I. Introduction
II. Biodiversity
B. Value
1. Economic
2. Scientific
3. Ecological
4. Social Amenity
IV. Case Studies
V. Global Solution for Sustainability
VI. Conclusion
As a result of the increasing environmental awareness of scientists and
laymen, new issues have evolved around pressing ecological problems. Ecologists
have discovered how important retaining biodiversity really is to humanity.
While politicians often have other economic agendas, environmentalists are
working hard to push this relatively new knowledge through political institutions
using economic arguments. The preservation of our surroundings can create
new jobs and promote economic efficiency, more so than the jobs which are
currently destroying our ecosystem. For example, in a few years, workers
in the fishing industry may be out of jobs due to over-consumption of certain
species of fish and the lack of management to preserve these animals. For
Christians, biblical reasons also apply to this desire to preserve what
remains of our biodiversity. Holistic human life depends on the relationship
between humankind and species found in nature; thus humankind must develop
respect and critical understanding of the interaction of human and non-human
species, and realize the necessity of preserving the earth's great biodiversity.
Conservation biology became a formal discipline in the 1980s. Its aim
was to connect ecology and evolutionary biology, as well as conserve biodiversity
(Takacs, 1996). The mission of this new field was to
document the earth's deterioration and to promote ways of reversing this
situation. In 1986 the National Research Council held a National Forum on
biodiversity (Takacs, 1996), and from this conscience-raising
event, scientists publicly agreed on the importance of saving the different
species of the world (Takacs, 1996).
An estimated 5 to 30 million species exist on earth (DiSilvestro,
1993). The term biodiversity refers to the interrelationships of species
as well as the vast numbers of varying organisms. Biodiversity also refers
to genetic diversity where the structure from one sexually reproducing individual
to the next varies in its code, having vast differences within its own species.
An estimated 17,500 species are lost every year and the major destruction
is caused by human activity (DiSilvestro, 1993)!
Why should biodiversity be preserved? One answer is for the physical,
spiritual, and emotional well-being of people themselves (DiSilvestro,
1993). These aspects of our lives can be enhanced by nature, and in
protecting nature, we are also saving biodiversity. This perspective has
brought us zoos, national parks and wildlife refuges, as well as other recreational
areas such as dunes, offering us a diversity of opportunities to experience.
By protecting biodiversity we are saving innate pleasures of emotions, intellectual
stimulation, and spiritual gratification. In our urban society of today,
we often act as spectators, rather than participants in our own lives, i.e.
attending movies, ballet, theatre, concerts, or sporting events (DiSilvestro, 1993). However, we can be active participants in
nature simply by being immersed in it, when there exist opportunities to
do so.
One argument against biodiversity is that the diminishing of species
is something that has naturally occurred throughout history and will continue
to do so. The criticism of this argument lies in the fact that today's species
are becoming extinct at thousands times the rate of those in the past (DiSilvestro, 1993). With the disappearance of biodiversity,
we not only lose opportunities to interact with nature, but it will affect
medical research, economic activity, and even the availability of foods
in our diets (DiSilvestro, 1993).
Humankind has generally seen the land as a resource to be used for its
benefit. However, in many developed countries we have overused the land
without sufficiently replenishing it. In the Christian understanding of
having dominion over the Earth, we have forgotten our covenant with God
to manage it and take care of God's creation. We have claimed the Earth
as our own, rather than valuing it as a work of God which should be treated
with respect.
Plants grow in many different types of soil. In some situations the crops
depend on the plants that were grown there previously which leave behind
specific nutrients. If we do not preserve the natural ecosystems, we may
lose a variety of crops. For instance, in Brazil, the Brazil nut is a major
export crop contributing approximately $1 billion to their economy, and
a common ingredient in the jar of mixed nuts we buy at the store, but it
only grows in the wild (DiSilvestro, 1993). No one knows
how to successfully cultivate it. In another example, wood that was once
thought of as "trash" and frequently burned has since been discovered
to be a treatment for cancer. Large chunks of bark are needed for the medicine,
but unfortunately relatively few trees are left because humanity did not
realize its value. We do have a choice about preserving species and we can
slow the current rate of death and destruction of them in our societies,
and in doing so we will be maintaining a variety of pleasures for earth's
inhabitants.
