|
10 Propositions on Biodiversity (2)
Biodiversity: Nice or valuable?
by Richard D North
Notes for a Royal Institution/Economist debate
6 November, 2003
1 Biodiversity is not as precious, nor as threatened as often supposed.
Even if we are in the midst of an "ice age" style depletion
of species, we appear to have a remarkable - and sustaining - range
of habitats and species around us now. We are likely to conserve
a high proportion of our exisiting species, even granted that habitat
destruction is likely to continue for a while.
2 The rich world could easily extend its range of good to excellent
habitat (by conservation and reform of farming). But the 3rd world
will probably see further declines in habitat at least until it
is rich enough to reverse these trends. In either "world",
biodiversity might decline (ie, absolute numbers of species in rich
or poor worlds may decline). This apparent contradiction arises
because biodiversity can be described as a) the absolute number
of species in a given place and b) the availability of wild or semi-wild
places allowing populations of species to flourish. a) and b) can
go in opposite directions.
3 Many biodiversity specialists seem to believe that man is a "cancer",
or an "invasive weed" - a destructive and rather uninteresting
mono-culture - as against their preferred, pre-man, multifarious
wild species whose right to exist they stress. They also stress,
and campaign on, nature's fragility, and are prone to believe that
exaggeration of their case is legitimate, granted its urgency and
the culpability of their fellow-humans. (E. O. Wilson, Paul Ehrlich,
Norman Myers, and many lesser figures. Stephen Schneider's example
- in a different field - is the best known because self-confessed
case of the syndrome.)
4 Biodiversity doesn't deserve its dominant role as the watchword
of our stewardship: at best it is one of the tools by which we consider
our relations with the non-human world. Following the thought in
item 2), a small percentage of the world's surface holds a large
proportion of the world's species, so preserving the number of species
might well not be an engine for preserving much habitat. Contrariwise,
cherishing and expanding habitat might increase the commonness or
availability or accessibility of various species which are in so
sense threatened.
5 Aesthetics are at work here as much as ecology. That's to say:
a diversity observable only to scientists may not matter as much
as an appearance of wildness, or accessibility, etc. Scientists
may celebrate diversity (for example, mourn a particular extinction)
far beyond species' actual usefulness to the habitat or humans.
Contrariwise, ordinary people may see loveliness (or productivity)
in the scientificallly-uninteresting.
6 Biodiversity loss is valuable to green gloominess, it makes us
mourn man's activities and exaggerate the difficulties of managing
the planet. We should remember that man is the first creature consciously
to preserve biodiversity: in arboretums, nature reserves, zoos and
seed stores. Man is the first creature to increase biodiversity:
in GMO work. Actually, the urge to preserve and expand the wild
and semi-wild seems to be a function of affluence. At this juncture
it is as important to promote economic growth for the poor of the
planet as it is to worry about the destructiveness of the early
stages of industrial development.
7 Not all sepcies matter equally. Some species are rare (ie few
and/or small populations of them). So what? We might let some or
many of these go without much damaging the planet or our aesthetic
sense. Some species are common (ie, have many and large populations).
So why worry when some populations go or are diminished?
8 We cannot create biodiversity (we are not god - tho' see GMO
remark above), but we can create habitat (ie, create "space"
or "niches" for the invasion or return of the wild and
semi-wild). Our stewardship can be positive and pro-active as well
as reactive. That is why we can destroy some habitats - even valuable
ones - with the understanding that elsewhere we can compensate for
that.
9 Semi-wild and agricultural habitats can provide a wide range
of niches for "wild" species, and deliver a wide range
of the "natural services" (water retention and purification,
for instance) that wild places are celebrated for. This is awkward
for those who use biodiversity in a utiltarian preservationist argument.
(Equally: for managed habitats to provide these services, they need
sensitive management.)
10 The modern science of ecology (Botkin, May) is producing insights
which are uncomfortable for those who seek to overweight the amount
of species as an indicator of habitat viability. Various species
may be redundant (ie, may not be necessary to their habitat). A
population of a species may be redundantly large (ie, its number
could be reduced without harm to the habitat or the species' viability).
In general, then, we can say that alongside obvious ideas such as
the fragility of "nature", we should consider also that
it can be surprisingly resilient.
References:
Daniel Botkin especially, Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for
the 21st Century (Oxford Univ. Press, 1990).
Stephen Budiansky
Robert May (here is an excellent popular summary of his thought:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletinSummer01/features/may.html)
(use these names in the search engine and you'll find references
and further discussion)
On Steven Schneider, see http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2003/wca_9bpf.html
Other things of interest:
Global Biodiversity, Status of the Earth's Living Resources, World
Conservation Monitoring Centre, (Chapman and Hall, 1992)
Biological Diversity: Divergent views on its status and diverging
approaches to its conservation, Rowan B Martin (Earth Report 2000,
ed Ronald Bailey, McGraw Hill and CEI, 2000)
Reframing deforestation, James Fairhead and Melissa Leach, (Routledge,
1998)
http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.ferris/tbio-diversity.htm
http://www.businessandbiodiversity.org/index.html
|
