Being Over Protective about Biodiversity?

John David Russo (0707990)

November 11, 2010

ENVS*1020*0140

Blog Assignment #3

In recent years, it has become more and more common to hear or read about what opinions people have about biodiversity, whether it is important or not and why that is. A recent article, titled “Definitely not a tame affair”, describes one the author’s stance on biodiversity. This author, Datuk Zoal Azha Yusof, starts off with a very strong opinion on how biodiversity is important piece of humanity. Throughout the article the author makes several similar claims. The author’s claims seem to focus around two main points, one being that undiminished biodiversity, that is to say the relative amount of biodiversity we currently have, is absolutely necessary for humanity to continue and the other being that humanity is obligated to protect biodiversity.

Before analyzing the author’s view on the subject, I analyzed the strength of the author’s claims. When doing so I noted that when the author is making their claims they never provide any supporting data or evidence. On several occasions the author does link statements to the actions and data provided by several organizations, but never references when this data was obtained. As an attempt to follow the author’s reasoning, I attempted to do some research on one of the organizations mentioned in the article, Perhilitan. Unfortunately the organization’s main site was not in English, and I could find little reliable information on them. At this point the arguments and claims throughout the article have little significance without any supporting information, they are nothing but opinions.

When examining the author’s claims, as said earlier, the author focuses on the ideas that biodiversity is absolutely necessary for humanity to continue and the other being that humanity is obligated to protect biodiversity. The author strongly expresses that they feel that biodiversity is necessary for humanity to function, even going as far as saying that human survival hinges on the conservation of ALL species. Interestingly enough, the author never actually says why biodiversity is needed or important, simply that it is so. Similarly with the second claim, that humans are obligated to protect biodiversity, the author does not give any strong reasoning as to why this is. The only reasoning given for the second claim is that because biodiversity is important and necessary for humanity’s continuation, humans should protect it. Unfortunately, this reasoning is relevant only if the author’s earlier claims about biodiversity are believed.

Reviewing the arguments made by the author, I find myself disagreeing with author about both the claims mentioned above for several reasons. The first being that the author does seem not take into account how species loss may affect an ecosystem. Secondly the author seems to ignore exactly how biodiversity affects humanity.

The author states that biodiversity is important, and that every species should be protected. The author seems to imply that an entire ecosystem could collapse if any one species were to go extinct. While it is true that the extinction of some species may lead to the disruption of an ecosystems functionality and perhaps eventual collapse, it is not the case with every species. While all species in an ecosystem have some role to play, not all roles are vital to the ecosystem’s well being. If each species role was vital, then we would have witnessed the collapse of countless ecosystems of the course of human history. Extinction is a natural event and a part of evolution, and is not necessarily always negative. When the author mentions preserving species, they do not seem to take into account what affect that species has on its ecosystem simply that is a part of biodiversity and therefore needs our protection. If this was the approach humanity took globally to protect biodiversity, then it could cause humanity to waste tremendous amount of time and recourses protecting and preserving species which many not be vital to the function of any ecosystem, instead of focusing our time and resources on vital species that require human aid to survive.

The author’s view on the connection between humanity and biodiversity is that humanity relies on biodiversity so much that all species are critical for human survival. This however is obviously not the case as humanity has survived through the extinction of species; in fact many species go extinct each day without humanity collapsing. While it is true that humanity does rely on biodiversity for survival, the extent to which we do is clearly not as much as the author states.

The author’s arguments stating that biodiversity is important and vital to human survival is not wrong, however; they do take these arguments to extremes where they are no longer true. Humanity should not, and does not need to, try and preserve every species for the sake of biodiversity, like the author claims we should. Instead, humanity should focus on preserving those species that humanity does rely on. However; this does not mean that humanity should be allowed to harm species that we do not rely on as we wish, simply that we should protect what is important to us.

Works Cited

Brown, Letty. "The Berkeley Science Review: Articles." Berkeley Science Review. 2009. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. .

Yusof, Datuk Z. A. "Definitely Not a Tame Affair." The Star Online. Star Publications (M) Bhd (Co No 10894-D), 06 Nov. 2010. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. .