Originally, the value of biodiversity was thought of mainly in terms of economic value. Aldo Leopold suggests that "[t]he practice of conservation must spring from a conviction of what is economically expedient," (Leopold, 1947). Since these earlier times, we have come to realize that scientific, ecological and social values are also present. In the early seventies, policy-makers gave ecologists the challenge of defining the value of ecosystems (Norton, 1987). They tried to respond with a monetary figure per acre of tidal wave wetlands (Norton, 1987). However, it is difficult to measure these systems in dollar amounts because one has to know most, if not all, species contained in the area as well as which ones are redundant and what limit they can reach before they can no longer be supported in the altered habitat. So far, scientists lack the type of knowledge needed to adequately place a monetary value on the life of species and do not fully understand the benefits received from services currently provided by the ecosystem.
As always, there is a debate whether value could ever be placed on the
variety of species existing in the world. One difficulty with placing a
value on individual species is that ecosystems are always changing. As the
abiotic environment of a species changes, so does its behavior as well as
that of the other organisms composing their biotic environment (Norton, 1987). The naturally changing environment provides opportunities
for new species to evolve or find a new niche, increasing the diversity
in developing systems (Norton, 1987). Declining species
can work to a negative effect; as a species disappears, the organisms that
depend on it and interact with it in its original niche are likely to also
decline (Norton, 1987). This is certainly true of specialized
predators. The extinction of a given species may cause a downward spiral
effect as other species that depend on it also die out, possibly causing
mass extinction. Mark Walters states that "death is the end of a life,
but extinction is the end of birth" (Walters, 1993).
Problems occur when one tries to define the economic value of species
or ecosystems. First of all, there is the difficulty of how to assign value
in a cost benefit manner (Norton, 1987). Phrasing questions
also creates problems since answers will vary depending on the wording.
The values of different species and ecosystems also vary since these are
viewed through personal beliefs. By quantifying benefits, analysts attempt
to treat these items as market commodities (Norton, 1987).
However, this does not work for all parts of an ecosystem (for example,
how much is clean air worth?).
Nevertheless, four types of economic values are associated with the preservation
of species. These are use values, option values, quasi-option values, and
existence values (Norton, 1987). The first set encompasses
the ways in which humanity has used nature. These actions include gathering
wild species for food, domesticating species for agricultural products,
and the uses derived from plants and animals for pharmaceutical products
(Norton, 1987). The use value also includes the aesthetic
properties of zoos and parks, as well as scientists' study of these organisms.
A derivative of the use value is the option value in which species are precious
even when not actively in use because they could be present in some form
of the ways previously mentioned. "Quasi-option values are option values
enhanced by the expectation that growth in knowledge will find as yet unknown
uses for species," (Norton, 1987). The fourth type
of value results from the belief that a species has value solely in its
existence, that no known use value has been associated with it (Norton, 1987).
Science values biodiversity for its own purposes. We are able to learn
a great deal from the variety of plants and animals surrounding us. While
we have barely scratched the surface, we are beginning to understand the
importance of biological diversity. Thomas Lovejoy once stated that "the
variety of life on earth represents an extraordinary intellectual resource,
and is essentially the basic library on which the life sciences can build
. . . the kind of rapid loss that we are experiencing in the 20th century
is a form of book-burning and one of the greater anti-intellectual acts
of all time," (Takacs, 1996). Many medicinal benefits
have been found in plant and animal species. For example, by discovering
the process of how venom in the bushmaster viper works, scientists developed
Capoten, a drug that fights against high blood pressure (Takacs,
1996). In this area alone, if society destroys what is unkown to us,
then we are also potentially destroying those things which can aid us tremendously
in our lives.
