Appointed member of scientific committee of "Traces of extinction" conference

I have agreed to be a member of the Scientific Committee of the conference "Traces of Extinction: Species Loss, Solastalgia, and Semiotics of Recovery", which is to be held at University of Tartu, Estonia, June 5–7 2024.

Abstracts are due December 1st - see the call for papers.

Research chronicle on anthropogenic mass extinction

Today my chronicle "Artsutryddelse i menneskets tidsalder" has been published by Forskning.no. The text is a reply to ornitologist Jan T. Lifjeld, who wrote a similarly themed chronicle a week ago.

Research chronicle on extinction written, accepted

Yesterday I composed a research chronicle for forskning.no entitled "Artsutryddelse: Den menneskelige faktoren" [Species extinction: The human factor], in response to another research chronicle. Today I submitted it, and revised it somewhat. It will soon appear online.

Creed

This is the full text of the last section of my introduction to the roundtable Futures of Zoosemiotics, which took place in Tartu, Estonia, on April 6th as part of the conference Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations.

What does "blindness with regard to meaning", as Jakob von Uexküll wrote about, mean today?
Do animals exist?
What is ethics in an age of extinction?
What is the role of science as we enter the sixth mass extinction in Earth history?
And how much does extinction matter, in a world of increasing global wealth, and longer human life expectancy than ever before?
By year 1700 10 % of our planet's land surface was used for producing food for humans. Today 1/3 is.
What is natural in a time of global anthropogenic environmental change?
What is a wild animal on a tamed planet?
What is a native animal in a time of climate change, seasonal shifts and enduring migration?
What is semiotics in a time of semiotic crisis? I think that globalization can be expressed as correlated trends of diversification and depletion of semiotic diversity. How do we preserve semiotic diversity?
Like Sartre, I believe that the human is a being that defines itself.
Unlike Sartre, I do not believe that others are hell.
I believe the question of the human is an empirical question.
I believe that what kind of creatures we will turn out to be is still an open question.
I believe that Man has not yet been defined.
I believe the past is still a living memory.
I believe in the reality of absence and meaninglessness in animal lives.
I believe in the reality of Umwelt, and semiosphere.
I believe authenticity and dignity is at stake, today, as always perhaps.
I believe the Anthropocene will one day end.
I believe history is not over.
I believe science has just begun.
I believe there are words that have not been spoken, thoughts that have not been thought, theories that have never been theorized (some of which are utter nonsense).
I believe there are worlds that have not been seen by any human eyes - some that one day will, others that never will.
I believe there is a time, and place, when the lines of history converge.

Abstract: The legality and ethical legitimacy of wolf hunting in Scandinavia

I have just submitted an abstract to the 52nd research seminar of the Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology (SCRfC), to take place at Hønefoss, Norway, May 10-12.

The legality and ethical legitimacy of wolf hunting in Scandinavia

This presentation will partake in the session May 11th, “Globalisering i kriminologien og økologisk kriminologi”.

First, I will briefly examine laws and rules regulating wolves in Norway and Sweden since “Lov om Utryddelse af Rovdyr og Fredning af andet Vildt” (Law on Extinction of Carnivores and Protection of other Wildlife) was enforced in Norway in 1845. This section will include comparisons of Norwegian and Swedish management regulations. In Norway, wolves have had the status of a protected species since 1972, but conservation policies remain controversial – and are regularly sabotaged by means of illegal hunting. The same goes for Sweden, which in January orchestrated the first legal wolf hunt for more than a generation.

Second, I will discuss the ethical legitimacy of legal and illegal wolf hunting respectively. How do they compare, in terms of what is justifiable in light of sustainable development etc.? The centrality of this question is evidenced by the fact that a majority of Scandinavian wolves today die in the encounter with a bullet. Even though the motivation of the various shooters varies greatly, the outcome for the wolf is systematically similar. Unlike illegal hunting, legal hunts have the sanction of the law. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, the attempts to negotiate agreement with opponents of conservation policies by allowing or conducting wolf hunts do not seem to have much effect on the level of illegal hunting. Rather than working so as to combat illegal hunting, one could claim that current management strategies rather legitimize wolf hunting as a phenomenon in general.