It is in another part of the book that Wilson states that “we are its administrators, not its owners”, regarding humans and nature [1]. It could be seen as an upgrade when compared to romantic-transcendental ethics, but the choice of the word “administrators” and the consideration of nature as mere resources that we need to manage takes us to another ethical current, the resource conservation one. Pinchot, a USA agronomist, was the one who put it into words, affirming that the goal was “to do the greater good for the greater number of people for the greater possible time [with natural resources]” [4]. His Conservation ethic can be summed up as a utilitarian philosophy towards Nature, which becomes a source of resources that humans may use as they please. 

This does not mean that the author of the book shares this opinion, as he also is a critic of this worldview when he mentions how The Nature Conservancy – a famous pro-conservation NGO – has its last reports completely focused on ecosystemic services.

“What nature can do for the people and for the economy has come to the forefront, while biodiversity gets forgotten”.

Wilson E.O., 2017 [1].

“What nature can do for the people and for the economy has come to the forefront, while biodiversity gets forgotten”, Wilson states [1]. If there is something that he has defended, that is the intrinsic value of biodiversity, regardless of what it might do for us. This takes us to a third Conservation ethic current, known as Earth ethics or evolutionary-ecological, coined by Aldo Leopold, silviculturist and ecologist [5]. The sentence that sums up his philosophy is the definition of what can be considered good:

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise”.

Leopold A., 2020 [5].

Leopold argued that Nature is not something mystical and foreign to humanity, or resources for society, but that we are part of a continuum formed by air, soil, water, and all the living beings: the Earth community. Wilson states that in addition to protecting 50% of the planet, we would also need a “profound change in the moral reasoning we have about our relationship with Nature” [1]. This change, among other things, could be integrating Earth ethics into society’s morals. Just imagine what the situation could look like if we defined good actions based on their repercussions on biodiversity. It would be a different story.

To be honest, the book does not fit one hundred per cent in any of the mentioned philosophies. Some ideas exposed here can be considered to belong to one or the other of these ethical currents, sure, but none is predominant. Wilson goes on about how humankind must be aware of its role as one tiny part of a greater ecosystem called the biosphere, but also defends leaving an untouched 50% of the planetary surface as the way to protect it. He does it, however, in a coherent and well-founded manner that deserves to be read.

Wilson’s proposal of protecting a minimum of half of the Earth has inspired some regulations at a global level, such as the 30 by 30 by the United Nations. This goal intends to achieve the protection of 30% of the planetary surface by 2030. Nowadays, the percentage is 17.6% [6].

One may or may not agree with how Wilson wants to protect the planet, but we have to agree on the need for it. Year after year, species get extinct, the temperature rises, and the Earth’s ecosystem gets sicker. That is why protecting it is urgent, not only by reaching the 30 by 30 objective, but also by making sure that protected areas are actually respected. As the book itself concludes, the principle we need to implement as a society is quite simple: do no further damage to the biosphere. 

Cover image: “Half Earth” book on the wall. Photo by Author, October 2025.