Ecological value is also seen in the services provided by the ecosystem.
Think of the question of how much payment one would take before agreeing
to live in an oxygen-poor environment. While humanity has generally tried
to obtain as much production from the landscape as possible (by development),
we do not realize how beneficial the less productive landscapes are (Norton, 1987). The difficulty lies in assigning economic
value to what we naturally take for granted. This is especially problematic
when we try to assess future values to be derived from ecosystems (Norton, 1987). David Takacs notes, "it may be argued that
keeping ecosystems healthy and functioning has value apart from any human
valuer or any value humans may obtain from them," (Takacs,
1996). Earlier in this century, Aldo Leopold spoke of the value of minerals,
of the minute quantities that make a difference in the growing and healthiness
of plants which are then passed on to animals (Takacs, 1996).
This is only one example of an ecosystem service.
Some have suggested that by the time a species is endangered, its function is basically absent from the changed ecosystem (Takacs, 1996). Endangered species notify humanity of places in peril, such that we can see how trouble in humanity might follow (Takacs, 1996). For example, aquatic species can give us information about the contents of our water and what is safe to drink or use. This in turns tells us how we are affecting our surroundings, by pollution or in other ways. Many have wondered if enough species go extinct, will the ecosystem collapse? E. O. Wilson gives the reply "possibly" (Takacs, 1996). He also notes that this is only one planet so there is only one experiment (Takacs, 1996). The climate determines what agriculture is in a society and humans depend on food provided by this agriculture. Since humans are at the end of the food chain, disappearance of some species will surely affect what we eat as well as some of our activities. Deer hunting is allowed because of the overpopulation. However, if there is no limit to this activity, these animals will soon become extinct. We will have lost both a source of food and other products, as well as an outdoor activity.
Another importance of biological diversity is the social amenity value
which translates to improved standards of living for everyone and also works
to achieve sustainable development. A statement issued by the World Resources
Institute suggests that conservation of biodiversity is a way to manage
human interactions and maximize the benefits it produces. It also sustains
the potential needs and aspirations of future generations (Takacs,
1996). David Western suggests that "the best hope for all species
is linked to a single, uncompromisable human goalthe improvement of human
welfare," (Takacs, 1996). Once poverty is alleviated
and people are healthy, then we will all be able to have concern for conserving
biodiversity (Takacs, 1996).
Congress wrote the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to protect and conserve the land inhabited by threatened or endangered species. Qualifications for being included in the Endangered Species Act are being on the list of endangered or threatened species either from natural or human causes and having a recovery plan drawn up by the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce (Rohlf, 1991). These plans set forth goals and actions to be taken for conservation of the species. Section 7 of the Act gives some guidelines to federal land managers and agencies as to how to do business without jeopardizing the existence of endangered species (Rohlf, 1991). Section 9 focuses on these same aspects for individuals, corporations and local and state governments. Some view the act as insufficient because it only protects high-profile individual species rather than working with overall biodiversity (Rohlf, 1991). This regulation evolved from traditional regulations when overhunting and other forms of direct exploitation were the major factors of species extirpation (Rohlf, 1991). However, the Act could be useful by supporting keystone species which would indirectly benefit various other life forms dependent on them in some way (Rohlf, 1991).
Keystone species are defined as those organisms which are the most crucial
for supporting ecosystems (Takacs, 1996). Disagreements
on what the keystone species are in an ecosystem also present a problem.
However, most scientists have a set of standards of how specific species
interact with each other before they are classified as keystone species.
There have been congressional statements that favor the preservation of
ecosystems, but policy makers have typically emphasized using the Act for
higher profile species rather than umbrella protections (Rohlf,
1991). Even the Fish and Wildlife Service does not take into account
species' importance to ecosystems when putting them on a list (Rohlf,
1991). Recovery plans also reflect little priority for umbrella conservation
efforts.
