One view on preserving biodiversity argues that it is imperative solely because species have intrinsic value. In his “What is Conservation Biology?” Soulé argues that the primary aim of conservation is the protection and continuity of entire communities and ecosystems, with an emphasis on protecting biodiversity because species have intrinsic or inherent value (Soulé 728). While it is valid that species should be conserved because they have value in themselves, it is not enough, nor is it the only aim of conservation. Soulé elaborates, however, that it is also important to improve biodiversity by modifying the rate at which biodiversity is changed because small changes in the present can yield large-scale results in the long run (733). This …show more content…
They agree that protecting biodiversity is entirely important, but they also emphasize that conservation goals must reach a compromise and coordinate efforts that both improve human welfare while also protecting biodiversity (Kareiva and Marvier 962). In order to successfully combat the difficulties of accommodating both mankind and biodiversity, economists, scientists, and philosophers, and policymakers must find environmental solutions that maximize human-well being while preserving biodiversity. However, there is some controversy to this as some argue that perhaps scientists should stick to science, and leave the politics and policymaking to economists and …show more content…
As discussed previously, Kareiva and Marvier argue that focusing on human welfare does not have to sacrifice biodiversity (962-969). However, some find that the argument only holds when conservation itself is tied to a clearly outlined conservation agenda (Sanderson and Redford 389). For conservation efforts to be successful, multiple countries and agencies need to cooperate (“Lecture Week 13”). Conservationists, economists, and political strategists must find conservation issues that do not hinder efforts to alleviate issues of the human condition such as global poverty and world hunger. In actuality, biodiversity loss and poverty are linked, but conservation strategies that will reap success in integrating the two need clear conceptual frameworks (Adams et al. 1146). In order to find a balance and to foster stability for lasting and sustainable development and environmental health, it is important to take humans out of the equation when assessing the status of the environment, and to implement formal scientific strategies to conservation policies (Erwin
“By the time we’re done, it’s quite possible that there will be among the great apes not a single representative left, except, that is, for us,” Kolbert deduces (225). Hunting a species has caused the endangerment and extinction of many species of animals and plants. Six out of eight species of the world’s bears are categorized as “vulnerable” or “endangered” to extinct (222). Advocating for rights of endangered species, and protecting the forests they habitat is a noteworthy method to prevent extinction caused by humans. As an individual, one could help by supporting and donating to organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and more (262). Humans may ease their conscience by not actively killing endangered species, but protecting them
The rise of conservation was first populated by Theodore Roosevelt in the late 19th century. And the issues surrounding conservation had risen in the US around that time. The new understanding affects the country and its policies. Conservation is a careful preservation and protection of something; especially: planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.(Merriam-Webster) The causes of rising conservation include overhunting, recognizing its importance. These newfound awarenesses resulted in new policies that preserve for everyone equally.
As time passes, our population continues to increase and multiply; yet, on the other hand, our planet’s resources continue to decrease and deplete. As our population flourishes, human beings also increase their demands and clamor for the Earth’s natural products, yet are unable to sacrifice their surplus of the said resources. Garret Hardin’s work highlighted the reality that humans fail to remember that the Earth is finite and its resources are limited. Hardin’s article revealed that people are unable to fathom that we indeed have a moral obligation to our community and our natural habitat — that we are not our planet’s conquerors but its protectors. We fail to acknowledge and accept that we only have one Earth and that we must protect and treasure it at all costs. Despite all our attempts at annihilating the planet, the Earth will still be unrelenting — it will still continue to be present and powerful. Human beings must recognize that we need this planet more than it needs us and if we persist on being egocentric and covetous, in the end it is us who will
Elliot Sober's main point in this essay is about how could justify the environmentalism theories because they have some difficulties in reasoning their objectives and solutions. He illustrates about this difficulties and then he suggests some ways that can help to reason correctly about environmental concerns. He explains his points about some philosophers theory that try to give reasons about preserving the species and the environment. He tries to clarify about the ignorance argument that this argument suggests we must preserve every endangered species that it can be useful for human. Sober criticizes this opinion because sometimes a valuable species was known not to be valuable previously. Therefore he suggests that we should not because of human preference try to keep a species or keep not. The Slippery Slope Argument, that environmentalists affirm that every extinction is important significantly because it is possible arguing that none of species can be important that much then it will turn to a slippery slope argument. Sober mentions about the fact that If we consider a value for diversity therefore each species have value so we can value diversity without overemphasizing the position of each species separately. The Appeals to What is Natural, that is about what is natural to or what is domesticated or artificial. Sober claims that this distinction is meaningless because we believe that human beings also are part of the nature and what human makes also is part of
Long-term survival of a species depends on its ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (Murphy, 1994). Genetic diversity within a species, which has taken 3.5 billion years to evolve, makes adaptations to these changing environments possible. Unfortunately, the rate of extinction of genetically diverse organisms is rapidly increasing, thus reducing this needed biodiversity, largely due to the human impacts of development and expansion. What was an average of one extinction per year before is now one extinction per hour and extinct species numbers are expected to reach approximately one million by the year 2000 (WWW site, Bio 65). As a result governmental and societal action must be taken immediately!
In The Diversity of Life, Edward O. Wilson reflects on how the living world became diverse and how humans are destroying that diversity. In the book’s preface, Wilson defines biodiversity as “the totality of inherited variation in all organisms in a selected area” (Wilson ix). He adds that modern technology will allow for us to find many new species that were previously unknown to be in existence.
