Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an original and relevant philosophical proposal by developing a biocultural ethics oriented toward the co-inhabitation of human beings, rivers, and the biosphere. The “3Hs” model (co-inhabitants, habits, habitats) constitutes the central conceptual framework of the work and demonstrates methodological consistency as well as significant heuristic potential for contemporary debates in environmental philosophy. The text articulates, in an interdisciplinary manner, contributions from ecology, environmental ethics, relational ontology, evolutionary biology, poetry, and the rights of nature, aligning appropriately with the scope of the journal Philosophies.

Particularly noteworthy is the integration of scientific knowledge with Indigenous epistemologies, as well as the dialogue established with the new Latin American constitutionalism and the rights of rivers. The discussion of the holobiont and hologenome strengthens the critique of modern ontological individualism and provides a solid philosophical foundation for the notion of ecological interdependence.

Given its thematic relevance and the strength of its arguments, the article demonstrates high academic quality, theoretical originality, and philosophical significance. It represents an important contribution to contemporary debates on environmental ethics, relational ontology, and the rights of nature.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an original and relevant philosophical proposal by developing a biocultural ethics oriented toward the co-inhabitation of human beings, rivers, and the biosphere. The “3Hs” model (co-inhabitants, habits, habitats) constitutes the central conceptual framework of the work and demonstrates methodological consistency as well as significant heuristic potential for contemporary debates in environmental philosophy. The text articulates, in an interdisciplinary manner, contributions from ecology, environmental ethics, relational ontology, evolutionary biology, poetry, and the rights of nature, aligning appropriately with the scope of the journal Philosophies.

Particularly noteworthy is the integration of scientific knowledge with Indigenous epistemologies, as well as the dialogue established with the new Latin American constitutionalism and the rights of rivers. The discussion of the holobiont and hologenome strengthens the critique of modern ontological individualism and provides a solid philosophical foundation for the notion of ecological interdependence.

Given its thematic relevance and the strength of its arguments, the article demonstrates high academic quality, theoretical originality, and philosophical significance. It represents an important contribution to contemporary debates on environmental ethics, relational ontology, and the rights of nature.

Answer

I appreciate the positive comments of Reviewer 1, and I have carefully revised the text, incorporating minor edits in sections that address “the integration of scientific knowledge with Indigenous epistemologies,” “the dialogue established with the new Latin American constitutionalism and the rights of rivers,” and the discussion about holobionts and hologenome.  

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting, important and well-written article and I enjoyed reading it. Overall, the author has done a great job of illustrating the relational ontology they are championing and makes a strong, passionate case for socio-environmental justice. The argument re the 3H model is well-developed, clear and convincing, albeit a little repetitive. Several times I found myself checking back to see whether I had already read the same phrase or sentence (there is some direct unintentional repetition, see lines 303-309). At line 567, more than halfway through the article, we are told again "the 3H model (co-inhabitants, habits, habitats) ...". It's not necessary to keep repeating this. I suggest also trying to reduce repetition of the argument. Repetition doesn't make it more convincing. Respect the reader's intelligence and ability to grasp the point.

I'm a bit uncomfortable about the paragraph beginning line 85, because it sets up two huge, broad camps of "goodies" and "baddies", a dichotomy which flows through the paper. This feels too broad-brush and simplistic. Not all scientists, educators etc., or even all indigenous communities, always "sustain cultural biodiversity". Examples of where indigenous peoples have upset and unbalanced the ecosystems in which they are co-inhabitants are not hard to find (although, of course, generally speaking indigenous worldviews and practices are more holistic and acknowledge the interconnectedness and interdependency of all beings).

line 222 Should "ethologist" be "ethnologist"?

There are lovely examples of poetry and myths exemplifying the interdependence of human and other-than-human co-inhabitants of habitats, but little specific on the "reductionist river policies" which the author deplores. It all seems very general. Certainly, many specific examples could be quoted. E.g. line 603 we read that "modern river management has often sought to suppress ...", but are given no specific examples of who, which or where in the world this happens. Granted, some statements are so obvious as to not need illustration, but because of the complete lack of examples of bad policies and practices, the tone of the article comes across as long on rhetoric and a bit preachy. I already agree with the author's argument, but someone less sympathetic might be frustrated.

This is not to take away from the otherwise excellence of the article, just to say there is room for a little improvement. Overall, it's a fine piece of work.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1
This is an interesting, important and well-written article and I enjoyed reading it. Overall, the author has done a great job of illustrating the relational ontology they are championing and makes a strong, passionate case for socio-environmental justice. The argument re the 3H model is well-developed, clear and convincing, albeit a little repetitive.

Several times I found myself checking back to see whether I had already read the same phrase or sentence (there is some direct unintentional repetition, see lines 303-309).

At line 567, more than halfway through the article, we are told again "the 3H model (co-inhabitants, habits, habitats) ...". It's not necessary to keep repeating this.

I suggest also trying to reduce repetition of the argument.

Repetition doesn't make it more convincing. Respect the reader's intelligence and ability to grasp the point.

Answer to Comment 1

I carefully revised the text, deleting, editing, or rewriting repeated ideas and phrases. As a result, the revised text is more concise and devoid of repetition. I sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for this valuable criticism of the previous version of the manuscript.  I also abbreviated the title of the article, which is now: “Biocultural ethics for human-river–biosphere co‑inhabitation”

 

Comment 2

I'm a bit uncomfortable about the paragraph beginning line 85, because it sets up two huge, broad camps of "goodies" and "baddies", a dichotomy which flows through the paper. This feels too broad-brush and simplistic. Not all scientists, educators etc., or even all indigenous communities, always "sustain cultural biodiversity".

Examples of where indigenous peoples have upset and unbalanced the ecosystems in which they are co-inhabitants are not hard to find (although, of course, generally speaking indigenous worldviews and practices are more holistic and acknowledge the interconnectedness and interdependency of all beings).

Answer to Comment 2

I agree with the criticism made by Reviewer 2 and the relevance of avoiding dichotomies. Accordingly, I carefully rewrote the passage beginning on line 85 as well as other passages in the text.   

 

Comment 3

line 222 Should "ethologist" be "ethnologist"?

Answer to Comment 3

In line 222, “ethologist” is correct. Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt was an Austrian ethologist with a particular focus on human ethology.

 

Comment 4

[2] In authoring the book titled "Human Ethology," he applied ethology to humans by studying them in a perspective more common to volumes studying animal behavior.[3]

There are lovely examples of poetry and myths exemplifying the interdependence of human and other-than-human co-inhabitants of habitats, but little specific on the "reductionist river policies" which the author deplores. It all seems very general. Certainly, many specific examples could be quoted. E.g. line 603 we read that "modern river management has often sought to suppress ...", but are given no specific examples of who, which or where in the world this happens. Granted, some statements are so obvious as to not need illustration, but because of the complete lack of examples of bad policies and practices, the tone of the article comes across as long on rhetoric and a bit preachy. I already agree with the author's argument, but someone less sympathetic might be frustrated.

Answer to Comment 4

I edited the text, making statements about “modern river management” more precise. In addition to editing the text, I added two figures. I hope these figures will help readers understand the references in the text to biota and biomes, which may be unfamiliar to most readers.