Reading Response #7

Most of the articles on chapter 11 of the Environment Anthology as well as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Biodiversity Report agree on a crucial fact: the rate of change in biodiversity due to human activities has increased more rapidly than at any other time in human history, and it is expected to continue or even accelerate. More pressingly, these changes in biodiversity are “to a significant extent irreversible” (MEA 2). The Biodiversity Report explores some of the most dramatic changes that biodiversity has experienced as a result of human domination of ecosystems, such as the decline in population size and range of a majority of species, a disproportionate increase in rates of extinction, the homogenization of species distribution on Earth, and the global decline in genetic diversity (2-4). In addition, like the Synthesis Report on climate change, the Biodiversity Report makes an appeal to decision-makers to realize the real economic, social, and health costs of biodiversity loss. As a balanced assessment, the Report does point out to the undeniable benefits that humans have obtained from the activities that lead to biodiversity change, such as the elimination of disease-carrying organisms. Nevertheless, the Report is quick to point out that, using an economic perspective, these benefits also imply trade-offs and costs (5). The Biodiversity Report does acknowledge that biodiversity holds intrinsic value for many people across the world (6). The focus, however, is on the economic and social costs of biodiversity loss. I find this very interesting, although not at all surprising. After all, the section of the Report “Summary for Decision-Makers” is aimed at actors whose interests are mostly defined by cost-benefit analyses in political and economic activity. In spite of that, the idea that losses to human well-being are the main argument behind the conservation efforts of the Report makes me wonder about the actual place and role of humans in biodiversity, as well as the value of humans, other living organisms, ecosystems, and life on Earth itself.

It seems to be a widespread assumption that human beings and their societies are in a sense external to natural ecosystems, or to nature itself. William Cronon in “The View from Walden” also ponders about the place of people in ecosystems. The notion of “wild” ecosystems entails the absence of humans, and many conservation initiatives are aimed at preserving or restoring such virginal landscapes (Environment Anthology 372). Cronon’s concludes that humans and their history cannot be separated from ecosystems and their evolution through time (383). At this point I must wonder, are urban landscapes not ecosystems? The Environment Anthology offers a definition of ecosystems as “the dynamic collection of living organisms interacting among themselves and the abiotic (non-living) environment in which they exist” (377). I fail to see how even the most metropolitan (or, maybe, “artificial”?) of cities can fail to fit that definition. If humans are part of nature, why should their creations not also be part of it? What makes a tree more natural than a skyscraper? I would dare to ascertain that this view of humans outside of nature is the fundamental problem underlying the conservation issue.

But the next question is, what should be done? Should we follow the Biodiversity Report’s recommendations? The report, among other things, advises to “strengthen response options that are designed with the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as the primary goal” (MEA 10). An alternative would be to continue or increase human activity with biodiversity loss effects so as to keep obtaining the benefits of said activity for human societies. Would this be bad? Could it be that humans, as a part of nature, are simply nature’s chosen method of massive extinction, just as the previous mass extinction episodes described by Edward O. Wilson (Environmental Anthology 376)? Wilson narrates the natural dynamic of extinction and observes how biodiversity has a way to restore itself from the survival of a mere 1 in a 2,000 species (377). That might lead some to dismiss all worries about biodiversity loss, but then what of its value? Does it have any? The question is perhaps parallel to the question of the meaning of life, for which there is no satisfactory universal answer. However, like an astonished Darwin observing the amazing “creative force” of biodiversity (374), I find it impossible to deny the ineffable feelings of veneration and contentment that the sight of a beautiful natural landscape or of an impressive animal specimen (sometimes even a human) elicits within me. I do not have the answers to the questions that I have raised here, but I have a strong feeling that such questions must illuminate the discussion of biodiversity issues just as much, if not more, than considerations about benefits and costs to human socioeconomic activity.