Lecture 1: Why conserve biodiversity? Flashcards
Outline: Overview of arguments for conservation
Non-utilitarian arguments:
–morals, ethics and the ‘right to life’
–existence value
Utilitarian arguments:
–consumptive
–non-consumptive
–ecosystem services
Reasons to conserve biodiversity
Early arguments
–ethical / aesthetic reasons
–utilisation - ‘usefulness’
–“holistic” arguments and ecosystem services
– e.g. Ehrlich & Wilson (1991), Ehrlich & Ehrlich (1992)
Summary of reasons to conserve biodiversity:
From Hambler p.20 (2004)
NON-USE VALUES:
-INTRINSIC VALUE - Right of species to exist.
-EXISTENCE VALUE - Value of knowing a species or habitat exists.
USE VALUES:
DIRECT
- Consumptive - Food, fuels and other biomass; herbal medicines; safari hunting.
- Non-consumptive - Aesthetics (scenic views of landscapes; proximity to wildlife);
ecotourism; genetic resources (breeding; pharmaceuticals; biomimetics);
education; research.
INDIRECT -Ecosystem services (nutrient and water cycles; atmospheric gases; etc).
OPTION VALUE - Use values in the future of this generation.
BEQUEST VALUE -Use values for future generations.
Ethics and the right to exist
“Environmental ethics” – e.g. Rolston (1988)
Ethics are applied in human society but can also be applied environmentally
^ you wouldn’t ‘steal’ trees from a park?
Intrinsic value
–each species represents a unique solution to the problem of survival
–each represents the accumulated experience and history of millions of previous life forms
–who are we to determine that any one species should be irreversibly wiped-out?
^ Problematic and easily-dismissed (e.g. see Hampicke 1994)
Subjective
-luxury of the wealthy? E.g. you would ‘steal’ a tree if you needed firewood for warmth
-Most biodiversity loss due to climate change projected to be in poorest countries
^ (Titley et al. 2021)
–if extinction doesn’t involve suffering, where’s the harm?
–species are human concepts
-how can an artificial entity possess worth? We categorise often inaccurately
-Should we care more about phylogenetic diversity? (see Voskamp et al. 2022 and later lectures!)
–where does the right to existence reside?
-species or individuals? Management and control?
Examples of ethical dilemmas
*Management in human-influenced landscapes often involves culling for sustainability
–does this minimise suffering in the long-term? – e.g. elephants culled to prevent subsequent, large-scale starvation and environmental depletion
–is it right to cause individual suffering for the gain of the species?
Again a luxury of the wealthy to allow species that compete for food crops to live
*Some countries exercise a shoot-to-kill policy for poachers
–does this place the lives of animals above those of humans?
–or are people being killed in defence of the law?
*People are part of evolution and part of the natural world
–predation and competition have always led to extinctions
–surely human-caused extinction is a natural process that should be conserved as much as any other natural process?
Ethics and the right to exist shouldn’t be overlooked as a powerful argument
–humans are capable of making decisions based on ethics over economics – e.g: slave trade and child labour
–religious people (of whom there are many) often believe that they have a moral responsibility to conserve “creation”
Existence value: ethics and utility blur
–some satisfaction in knowing species exist, even if we don’t see them or derive any obvious benefits from their existence
–some people would pay to save a species, even if they might never see it
–this is “existence value”
-Surveying what people would be willing to donate to save a species identifies the value that people assign to this ‘existence value
Survey example of Existence value: UK mammal poll in North Yorkshire
–White et al. (2001) reported “willingness to pay” of North Yorkshire taxpayers towards 4 UK BAP species
–Specified % of pop increase and gauged willingness to pay to achieve that increase
Willingness to pay for hares may be low due to their relative abundance in North Yorkshire
Charismatic species are often selected for in polls like this
The value of the hare is not recognised – perhaps it is misinterpreted as a rabbit = common
The utility of biodiversity: Consumptive uses
–most foods derive from living species
–90% of foods come from just 20 domesticated species
–50% of food comes from wheat and rice
–Is this a risky situation?