Two recent case studies offered here will help illustrate the workings of the Endangered Species Act as well as some of the problems associated with it. At the beginning of this century, the federal government ordered all of the wild wolves to be killed. By 1924, the last two pups in Yellowstone National park had been killed and only a few remained in Wyoming (Maughan, 1998). In 1943 the last was shot, but some others (never forming a pack) had migrated into northwest Wyoming (Maughan, 1998). "From an ecological standpoint, such lone wolves had no influence on the functioning of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem," (Maughan, 1998). After ten years of discussion, in January 1995, fourteen wolves were captured and brought to Yellowstone National Park from the Rocky Mountains of Alberta. Early in the century, the park contained a variety of wildlife, but the government eliminated many of these species. As the bison population grew in the park, biologists thought that the reintroduction of wolves might aid in maintaining this growth (Maughan, 1998).
Three "acclimation" chambers were used to enclose these wolves,
each being approximately one acre in size and located in the Lamar Valley
of the northeastern part of the park (Maughan, 1998).
After three months, the wolves were released and the packs were referred
to by the names of their acclimation enclosures: Rose Creek, Crystal Creek
Bench, and Soda Butte. Later, a natural pack was formed by two of the wolves,
which observers named the Leopold Pack (Maughan, 1998).
The Yellowstone wolves were put into the wild by the soft release method,
whereby they were acclimated to their new surroundings: sights, smells,
local diet, and time to mate. This means that the wolves are put into large
cages and allowed to become accustomed to the food available in Yellowstone
National Park. They were also allowed to mate while being in an enclosure.
After being examined for diseases, Yellowstone wolves received vaccinations,
were radio-collared, and numbered from R2 to R15 (Maughan,
1998). The hard release method was used with wolves that had been taken
to Idaho, and thus they were freed immediately to roam the wild (Maughan, 1998). These wolves received numbers B2 through B16.
One wolf (R7F) in the Rose Creek pack (R7F, R9F, and R10M) split from
R9F and R10M. Wolves R9F and R10M eventually mated, producing the park's
first litter of wolves. Unfortunately the mating and birth of the eight
wolf pups occurred on private land after R10M was accidentally shot by a
bear hunter (Maughan, 1998). This caused a problem for
biologists who had to decide whether they should supplement the mother with
food on this mountain or if they should take the pups back to the Rose Creek
Pen where they would be raised (Maughan, 1998). The biologists
chose the second option and reared the pups through the summer of 1995.
After being released from the pen in October 1995, an alpha male (R8M) from
the Crystal Creek pack joined this group. These pups made up 1/3 of Yellowstone's
wolf population in 1995, and in June of 1997 the Rose Creek Pack was the
largest in Yellowstone, having 22 members, but by July 1998, only four of
the original sixteen pups were still living (Maughan, 1998).
As of the summer of 1998, there are a total of at least one hundred wolves
thriving in Yellowstone National Park. The success of the wolf introduction
begun only three years ago has not been without perils, however. Several
wolves from different packs have dispersed from the park killing nearby
rancher's sheep and other livestock (Maughan, 1998).
Under the regulations of the reintroduction program, wolves have three chances
after which they will be removed from the area, however, in one instance
when a wolf attacked for the second time at a sheep ranch in 1996, he was
gunned down by the federal agency of Animal Damage Control (Maughan,
1998). Since this incident wolves are now given only two chances. A
side note to this story is that nearby there is a compound containing captive
buffalo wolves. Biologists hypothesize that the male killed at the sheep
ranch was probably looking for a mate and the captive wolves made the area
more attractive (Maughan, 1998). Another incident occurred
later in 1996 when a female wolf killed eight sheep near Fishtail, Montana
(Maughan, 1998). The rancher was compensated for the
lost sheep by the group, Defenders of Wildlife (Maughan,
1998). Since the beginning of the program, wild wolves have killed approximately
eighty domestic sheep, eleven calves or cows, and one hunting dog, with
all of the owners being compensated by the Defenders of Wildlife (Maughan, 1998).