The book was very well written on a scientific level and also was able to communicate He made it a point to address both sides of the environmental argument before introducing his worldview of how biodiversity and the economy and the event should work. An example he made for the preservation of biodiversity was that the unique traits found in the rarer species on earth help produce so many useful pharmaceutical and scientific products that have changed the face of science such as the thermophiles found in the Geysers of Yellowstone National Park that allowed for the possibility of PCR (polymerase chain reaction). Some of the solutions that he offered included immediately salvaging the world’s hotspots, keeping intact the five remaining frontier forests, ceasing all logging of old-growth forests everywhere, letting secondary native forests recover, concentrating on lake and river systems, defining the marine hotspots in the world (such as coral reefs) and giving them as much priority as terrestrial habitats, mapping the world’s biodiversity, ensuring all the world’s ecosystems are protected, efficiently using biodiversity to benefit the world economy as a whole, initiating restoration projects, increasing the capacity of zoos and botanical gardens to ensure the survival of endangered species, preparing to clone species when all other preservation methods fail, and by supporting population planning by incorporating plans for low ecological footprints. I believe that many of the solutions that he has offered are highly optimistic, since it requires our current static society to actually participate actively to change the course of our planet. But the ones that I do believe will work especially is the one about supporting population planning by incorporating plans for low ecological footprints and the idea that we should efficiently use the world’s biodiversity to benefit local populations.
Having considered both sides of the argument surrounding the Endangered Species Act, it seems logical to conclude that, despite the fact that they Endangered Species Act could stand some improvement in terms of the speed of the bureaucracy that governs it, the Act itself is quite sufficient as is as long as it is administered to the full extent of its power. There is a growing tendency in government, however, to undermine the strength of the Endangered Species Act by making decisions on when and where to apply it a political matter rather than an ecological matter (Munro, 2010). To do this is to insure that ultimately it will not just be the environment and the wile organisms that live in it that will lose, it will be mankind as well.
The major concern is that the distribution of biodiversity wealth is uneven around the world. In the globe there are only 17 countries recognised as Mega diverse (rich in biodiversity or diversity among species) regions. India is one among the 17 Mega diverse countries. These 17 countries hold 70% of the total biodiversity resources (Jacobs, 2014). These countries are mostly either least developing countries (LDCs) or developing countries. The people in those countries develop economically, socially and culturally by the continuous and sustainable use of such resources for several hundreds of years. Still there are several communities which depend on the biological resource for their “physical and cultural survival” than economic values (Amiott, 2003). The unfair distribution of resources made the indust...
...lations diminished production, those without the basic human needs of food, shelter, and clothing will be forced into still greater poverty. So the very debate about whether to curb production to save the environment is also a question of whose livelihoods we value more: present day poor or future populations.
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
Nowadays it is common to read articles in newspapers and magazines regarding biodiversity issues. Human beings have been knowingly and unknowingly destroying biodiversity since their existence. Biodiversity is the measure of the variety of species of animals living in an area. Forests are usually areas with high biodiversity while deserts are the opposite. Human beings have always destroyed biodiversity either by deforestation, or by some other means. Biodiversity depletion is a natural phenomenon. But the present levels of biodiversity depletion are many times higher than the natural rate. Recently the levels of loss in biodiversity have started causing global concern. Some of the main causes for loss in biodiversity are alteration of habitats, increasing levels of pollution and human population growth.
The Earth is far and away the most biodiverse planet in our solar system, with about 8.7 million more unique species than the other 8 planets (UNEP). However, the Earth’s commanding lead is shrinking; not because the other planets are increasing biodiversity, but because Earth’s is decreasing. According to the World Wildlife Fund, we as a planet are losing 1,000 to 10,000 more species than the natural rate. Since the total number of species is hard to pin down, this can mean anywhere from 200 to 10,000 species going extinct per year (World Wildlife Fund). This obscenely high extinction rate is dangerous not just to ecosystems directly affected by the loss, but also creates a domino effect that circles around the globe and up and down the food
In understanding biodiversity, we will be able to harvest the benefits that come from it. Not only will we be able to understand our connections with all living things, but our connection with the environment as well.
Ecologists formulate their scientific theories influenced by ethical values, and in turn, environmental ethicists value nature based on scientific theories. Darwinian evolutionary theory provides clear examples of these complex links, illustrating how these reciprocal relationships do not constitute a closed system, but are undetermined and open to the influences of two broader worlds: the sociocultural and the natural environment. On the one hand, the Darwinian conception of a common evolutionary origin and ecological connectedness has promoted a respect for all forms of life. On the other hand, the metaphors of struggle for existence and natural selection appear as problematic because they foist onto nature the Hobbesian model of a liberal state, a Malthusian model of the economy, and the productive practice of artificial selection, all of which reaffirm modern individualism and the profit motive that are at the roots of our current environmental crisis. These metaphors were included in the original definitions of ecology and environmental ethics by Haeckel and Leopold respectively, and are still pervasive among both ecologists and ethicists. To suppose that these Darwinian notions, derived from a modern-liberal worldview, are a fact of nature constitutes a misleading interpretation. Such supposition represents a serious impediment to our aim of transforming our relationship with the natural world in order to overcome the environmental crisis. To achieve a radical transformation in environmental ethics, we need a new vision of nature.