Consumptive use:
Wild species represent a huge genetic resource for developing improved strains of domestic species
Disease resistance has been obtained from wild relatives of rice, maize, wheat, barley, potatoes, etc. Increased production has been achieved through studies of wild relatives of sugar cane and wheat
Consumptive use:
Wild species are also used for intercropping to repel pests and increase yield as in:
“Push-pull” agriculture
–plants attacked by herbivores produce “semiochemicals” - Herbivore-Induced Plant Volatiles (HIPVs)
–HIPVs deter pests and attract their predators
–new intercropping strategies use repellent plants within the crop to deter herbivores and attractants beyond the crop to draw the pests away
–the diversity of existing plants represents a huge reservoir of opportunity
Consumptive use: Biofuels
*e.g. 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels – non-food crops and algal biofuels
(1st gen biofuels divert crops from food to fuel – a bad thing)
*Miscanthus giganteus, a sterile hybrid of two species of east Asian grasses, can grow over 3m in a single growth season and is already commercially grown as a biofuel
*algae produces 30 times more energy per acre than 1st generation landcrops like soybeans
Other consumptive uses
Consumptive use: Herbal medicines
e.g. St John’s wort to treat depression and garlic has antibacterial properties
Consumptive use: Safari hunting
e.g. hunting of trophy lions can raise up to $100,000 per lion and, under certain conditions, may be sustainable (Whitman et al., 2004) such as when land is being cleared for livestock/housing
Non-consumptive use: Tourism
*Tourism is (still currently) the largest business sector in the world economy
*In 2004, ecotourism/nature tourism was growing globally 3 times faster than the tourism industry as a whole
*Sustainable tourism could grow to 25% of the world’s travel market within 6 years → value of the sector: £250 billion a year (TIES 2009)
Non-consumptive use: Genetic resources
–many species have provided products / inspiration
e.g. Medicines:
–willow → aspirin
–bread mould → penicillin
–cobra venom → CVF to treat cancers
–vampire bat → anticoagulants
e.g. Materials
–bugleweed → Ajugarin insecticide
–neem (eastern relative of mahogany) → fungicide
–cochineal bug → carmine food colourant
–chrysanthemum → pesticides
e.g. Inspiration for materials (biomimetics)
–burdock → velcro
–mussels → water-resistant glue
–shark skin → hydrodynamic surfaces
If these species go extinct we will lose these genetic resources – many not yet identified
Could technology could supercede natural genetic resources?
*100% of drugs in tribal societies derive from natural products
*only 55% of the top 150 prescription drugs in USA
*computer-aided design of drugs will increase
but can we afford to lose vital inspiration?
The Utility of Biodiversity: Indirect value of biodiversity: the holistic view
*conserving the environment/ecosystems as a whole
*species have complex interdependencies
*loss of any given species can have unforeseen consequences for ecosystem stability
*the “rivet” view of ecosystems (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1981)
E.g. Loss of the ‘great whale’ previous orca prey has led to killer whales hunting sea otters -> sea otter population decline -> excess of sea urchins (sea otter prey) kelp grazing ->kelp ecosystem loss
Ecosystem services
*intact ecosystems deliver an array of benefits – e.g.
–water purification and regulation
–nutrient cycling
–pollination
–climate regulation and carbon sequestration
-value of these services is difficult to estimate
–$16-24trillion (1012) per yr [» global GNP] (Costanza et al. 1997)
–“overall benefit : cost ratio of an effective global program for the conservation of remaining wild nature is at least 100:1” (Balmford et al. 2002)
Saving Nature, But Only for Man : Charles Krauthammer,TIME magazine, 17/06/91
“We have just come through a war fought in part over oil. Energy dependence costs Americans not just dollars but lives. It is a bizarre sentimentalism that would deny ourselves oil that is peacefully attainable because it risks disrupting the calving grounds of Arctic caribou.”
“I like the caribou as much as the next man. And I would be rather sorry if their mating patterns are disturbed. But you can’t have everything. And if the choice is between the welfare of caribou and reducing an oil dependency that gets people killed in wars, I choose man over caribou every time.”
Summary points
*Arguing for the value of conservation is not easy
*We cannot afford to be complacent
*Ethical / aesthetic reasons are often powerful
-but they are subjective, condition-dependent and unlikely to sway policy makers
*Economic reasons – especially those relating to ecosystem services will carry more weight
-but might not always work for individual species some have no economic value but their presence is essential for the persistence of other species of value to humans
-need to couple arguments to the rivet hypothesis
*Other lectures will relate to the value of wildlife
-try to put them in the context of advocating conservation
