Future-generation justice extends scope to humans but not to nature as a subject.

Evidence

Yet as helpful as this model of justice to future generations is, it is still not an extension of the community of justice to nature—it is not ecological justice. The approach does not recognize nature for itself, or as a full member of our community, but solely as it supports the human systems that are nested within it. Recognizing and valuing that support system is central to the future generations approach; any decline in the quality or standard of the natural world that supports future generations will limit the choices, and notions of the good, of those generations. But while the extension of justice to future generations includes a concern for the future environment of those future generations, the extension of the scope of justice remains centered on human needs and definitions of the good. — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice, 381

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Crisply fixes the boundary: environmental justice (human benefit) vs ecological justice (nature as member) — the typology the whole polyad leans on.
  • XREF: Feeds the distributive-vs-recognition axis; pairs with earlier ch.55 claim that risk exposure is denial of recognition. — connects to: Ecological justice extends all four justice components to nonhuman nature — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 549; Excluding nature from justice reflects one cultural cosmology over others — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 359; Participation of nature is represented through human legal representatives, not direct voice — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 547 (+3 more)

Broader Connections