Biodiversity extinction and conservation strategies

Biodiversity

The natural environment is the source of all our resources for life. Environmental processes provide a wealth of services to the living world -- providing us with air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat, as well as materials to use in our daily lives and natural beauty to enjoy.

Complex ecosystems with a wide variety of plants and animals tend to be more stable. A highly diverse ecosystem is a sign of a healthy system. Since all the living world relies on the natural environment, especially us, it is in our best interests and the interests of future generations to conserve biodiversity and our resources.

I know that some may argue that some species have become extinct, with no obvious effect on the environment. I put forth an answer to that statement; the Earth's systems are so complex that we are still learning about environmental processes and resources and the roles they play. The careless loss of any part of the natural environment means that we may never know what use it was or could have been in terms of future technologies, say, or for medical science, or indeed for the health of the planet itself.(Meadows, DH, Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens III, W.W. 1972. Limits to Growth. London, Potomac Associates Book)

According to me it is important to understand that environments are constantly changing. A healthy, robust environment evolves and adapts to naturally changing conditions. I have found it fascinating to observe the far-reaching effects even small changes can make and the importance of genetic diversity for species to adapt, survive and evolve. Our future is not only for us. Humans are selfish creatures, we must oversome this and look forward and save the earth for our future generations.Preservation of biodiversity is not necessarily about preserving everything currently in existence. It's more a question of 'walking lightly' on the Earth -- a balance of respecting the natural changes that occur and of protecting species and environments from wanton extinction and destruction.Life on Earth would not be the same if our planet's biodiversity were to be radically affected.

In The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world Bjorn Lomborg addresses the question of biodiversity and concludes that "the background rates of extinction currently accepted by the majority of biologists are grossly exaggerated and that, therefore, the need to preserve biological diversity is likewise exaggerated."(Lomborg Bjorn The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world..)

Furthermore, Lomborg essentially concludes that efforts to conserve some species (e.g., many invertebrates and most microbes) to be of little economic benefit since these organisms do not factor into an aesthetic need (i.e., most of us would not mourn the extinction of the green alga Pediastrum, but many would care deeply if the beloved African Elephant disappeared) nor are these organisms likely to offer any economic incentives for preservation (i.e., they don't produce any economically important byproducts). Interestingly, this topic allowed me to examine the limits of scientific evidence in this grand debate. Besides which we cannot play GOD and decide the fate of another species.(Meadows, DH, Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens III, W.W. 1972. Limits to Growth. London, Potomac Associates Book) wealth of data regarding changes over time in the diversity of organisms can be assembled with relative ease. I found that, the inherent uncertainty associated with these data, however, can allow for varied interpretations regarding, for example, the background extinction rate. More importantly, one cannot test hypotheses about the economic or ecological effects of a given extinction event, since one cannot perform the control treatments of such an experiment.

In my opinion, this observation can be extended to other areas of the environmental debate. If science is not definitive, how are we to proceed in the environmental debate? It is clear to me that this debate represents a complex interplay of ethical considerations and empirical evidence.

My concern is that the Lomborg ethos has "maximize profits" as the prime directive and that this is coloring the interpretations of the data. Could it not be argued that a more biblical, stewardship approach to managing the environment is a legitimate alternative ethos? What is the appropriate ethical framework in which to evaluate the data generated in the debate on the environment? This question, I feel, is not addressed in The Skeptical Environmentalist.(Lomborg Bjorn The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world..)

It is clear that the skepticism of the environmental movement advocated by Lomborg is a double-edged sword -- the same skepticism needs to be applied to The Skeptical Environmentalist. I think that it is necessary to acknowledge that an honest evaluation of empirical evidence is essential in defining the parameters of the debate, but that ethical yardsticks will also be part of the equation and may even color our interpretations.

A accept that biodiversity is important, but what can we or for that matter I do to protect it is a matter for contention. In general, you can think about how decisions are made when it comes to using the environment. We need to work with governments and industry to discuss not just economic principles, but also ethical and spiritual values. It bascially boils down to what do we want for our children and their children and the legacy we want to leave for them.

We can continue to study animals and plants to discover first, what exists, and then, what needs protection. We can try to improve the scientific understanding of the public.