The program also faces political adversaries such as Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, who, known for his disinterest in wildlife, successfully diminished the funds by 40% for the reintroduction of wolves (Maughan, 1998). In Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, the American Farm Bureau has put forth an effort to suppress the reintroduction of wolves, arguing that hybridization would occur altering the genetics of the native wolves with those from Canada (Maughan, 1998). Other organizations including the Audubon Society requested that other native wolves, a different species, not be part of the reintroduction experiment and retain their classification of endangered species. Currently, no decision on what to do with the wolves has been made and no action will be taken until the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals can look at the arguments of both sides (Maughan, 1998). Some have predicted that pending the latest decision of Judge William Downes, the removal of all reintroduced wolves and their offspring means destroying them to protect the naturally remaining wild wolves, since Alberta and British Columbia will not accept their return (Maughan, 1998). The judge believes the way this program was established actually violated the Endangered Species Act (Maughan, 1998).
An incident occurred recently whereby an environmental group set fire
to a ski lodge being constructed in Vail, Colorado. Controversy exists between
environmentalists and those planning the resort. The environmentalists oppose
the expansion because of the future reintroduction of the lynx this winter
(Sebastian, 1998). The environmental group that set the
fire, Earth Liberation Front (ELF), says they did this in an effort to protect
the lynx which is being reintroduced into the Rocky Mountains (Pawelski,
1998). An e-mail sent from the group stated that the expansion of the
ski resort operation close to national forest land would destroy the best
remaining habitat for the lynx, also stated that profits being put ahead
of wildlife would not be tolerated (Pawelski, 1998).
ELF has been considered a shady environmental group, having been involved
in previous bombings and arsons in other states (Pawelski,
1998).
The lynx disappeared from Colorado nearly twenty-five years ago. In a
situation similar to that of the wolves in Yellowstone, the government once
encouraged the slaughter of the lynx, but presently is prepared to spend
$2 million to gradually reintroduce this endangered species using animals
from Canada (Dasey, 1998). Genetic studies have revealed
that DNA samples from the lynx in Canada and those animals that existed
in Colorado earlier are identical (Colorado Division of Wildlife,
1998). Reintroduction should occur this year while the lynx and its
favorite prey, the snowshoe hare will reach the peak of their population
cycles (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1998). The next
time for a climax in population growth will occur in ten years.
Global Solution for Sustainability
While these studies focus on the preservation of animals, humanity should
value all parts of their ecosystems and the diversity they provide. We have
neglected the fact that our surroundings require work to be sustainable
and that our attitudes about consumption have to change for healthy biodiversity
to remain. Aldo Leopold once wrote, "ecology is the science of communities,
and the ecological conscience is therefore the ethics of community life,"
(Leopold, 1947). Many ethical issues have arisen from
arguments about the preservation of species. Some people wonder why money
should be put into preserving biodiversity when there are so many other
things we can use our money for. The Bible does not speak directly of preserving
species, but it does tell us as Christians that we are here to manage God's
Earth.
One problem with finding a global solution for sustainability is that
of greed. Many people in developed countries do not want to give up practices
that make life easier but that are more harmful to the environment. For
instance, in the U. S., numerous vehicles are seen on the roads with only
one person in them, a convenience many Americans enjoy. By cutting down
on individual transportation, the harmful chemicals released into the atmosphere
would decrease. Another effect of this action would be a healthier society,
since most people would have to find more creative ways of getting places
such as biking or walking. Both physical and mental health would be improved,
since one would no doubt have to prioritize and simplify life. The World
Watch Institute asserts that "[we] must come to terms with population
growth, inequitable social systems, and short-sighted economic practices
if we are to restore the ecological health of our planet, particularly in
the landscapes and ecosystems we depend upon for food, water, fiber, energy,
and our other material needs" (Tuxill, 1998). To
achieve global sustainability, there must be a connection between local,
national and international efforts based on effectively dealing with the
management of landscapes and ecosystems that support biodiversity (Tuxill, 1998).
