In Madagascar, an Antandroy tribesman holds the fossilized egg of an elephant bird
(Aepyornis maximus), a species that became extinct about 500 years ago.
|
The Earth is our mother, the
eagle our cousin.The tree draws blood from us and the grass is growing. Our ancestors
told us: Now that we have done all these things, you must watch over them and ensure
that they are forever. It is in this way that human beings became the custodians
of the planet.
Gagudju
account of creation (Australia)
|
 |
Why should biological
diversity be protected? Scientists are putting forth many new answers: some to convince
the public and decision-makers and others they consider scientifically valid
 Every week it seems, biologists,
anthropologists or environmental scientists publish studies with a new reason explaining
why it is vital to slow down the depletion of biodiversity. For example, in early
March two American scholars, James Kirchner and Anne Well, wrote in the British review
Nature that, after an era of mass extinction, it took nature much longer than anyone
had previously thought to reach its current level of richness and diversity.
If humans continue destroying wild habitats at the current pace, not only will we
cause a major new crisis in the history of life, it will take nature at least 10
million years to recover. That stunning argument bemuses some scientists, who say
that in just five million years, Homo sapiens and the other large vertebrates will
have gone the way of the dinosaurs. So why care about what happens after that?
“The question is not what will happen to tigers 10 million years from now,” says
Michel Batisse, who helped set up UNESCO’s biosphere reserves and is
on the board of directors of the non-governmental organization Conservation International.
“There’s no doubt they will no longer exist. But what about 100 years from now? What
we need is to find good reasons to protect biodiversity in the next few centuries.”
The tempestuous debate over the “value” of biodiversity is sometimes skewed by the
need to convince at any price. Genuinely alarmed about the scope of the destruction,
some experts have taken up “ideological” positions, says Talal Younes, executive
director of the International Union of Biological Sciences. “They think any argument
that can help put the message across is good, whether or not it is scientifically
valid.”
The values most commonly invoked to raise public awareness are economic and aesthetic.
“The Western public pictures biodiversity like Noah’s ark, with the giraffe and the
sequoia, the parrot and the tulip,” says Batisse. In the industrialized countries,
where wilderness has become a rare, highly-prized commodity, people are willing to
take action so that their grandchildren will have the chance to see elephants roaming
free.
But Peter Bridgewater, director of UNESCO’s ecological sciences division,
thinks biodiversity’s aesthetic value is relative. “People living in cities in New
Zealand, for example, think that whales are in great danger and should be protected
from hunters. But Inuit in Alaska will tell you that whales are an important part
of their diet and that they should be allowed to sustainably hunt whales. Who is
right? ”
A
gene pool for biotechnology
The aesthetic
argument works with a certain segment of the general public, but it falls short of
convincing decision-makers. “When ministers hold a meeting, you have to demonstrate
the economic advantages of preserving biodiversity,” says Batisse. That task is all
the harder because governments sometimes derive tremendous economic benefit from
the destruction of ecosystems, especially forests, and they are under pressure from
powerful lobbies (the timber and paper industries, for example). Researchers reply
that biodiversity is a boon for the tourism industry (see pp.31-32), helps to cure illnesses (pp.30-31) and to feed people at little
cost (pp.
27-29) and
constitutes an inestimable gene pool for biotechnology.
In the past several years, scientists have also come up with a battery of figures
aimed at putting a monetary value on the services ecosystems provide for human societies
(see
pp. 26-27).
A group of American scholars estimates their worth at $319 billion a year in the
United States (5 per cent of the U.S. GDP), and nearly three trillion dollars a year
worldwide. The leading ecological economist, Robert Costanza, has published other
estimates assessing the total value of services rendered by biodiversity at $33 trillion
a year–more than the GDP of all the world’s countries combined.
While these figures might hit home, many scientists consider them to be totally off
the mark. Peter Bridgewater goes even further, arguing that the attempt to put price-tags
is not only a “waste of time” but dangerous. “The economically-minded people are
setting up a system of discrimination by considering some species and ecosystems
to be valuable (because they provide ‘profitable’ services) and deeming others worthless.
Ecological systems are not built-up on the basis of discrimination but co-operation.
They must be considered as a whole.”
Bridgewater says biodiversity is too valuable to be evaluated. It is priceless because
it guarantees the security of the human race. It would be idiotic, he says, to destroy
ecosystems which make air breathable, the climate tolerable, water drinkable and
soil fertile (see
pp. 26-27).
To those who argue that technological progress will offset environmental damage,
he retorts that the costs would be exorbitant. And technological solutions, he adds,
will not hold up in the long run because, unlike nature, they will be incapable of
adapting to change. What’s more, adds Jeffrey McNeelly, of the World Conservation
Union, the most advanced technologies are based on mechanisms observed in living
things–an additional reason to take care of them. Instead of pitting nature and technology
against one another, biodiversity specialists are counting on an alliance between
them to better manage the environment and to develop ecological engineering (which
would make it possible, for example, to restore the functions of a degraded tropical
forest).
Last but not least, they say, instrumentalist arguments pale in comparison to the
only one that really matters: biodiversity is the essence of life. “What is life,
when you get down to it?” asks Robert Barbault, director of the French Institute
of Basic and Applied Ecology. “It is what lasts. And it lasts because it adapts to
changes in the environment by diversifying. A host of species has continued demonstrating
this for over four billion years. Humans are no different, even though they are more
sophisticated. They face the same problems: eat or be eaten. Predators try to kill
as much prey as possible and prey tries to escape from predators. That leads to co-evolution
based on genetic and behavioural variability. It’s a race that never ends,” says
Barbault. “Diversity is the very reason for the success of living phenomena, and
therefore for our own existence.” But if living things have always adapted, why worry
now? Most specialists are categorical: to regenerate, life needs time and space,
two things it no longer has because of the pace and scope of the damage caused by
people.
Becoming
aware of our interdependence
Because of
its biological and technological progress, Homo sapiens are jeopardizing their own
welfare. The present environmental crisis, says Robert Barbault, has the advantage
of helping to raise the Western individual’s awareness of our connections with nature,
which has long been considered as an external entity to be tamed. “We’re beginning
to understand that our planet must be managed and, consequently, to think about the
new civilization we want to build. The ability to conceive a project is precisely
what sets us apart from other species. We will have to change our behaviour, especially
diet and technology, and our mentalities. We must have a different, more ecological
vision of the world and be more aware of our interdependence with all other living
things.” And perhaps, a touch more humble.
|
