Figure 1 - uploaded by Olle Torpman
Content may be subject to copyright.
Human-centred SDGs constitutes a subset of the sentience-centred SDGs

Human-centred SDGs constitutes a subset of the sentience-centred SDGs

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
The United Nations Agenda 2030 contains 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). These goals are formulated in anthropocentric terms, meaning that they are to be achieved for the sake of humans. As such, the SDGs are neglecting the interests and welfare of non-human animals. Our aim in this paper was to ethically evaluate the assumptions that under...

Context in source publication

Context 1
... human beings are sentient beings, this division may be illustrated by a Venn diagram as follows (Figure 1), where the set of human-centred SDGs constitutes a subset of the sentience-centred SDGs: Having made this division, we considered it evident that an inclusion of the animals in the SDG framework is neither impossible, nor implausible. Rather, non-human animals deserve to be taken into direct consideration where doing so is reasonable-i.e., in the sentience-centred SDGs. ...

Citations

... It is thus important to promote and advocate for human and non-human wellbeing, as well as human work-life capacities, through ecosocial work and an SD framework. Even though SD and the SDGs were created in anthropocentric terms, there are possibilities to promote the health and wellbeing of non-human sentient animals and non-sentient parts of nature such as plants, oceans, and the ecosystem directly within the SD framework through some of the goals [9]. ...
... ESD is a way of teaching about SD and the SDGs, which were created in anthropocentric terms in order to fulfill human needs and maintain the factors needed to do so. Both SD and the SDGs, thus, largely neglect the needs of non-human animals and nature [8]; however, some of the SDGs could be considered relevant in promoting the wellbeing of non-human sentient animals and non-sentient parts of nature [9]; this, however, has not been discussed widely. In relation to the construction of discursive knowledge of ESD as stated above, the work on sustainability within the municipality is steered by the dominant modernist approach, which is rooted in anthropocentricism [26], creating possibilities as well as challenges. ...
Article
Full-text available
Youth empowerment within the context of sustainable development (SD) is starting to gain more attention within social work, both internationally and in Sweden. SD, as an integrated set of global goals in tackling social, economic, and ecological challenges, is a vital concept in social work. Protecting people and the natural environment can be considered the fullest realization of the person-in-environment, a foundation upon which the social work profession is built. The ecosocial perspective is widely discussed in terms of societal transformation in harmony with nature. Within this context, this article explores ecosocial work discourses in youth empowerment. Data were gathered through 20 qualitative semi-structured interviews with key representatives of youth organizations from Gävle municipality, Sweden, and analyzed using ATLAS.ti v.9.0. The main findings are discussed within the framework of ecosocial work, youth empowerment, and a Foucauldian perspective on discourse, power, and knowledge. The results indicate the need for an ecosocial youth empowerment, calling for increased knowledge of both youth empowerment through SD and ecosocial work for those working with/for youth connected to social work practice. The results highlight the importance of an ecosocial youth empowerment on a more structural and collective level.
... Animals are both contributors of total Green House Gas emissions (e.g., the livestock sector, including its supply chains, has been estimated to account for 14.5% of the total emissions) [15] and saviours in this area (e.g., marine animals contribute to the carbon sequestration in the oceans) [16]. The pressure to reduce emissions is high, although work on mitigation strategies, at least within animal agriculture, has been criticised for not adequately considering animal welfare [5,[17][18][19]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The mutually beneficial relationships between improving animal welfare (AW) and achieving the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs) were further explored and compared to previous work. This was done in the context of a doctoral training course where students selected at least six SDGs and reasoned around their impact on AW and vice versa. Then, students rated the strength of the SDG—AW links. Lastly, students engaged in an assessment exercise. Students reported an overall mutually beneficial relationship between AW and all SDGs, yet with significant differences in strength for SDGs 4, 11, 10, 12 and 13 to that previously found by experts. Students considered SDG 12: Responsible consumption and production the most promising way to integrate AW targets. This study further supports the positive role of AW in the success of the UN’s strategy. Still, the magnitude of the anticipated impacts is modified by stakeholder, context and experience.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/abs/10.3920/978-90-8686-915-2_65 The status that charitable food aid resources have attained and the loss of responsibility by the Welfare State for the right to food undermines the latter doubly. In a first step, retrenchment and austerity reduce its operational space, which weakens it in its functions in the face of food insecurity. In a second step, the effect of charitable food aid resources undermines the idea about its redistributive function, which has been a basis for its legitimacy. The main hypothesis of this work is that this double undermining of the welfare state is constantly reinforced. It defends, through a logical-critical reflection based on specialized bibliography, that charitable food aid resources are a threat to the fundamental ethos of the welfare state, to its ability to respond to collective problems. The retrenchment and the austerity have strengthened the charitable food resources. Organizationally, the fact of not reaching the objective for which they arose, that is to say, ending food insecurity, paradoxically, reinforces them. Therefore, situations such as those triggered by Covid reinforce them even more. Closing the circle of dynamics, the effects of the work of these resources, where collective solidarity is channelled away from the traditional public redistributive mechanisms, represents a new motive of erosion. The main conclusion is that this phenomenon generates feelings of guilt or shame, and stigmatizes the recipients of food aid. It expels these people in vulnerable situations from the normalized consumption circuit. On the other hand, the institutionalization of food aid resources distracts from the origin of poverty, hides the true reasons for food need. Despite all this, it is important to bear in mind that it is the only resource available to many food-insecure people.
Book
Full-text available
The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals saw the global community agree to end hunger and malnutrition in all its forms by 2030. However, the number of chronically undernourished people is increasing continuously. Ongoing climate change and the action needed to adapt to it are very likely to aggravate this situation by limiting agricultural land and water resources and changing environmental conditions for food production. Climate change and the actions it requires raise questions of justice, especially regarding food security. These key concerns of ethics and justice for food security due to climate change challenges are the focus of this book, which brings together work by scholars from a wide range of disciplines and a multitude of perspectives. These experts discuss the challenges to food security posed by mitigation, geoengineering, and adaptation measures that tackle the impacts of climate change. Others address the consequences of a changing climate for agriculture and food production and how the Covid-19 pandemic has affected food security and animal welfare.