Skip to main content

Human Agency and Ecology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Semiotic Agency

Part of the book series: Biosemiotics ((BSEM,volume 25))

  • 434 Accesses

Abstract

A precondition for understanding current ecology is to understand how human agency influences ecology . In this chapter we describe the world-changing effects of human agency. A key notion in this context is the ‘Anthropocene’, the geological epoch in which human agency predominates as a causal factor. Drawing on Umwelt theory, we explain how human agency can work as a driver of environmental change. Special attention is given to the ecological function of human–animal assemblages and other human–animal complexes, since it is primarily by way of utilization of animals that humans have a dominant impact on ecosystems. The descriptive part of the chapter is followed by a normative part focused on how environmental sustainability can be achieved and how animal welfare can be improved. In our view, achieving environmental sustainability requires societal transformations that can be modelled using Umwelt theory. The semiotic agency of human beings must in this context be approached from different angles simultaneously and take both semiotic and efficient causation into account. An implication of our perspective is that socio-ecological transformations must align with coordinated socio-cultural transformations. For instance, human values and identity (features of the human Innenwelt) must change for human perception and practices (features of the human Umwelt) to change. With regard to animal welfare, we discuss both farm and wildlife settings, and emphasize the importance of facilitating the animals’ autonomy and needs-fulfilment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Earth’s crust is made of 81 stable (i.e. non-radioactive) elements. Absolutely all of these are mined and utilized by human beings (Bonnet & Woltjer, 2008: 242).

  2. 2.

    While Jakob von Uexküll did not himself develop any systematic account of human impact on ecosystems, his most accessible works (von Uexküll, 1956 [1934/1940], translated to English as von Uexküll, 2010 [1934/1940]) make use of a number of examples of human–animal interaction and animal behavior in human-dominated environments.

  3. 3.

    The progeny of a female horse and male donkey.

  4. 4.

    For a thorough treatment of this, and also of the opposition between deep ecology and ecomodernism, see Tønnessen, 2021 .

  5. 5.

    A more vegetarian diet is also in line with more proper consideration of animal welfare concerns, provided that the lower emphasis on the quantity of meat, egg and milk produced is supplemented with more emphasis on the quality of these products, in a way that incorporates ethical concerns related to the living conditions of the animals involved in the production.

  6. 6.

    For a non-semiotic take on animal agency and its relevance for animal welfare, see Špinka, 2019.

  7. 7.

    In out-door environments, humans are responsible for protecting animals in their care from predators, whether by herding, secure fences, or by other means.

  8. 8.

    Strictly speaking, the functional cycle of the partner is in Uexküll’s work restricted to the sexual partner, but in a generalized form it may be understood as relating more widely to any social partner (cf. treatment in Tønnessen, 2014: 167–170).

  9. 9.

    For a zoosemiotic analysis of zoos, see Mäekivi, 2018.

References

  • Asafu-Adjaye, J., Blomqvist, L., Brand, S., Brook, B., Defries, R., Ellis, E., et al. (2015). An ecomodernist manifesto. www.ecomodernism.org

  • Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018). The biomass distribution on earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A., 115(25), 6506–6511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beever, J., & Tønnessen, M. (2017). Justifying moral standing by biosemiotic particularism. Zeitschrift für Semiotik, 37(3–4), 31–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnet, R.-M., & Woltjer, L. (2008). Surviving 1,000 centuries: Can we do it? Springer, Praxis Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., Garcia, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1(5), e1400253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist, E. (2015). The reaches of freedom: A response to an ecomodernist manifesto. Environmental Humanities, 7, 245–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P. J., & Steffen, W. (2003). How long have we been in the Anthropocene era? An editorial comment. Climatic Change, 61, 251–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darimont, C. T., Fox, C. H., Bryan, H. M., & Reimchen, T. E. (2015). The unique ecology of human predators. Science, 349(6250), 858–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. (2002). Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication. Nature, 418(6898), 700–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • EAT–Lancet Commission. (2019). Healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Food planet health. https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/04/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf

  • FAO. (2020). Livestock systems – horses – global distribution. http://www.fao.org/livestock-systems/global-distributions/horses/en/

  • Farina, A. (2016). Animals in a noisy world. In M. Tønnessen, K. A. Oma, & S. Rattasepp (Eds.), Thinking about animals in the age of the anthropocene (pp. 37–52). Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., et al. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A., 114(44), 11645–11650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. L., & Sharp, H. S. (1978). Wolf and man: Evolution in parallel (Communication and behavior: An interdisciplinary series). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. The natural history of signification. Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis (pp. 149-166). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horard-Herbin, M.-P., Tresset, A., & Vigne, J.-D. (2014). Domestication and uses of the dog in western Europe from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age. Animal Frontiers, 4(3), 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/spm_global_unedited_advance.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35245

  • IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1,5°C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen, J. F., dePassille, A. M., Mejdell, C. M., Bøe, K. E., Grøndahl, A. M., Beaver, A., et al. (2015a). The effect of nursing on the cow–calf bond. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 163, 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen, J. F., Ellingsen, K., Grøndahl, A. M., Bøe, K. E., Lidfors, L., & Mejdell, C. M. (2015b). The effect of physical contact between dairy cows and calves during separation on their post-separation behavioural response. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 166, 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K., & Stella, M. (2009). Monsters we met, monsters we made: On the parallel emergence of phenotypic similarity under domestication. Sign Systems Studies, 37(3/4), 454–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremer, M. (1993). Population growth and technicalogical change, One million B.C. to 1990. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 681–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2001). Biosemiotics and the problem of intrinsic value of nature. Sign Systems Studies, 29(1), 353–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2011). Foundations for ecosemiotic deep ecology. In T. Peil (Ed.), The space of culture – the place of nature in Estonia and beyond (Approaches to culture theory) (Vol. 1, pp. 69–75). Tartu University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K., Kotov, K., & Keskpaik, R. (2004). Semiotic fundamentals of deep ecology. In V. Sarapik (Ed.), International conference culture, nature, semiotics: Locations IV. Abstracts (Vol. 26). Estonian Literary Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. (2018). Human rights without human supremacism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 48(5), 763–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, H. M. (2003). Human domestication reconsidered. Current Anthropology, 44(3), 349–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. (2003). The demographic transition: Three centuries of fundamental change. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(4), 167–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotman, J. (2009). Culture and explosion. Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus, R. (2016). The semiotic challenges of guide dog teams: The experiences of German, Estonian and Swedish guide dog users. Biosemiotics, 9(2), 267–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • McShane, C., & Tarr, J. A. (2003). The decline of the urban horse in American cities. The Journal of Transport History, 24, 177–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W., III. (1974). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäekivi, N. (2018). Freedom in captivity: Managing zoo animals according to the ‘five freedoms’. Biosemiotics, 11(1), 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Næss, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movements: A summary. Inquiry, 16(1), 95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Næss, A. (1974). Self-realization in mixed communities of humans, bears, sheep, and wolves. 22:1(4), 231–241. Inquiry, 22(1–4), 231–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Næss, A. (1989). Ecology, community, and lifestyle. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nöth, W. (2001). Ecosemiotics and the semiotics of nature. Sign Systems Studies, 29(1), 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. L., & Steinberger, J. K. (2018). A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 1, 88–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinillos, R. G., Appleby, M., Manteca, X., Scott-Park, F., Smith, C., & Velarde, A. (2016). One welfare – A platform for improving human and animal welfare. Veterinary Record, 179, 412–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rault, J.-L. (2012). Friends with benefits: Social support and its relevance for farm animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 136, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, S. H., & Hintze, S. (2019). From the individual to the population – And back again? Emphasising the role of the individual in animal welfare science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 212, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., Steffen, J., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. Written by John G. Shepherd et al. RS Policy document 10/09. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf

  • Ruddiman, W. F. (2003). The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago. Climatic Change, 61, 261–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Špinka, M. (2019). Animal agency, animal awareness and animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 28, 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starkey, P. (2005). The history of working animals in Africa. In R. M. Blench & K. C. MacDonald (Eds.), The origins and development of African livestock: Archaeology, genetics, linguistics and ethnography (pp. 478–502). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2011). The Anthropocene: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1938), 842–867.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2003). Umwelt ethics. Sign Systems Studies, 31(1), 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2009). Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2010a). The global species. New Formations: A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics, 69, 98–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2010b). Steps to a semiotics of being. Biosemiotics, 3(3), 375–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2014). Umwelt trajectories. Semiotica, 198, 159–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2016). The semiotics of predation and the Umwelten of large predators. In T. Maran, M. Tønnessen, & S. Rattasepp (Eds.), Animal Umwelten in a changing world – Zoosemiotic perspectives (pp. 150–181). Tartu University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2019). What can be known about future Umwelten? The American Journal of Semiotics, 35(3–4), 401–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2020a). Current human ecology in the Amazon and beyond: A multi-scale ecosemiotic approach. Biosemiotics, 13(1), 89–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2020b). The true value of "doing well" economically. In P. Formica & J. Edmondson (Eds.), Innovation and the arts: The value of humanities studies for business. Emerald Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2021). Anticipating the societal transformation required to solve the environmental crisis in the 21st century. Sign Systems Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M., & Beever, J. (2014). Beyond sentience: Biosemiotics as foundation for animal and environmental ethics. In J. Hadley & E. Aaltola (Eds.), Animal ethics and philosophy: Questioning the orthodoxy (pp. 47–62). Rowman & Littlefield International.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1921). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere (2nd ed.). Verlag von Julius Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1956 [1934/1940]). Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen: Ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Bedeutungslehre. Rowolt.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (2010 [1934/1940]). A foray into the worlds of animals and humans with a theory of meaning (J. O’Neil, Trans., (Posthumanities, Vol. 12). University of Minneapolis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2015a). The Paris agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

  • United Nations. (2015b). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution A/RES/70/1. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/808134?ln=en

  • WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westling, L. (2014). The zoosemiotics of sheep herding with dogs. In K. Tüür & M. Tønnessen (Eds.), The semiotics of animal representations (pp. 33–52). Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF. (2018). Living planet report – 2018: Aiming higher (M. Grooten, & R. E. A. Almond, Eds.). WWF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C. N., Williamsa, M., Barnosky, A. D., Cearreta, A., Crutzen, P., et al. (2015). When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International, 383(5), 196–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Waters, C. N., Barnosky, A. D., Palmesino, J., Rönnskog, A.-S., et al. (2016). Scale and diversity of the physical technosphere: A geological perspective. The Anthropocene Review, 4(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616677743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zapffe, P. W. (1993 [1933]). The last Messiah (S. K. P. Reed, Trans.). In P. Reed & D. Rothenberg (Eds.), Wisdom in the open air: The Norwegian roots of deep ecology (pp. 40–52). University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapffe, P. W. (1996 [1941]). Om det tragiske. Pax forlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sharov, A., Tønnessen, M. (2021). Human Agency and Ecology. In: Semiotic Agency. Biosemiotics, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89484-9_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics