Season 1, Episode 11

Nick Agar on Nature, Technology, and Society

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Nicholas Agar, a moral philosopher who is currently a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Australia. His most recent book, How to be Human in the Digital Economy, was published by MIT Press in 2019.

Episode is an appropriate teaching tool for but not limited to the following topics & courses: bioethics, philosophy, morality and religion

Discussion Questions

  • In the beginning of the podcast, Nick Agar reflects on his earlier work in environmental ethics from the 1990s. How have perspectives in environmental ethics changed or evolved over the past few decades? What new developments or debates have emerged?
  • Nick argues against an anthropocentric view of environmental ethics. What are some of the key arguments for and against an anthropocentric versus biocentric approach? Which view do you find more compelling and why?
  • The speakers discuss the idea of attributing spiritual values or spirits to aspects of nature, like trees. While scientifically inaccurate, could this lead to more environmental protection? Does the truth content of beliefs matter if the consequences are good?
  • What are some examples of nature’s rights laws that have been passed recently? Do you think granting legal rights to nature is an effective environmental protection strategy? What are the potential benefits and drawbacks?
  • How might an interdisciplinary perspective combining law, philosophy, economics etc. provide new insights on environmental issues? What are some examples of productive interdisciplinary work in this field?
  • What policies could help ensure people continue to experience the social benefits of work even if fewer traditional jobs are available in the future? Is unconditional basic income a good idea?
  • How does the framing of work as purely an economic “disutility” versus an inherent human need change how we think about labor policy? Which view do you think is more accurate?
  • The speakers argue that work exposes us to diversity and helps overcome distrust of other groups. Do you think this is true? How does it apply to unpaid or volunteer work?
  • If humans are inherently social yet isolate themselves, how can policy encourage more social interaction? Should governments pursue this goal or leave it to individuals?
  • How might trends in remote work due to technology impact social cohesion? Do the benefits of flexibility outweigh any loss of social connection?
  • What new types of work might provide social benefits and connections in an increasingly automated and digital economy? How can policy cultivate these opportunities?
  • Peter Singer has argued that only sentient beings have interests that matter morally. Agar critiques this view as too narrow. How does Singer’s perspective align with or diverge from the biocentric ethics discussed?
  • Singer famously stated that a tree’s death is morally insignificant since the tree lacks interests. Agar argues this is overly exclusionary. How would a Singerian utilitarian respond to this critique?
  • Singer advocates a focus on reducing suffering. Agar and Livermore seem to promote a more positive view of realizing value. How do these perspectives differ in their implications for environmental ethics and policy?

Additional Readings