Overprotection of Biodiversity
"Extinction is normal"(pg26, 1st paragraph). However, the rate this
process is happening is up to us, to some extent. In this article, two
sides are discussing this rate. One side is arguing that biodiversity
is overprotected and the other the opposite.
The first argument, against protection of biodiversity, states that
"at a macro level, there is a tradeoff between production/consumption
of timber and production/consumption of related environmental
amenities"(pg28, 2nd paragraph). In terms of economy that is very
true, however, I believe the author is missing some points. Even
though people face tradeoffs in their lives, most of the tradeoffs
have one beneficial outcome. After this the author introduced the idea
of tragedy of the commons, a term which we are familiar from economy
(pg29, 4th paragraph). I did not understand how this affected the
biodiversity or the protection of it in anyway. Among the others, his
best argument was the one about costs to people. He stated that some
people have different costs and this differentiation causes
overprotection of the biodiversity. "It is irresponsible to enact
environmental policies…production of environmental amenities." (pg31,
2nd paragraph). Overall, before reading the second argument, this
argument was convincing enough for me-especially with the help of his
last point.
On the other hand, the other argument claims that biodiversity is not
overprotected and should be taken more seriously. The example he gives
about the tree which might have a substance to prevent HIV virus
(pg32, 5th paragraph) stands as a good example. In his argument, he
states that there is some government regulations but they are still
not enough. "So bits and pieces around…important hot spots" (pg34, 1st
paragraph). Also the issue concerning the pharmaceutical companies is
a potential problem. "Pharmaceutical companies have been slow to
screen and make use of natural products because of fear of not being
able to secure patent rights, because theoretically, or I should say
legally, a natural product is not patentable." (pg34, 3rd paragraph).
This also can be a solution for the problem if government can find a
They agree that protecting biodiversity is entirely important, but they also emphasize that conservation goals must reach a compromise and coordinate efforts that both improve human welfare while also protecting biodiversity (Kareiva and Marvier 962). In order to successfully combat the difficulties of accommodating both mankind and biodiversity, economists, scientists, and philosophers, and policymakers must find environmental solutions that maximize human-well being while preserving biodiversity. However, there is some controversy to this as some argue that perhaps scientists should stick to science, and leave the politics and policymaking to economists and
He uses many assumptions and “what if” scenarios, but doesn’t give numbers or facts to back up any of those claims, which could have made his argument much stronger.
Mr. Middleton, a journalist, compiled an article describing, in his opinion, the flaws of the Endangered Species Act. He then attempts to back his opinion with studied analyses, researched facts, and testimonies. To summarize Middleton’s (2011) perspective, “Rather than provide incentives for conservation and environmental stewardship, the Endangered Species Act punishes those whose property contains land that might be used as habitat by endangered and threatened species” (p. 79). This quote is broad and generalized yet draws in readers and forces Middleton to spend the rest of the article backing this statement with more logic based facts.
He gives an example of a college student that found a red spider. This student, ironically, passes the Endangered Species Act and becomes powerful. This student rose from the bottom because of his “conservationists” beliefs. The example allows the writer to move into a mocking conclusion. He states that these power hungry men and women do not actually know best for the environment as much as property owners do. Just because they state that they are “ all for the environment”, it doesn’t mean that they know
The tragedy of the commons is a very unfortunate and very real thing. It occurs whenever everyone takes a little bit of a limited resource repeatedly. The result of this is that all the resources are gone. In The Lorax, the Once-ler cuts down all the truffula trees in the area to make thneeds (The Lorax). When all the trees are gone, the business shuts down and all the animals are forced to leave (The Lorax). The factories polluted the air and made the area unsafe to live in (The Lorax). This is a perfect example of a tragedy of the commons. A similar event happened in Easter Island. Tribes started inhabiting the area and began using the trees to build houses and eat food from them (Easter Island). Eventually all the trees are gone, and the society resorted to cannibalism and war because there was no food (Easter Island). Garrett Hardin states in his essay that maximimizing population does not maximize goods (Hardin). In this essay, both tragedies of the commons will be compared and will be examined to see how they could have been prevented.
The book was very well written on a scientific level and also was able to communicate He made it a point to address both sides of the environmental argument before introducing his worldview of how biodiversity and the economy and the event should work. An example he made for the preservation of biodiversity was that the unique traits found in the rarer species on earth help produce so many useful pharmaceutical and scientific products that have changed the face of science such as the thermophiles found in the Geysers of Yellowstone National Park that allowed for the possibility of PCR (polymerase chain reaction). Some of the solutions that he offered included immediately salvaging the world’s hotspots, keeping intact the five remaining frontier forests, ceasing all logging of old-growth forests everywhere, letting secondary native forests recover, concentrating on lake and river systems, defining the marine hotspots in the world (such as coral reefs) and giving them as much priority as terrestrial habitats, mapping the world’s biodiversity, ensuring all the world’s ecosystems are protected, efficiently using biodiversity to benefit the world economy as a whole, initiating restoration projects, increasing the capacity of zoos and botanical gardens to ensure the survival of endangered species, preparing to clone species when all other preservation methods fail, and by supporting population planning by incorporating plans for low ecological footprints. I believe that many of the solutions that he has offered are highly optimistic, since it requires our current static society to actually participate actively to change the course of our planet. But the ones that I do believe will work especially is the one about supporting population planning by incorporating plans for low ecological footprints and the idea that we should efficiently use the world’s biodiversity to benefit local populations.
The Tragedy of the Commons “is a problem that occurs when individuals exploit a shared resource to the extent that demand overwhelms supply and the resource becomes unavailable to some or all” (Wigmore, 2013, August). He explains if by using an example of herdsman caring for their cattle in a common land owned by others. Everyone in the land have the same number of cattle they are allowed to have. If one herdsman was being self-centered things and had more cattle because he was thinking of his needs would then damage the community by “overloading it, erosion set in, weeds take over, and he loses the use of the pasture. He would just worry about his goals now and not the overall outcome which not only affected him, but the other herdsmen as well. (Hardin, 1974,
Having considered both sides of the argument surrounding the Endangered Species Act, it seems logical to conclude that, despite the fact that they Endangered Species Act could stand some improvement in terms of the speed of the bureaucracy that governs it, the Act itself is quite sufficient as is as long as it is administered to the full extent of its power. There is a growing tendency in government, however, to undermine the strength of the Endangered Species Act by making decisions on when and where to apply it a political matter rather than an ecological matter (Munro, 2010). To do this is to insure that ultimately it will not just be the environment and the wile organisms that live in it that will lose, it will be mankind as well.
Deforestation, defined by biologist Charles Southwick as "the destruction of forests; may involve clear-cutting or selective logging" (p. 365), is a predominantly human-driven process that is dramatically altering ecosystems worldwide. "Clear-cutting" involves the indiscriminant removal of every single plant and tree species from within a selected area. The other major process of deforestation, "selective logging," focuses removal efforts on only specific, predetermined tree species within a chosen area. The statistics gathered about human deforestation over time are considerable, and they can be somewhat controversial. Depending on the source and the location selected, the magnitude of deforestation varies. Southwick estimates that, approximately 10,000 years ago, 6.2 billion hectares (23.9 million square miles) of forest existed on earth (p. 117). That figure is equivalent to 45.5% of the earth's total land. He further estimates that, by 1990, this amount had declined 30%, with only 4.3 billion hectares of forest remaining (p. 117). Southwick also acknowledges other estimates that place the total amount of deforestation between 50% and 75% (p. 117). NASA has similar deforestation statistics that confirm these trends. According to their website, 16.5% of the Brazilian Amazon forests have been destroyed. They also note similar magnitudes of deforestation in Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam), despite the significantly smaller total area of forest within these countries. These grim figures are somewhat tempered by the NASA finding that, over the past ten years, the deforestation rate has declined from 6,200 square miles per year to 4,800 square miles per year. Though this trend is n...
Rainforests once covered 14% of the worlds land surface, however now it only covers a mere 6%. It is estimated that all rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. Trees are becoming more needed and used everyday. We need them cut down for many reasons such as paper and timber, while also needing them ‘untouched’ for other reasons like oxygen, we have to ask ourselves, which is more important? At the current rate, most of the rainforests are being cut down for resources like paper and timber, but less importance is being placed on main resources like oxygen.
...lations diminished production, those without the basic human needs of food, shelter, and clothing will be forced into still greater poverty. So the very debate about whether to curb production to save the environment is also a question of whose livelihoods we value more: present day poor or future populations.
When faced with the issue of alleviating poverty or saving nature, many would agree with the following statement: as a society we ought to use available resources and funds to help the poor. In his article “Feeding people versus Saving Nature” Rolston opposes this position and asserts his view that there are times when we ought to choose to save nature instead of feeding the poor. I will argue in favor of Rolston’s argument and against those such as Singer, who strongly opposes the notion that preserving nature and allowing people to unnecessarily die is morally wrong. In reality there are many ways in which we can address the issue of global poverty without resorting to destroying natural ecosystems that we are dependent on.
Biodiversity loss can lead to extinction, and hurt human life. It is our responsibility to take care of the environment. We bring in machines that harm the environment and destroy animal life. We need to limit ourselves on how much land and resources we consume. There are major issues that are causing species to become extinct and hurt our way of life and other animals do to the change in food chain.
Economic valuation is an important component of environmental policy, although it is difficult to affix a cost on the environment and ecosystem services, it is a measurement that is relevant to most in society humans. Therefore, economic tools may be useful in reinforcing the importance of maintaining biodiversity and preserving fragile ecosystems.
Loss of biodiversity is an environmental issue that is causing a lot of global concern. Some of the main causes for loss in biodiversity are alteration of habitats, increasing levels of pollution and human population growth. There are measures that are being taken worldwide to prevent loss of biodiversity. Many wildlife sanctuaries have been built worldwide to preserve the lives of various endangered species. However, it is important to remember that every individual has a role in the protection of wildlife and biodiversity. Every human being should play his part of the role by following simple rules such as stopping others from the hunting of endangered species, preventing deforestation, encouraging reforestation and creating awareness among fellow human beings.