religious/ethical code was that humans were to dominate the earth and all of its creatures, to use the resources for the benefit of mankind. The new morality says something quite different, because humans have discovered that these "resources" are far from infinite.

My sense is that we are coming to the realization that we need to honor and respect all of "creation," to use the religious term, including plants, animals, oceans, atmosphere, and whatever else we have direct impact on. We need to live in harmony with all of it. Not just other humans.

How about the sun? That's not infinite either. Although I don't think anyone is suggesting yet that humans are also trashing the sun.

Religions have to continue to evolve, as they have been doing, for the most part. I don;t see any way around this.

Harm is a concept that is often difficult to define in absence of an individual life form's consideration of the harm. Catastrophic harms are an exception because they usually connote the cessation of all life forms.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

"The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved; loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."

— Victor Hugo

If we love creation and safe guard it, it will not harm us. whatever we sow we will reap.

I agree with Kulvir Singh

As a scientist, it means to re-search the mystery (laws) of harmony of the living world and to behave accordingly.

Our humanity tell us to do so, our believes tell us to do so. Hence, my answer will be Yes

Our humanity tell us to do so, our believes tell us to do so. Hence, my answer will be Yes, it needs to be loved by us.

Non-humans need not be loved that does not mean harm them ...

To be taught as kids ...

As far as other creatures go , do not hurt them ,not even plants. I was told not to touch or nip plants or flowers growing up and till date I do not touch.

Being human is the toughest challenge !!!!

Dear Kirk,

Dear All,

We should not go far away to find foreigners and treat them as our neighbours. I am afraid, all the animals and the biosphere “itself” are our neighbours. Moreover this kind of treatment is our elementary interest. We should attain the thinking level that treating others as our neighbours would be the most logical and profitable behaviour. Unfortunately, many humans behave like our ancestors, the cavemen even some of them cannot achieve their standards.

Creator loves those who love His Creation. Love everyone and everything around us,He will show His love.

It means "love the God facts".

The concept “love” can refer to different types of relationships. We use it when talking about our family, friends, romantic partners, pets, God , pieces of art, ideas, etc. and refer to love as if it happens to us, like a feeling, or as an action or behavior that we conduct, like an emotion or special deed, or even as a type of relationship that is had between two things. No matter what manifestation that love takes on or how it is described, the phenomenon that occurs is always the same. Of course we express love in different ways with different objects, but the process for giving our mothers and fathers, kids , pets, plants and flowers and everything else a special importance is the phenomenon of love . I only and simply mention that love is a way of responding to an object through a process of appraising it for its subjective, intrinsic value and then bestowing the experience of that appraisal back onto the object as an extrinsic quality whereby the object becomes valuable and irreplaceably important.

My answer might not related to this question 100%, but:

I personally believe that our feeling (LOVE) for various things are not comparable. It is like an amount with different units, for example kg can not be compared to meter or cubic meter. So, my love for mother is differ from for my wife and would not be ordered as first and second because of having different physical units.

Well, it is good to see healthy deliberations with poly faceted idealistics.

Knotty question. I have just finished a book in French on that very subject, “Aimer la création comme soi-même”, with the artist Jane LeBesque. It is at present looking for a publisher, but I imagine I can supply a discussion copy of the draft text on request.

To me, it means to love creation, to love Nature while understanding she is the MASTER, Not us and our illusions of domination and control. That old paradigm and money is at the heart of the many manifestations of our destruction of our Earth Mother. Whether we are smart enough to learn before we destroy the web of creation, there's little evidence.

The concept is easy (i think). I find it in ethics of Revrence for Life by A. Schweitzer:

I. Hypothesis:

“I am life which wills to live, in the midst of life which wills to live” (A. S.)

II. Definition (or decision):

“It is good to maintain and encourage life; it is bad (evil) to destroy life or obstruct it” (A. S.)

III. Consectary:

“Ethics are responsibility without limit towards all that lives” (A. S.)

***

Ethics of Reverence for Life is Ethics of Love.

Love is needed for every human and non human species.

Love of ecosystem leads us to protect it.

Well as poet Saadi is quoted of saying

"

بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرند که در آفرينش ز یک گوهرند

چو عضوى به درد آورد روزگار دگر عضوها را نماند قرار

تو کز محنت دیگران بی غمی نشاید که نامت نهند آدمی

banī 'ādam a'zā-ye yek peykar-and

ke dar 'āfarīn-aš ze yek gowhar-and

čo 'ozvī be dard āvarad rūzgār

degar 'ozvhā-rā na-mānad qarār

to k-az mehnat-ē dīgarān bīqam-ī

na-šāyad ke nām-at nahand ādamī"

Translation: " Human beings are members of a whole, In creation of one essence and soul.

If one member is afflicted with pain, Other members uneasy will remain.

If you have no sympathy for human pain, The name of human you cannot retain."

During my work in Academy, I have created several Galatea out of my master course students and am very proud of them.

Does that mean we should love ourselves? if Scripture tells us to love Creation, and because we are part of God's Creation, we should then love ourselves.