Population increase is a major contributing factor to sustainability
problems. The majority of the increase is occurring in the least developed
countries which also shelter much of the earth's biodiversity (Tuxill,
1998). As the population grows in these areas, fewer resources are available
to these people which in effect leads to cutting into the natural resources,
thus decreasing that area's diverse biological community. This practice
demonstrates the importance of finding ecologically friendly ways that will
meet human needs (Tuxill, 1998).
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was formed after the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to promote ecological sustainability. The
CBD is a legally binding contract in which national governments agree to
find ways to reverse the current decline in biodiversity (Tuxill,
1998). Some of the actions that governments are required to take include
adopting strategies for national biodiversity, using incentives to promote
conservation, and conservation of threatened species and ecosystems (Tuxill, 1998). Unfortunately the implementation of this
program is occurring at a very slow rate and countries are reluctant to
change and follow all of the requirements of the CBD.
Many factors influence biodiversity and the preservation of species. Biological diversity has an abundance of values which need to be respected. Humanity has barely scratched the surface of understanding the importance of biodiversity and how dependent upon it they actually are. The world is constantly changing as it has since the beginning of time, however, the rate at which species are currently becoming extinct has increased greatly over the past one hundred years and this is what should concern us, since we derive many values from certain plants and animals, especially in medicine. In our increasing environmental awareness we must have respect for biological diversity and realize that change in our attitudes and actions are necessary in order to live as a sustainable and vital society.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. (1998, Oct. 16). Commission voices
approval of lynx reintroduction. Wildlife
Report . Accessed Oct. 30, 1998.
URL: http://www.dnr.state.co.us/cdnr_news/wildlife/19981019113151.html
Dasey, Jason. (1998, Feb. 2). Lynx to return to colorado . BBC
News Online: Despatches . Accessed Oct.
30, 1998. URL: http://www.bbcnews.org/low/english/despatches/nesid_52000/52674.
DiSilvestro, Roger L. (1997). Reclaiming the last wild places: a new
agenda for biodiversity . In Wildlife
Conservation. ed. Hillary D. Claggett. New York: H.W. Wilson Company
Leopold, Aldo. (1947, June 7). The ecological conscience . In Wildlife
Conservation, ed.
Hillary D. Claggett. New York: H. W. Wilson Company
Maughan, Ralph, L. (1998, Sept. 25). History and current status of the
yellowstone wolf restoration .
Accessed Oct. 30, 1998. URL: http://www.poky.srv.net/~jjmrm/wpages/yell-o.htm
Norton, Bryan, G. (1987). Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pawelski, Natalie. (1998, Oct. 22). Group claiming credit for vail fires
says the aim was to help lynx. CNN
Interactive . Accessed Oct. 30, 1998. URL: http://cnn.com/TECH/science/9810/22/vail.fire.02/
Rohlf, Daniel J. (1994). Six biological reasons why the endangered species
act doesn't work and what to do about it . In Environmental Policy
and Biodiversity ed. R. Edward Grumbine.
Washington D. C.: Island Press.
Sebastian, Matt. (1998, Oct. 23). Arson in vail fires confirmed .
Boulder News . Accessed Oct. 30, 1998.
URL: http://www.bouldernews.com/news/local/23morvai.html.
Takacs, David. (1996). The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Tuxill, John. (1998). Losing Strands in the Web of Life . Washington
D. C.: Worldwatch Institute.
Walters, Mark Jerome. (1997). Sanctuary . In Wildlife Conservation
. ed. Hillary D. Claggett. New York:
H.W. Wilson Company.