Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
Species of plants, animals and other categories of living things are disappearing. And millions of people still live in extreme poverty. But is there a connection? For example, is the ongoing destruction of the Indonesian rainforest driven by the economic development of Indonesians? Or is the global demand for wood products to blame? Is it a combination? Or are there other factors that are more important?
The bad news is that answer isn’t clear. And the worse news is that the world's countries have not lived up to their pledge under the Convention on Biological Diversity to reduce the rate of species loss by 2010.
One reason for that failure: no one has agreed on what are true indicators of whether biodiversity is being preserved or lost. So argues Matt Walpole of the United Nations Environment Programme in this week's issue of the journal Science.
There’s a lack of good data from the front lines of the biodiversity crisis in the developing world. And even good data doesn't extend far enough back into time to make good judgments possible.
What is clear is that an approach that looks at both biodiversity and poverty is going to be needed. To give just one example of how the two can work together, producing more crops per acre can both help poor farmers and preserve existing forests.
Economist and Scientific American columnist Jeffrey Sachs argues in the same issue of Science that a new global treaty addressing biodiversity is needed—one that is paired explicitly to poverty alleviation. So that’s the challenge ahead: providing for the nine billion humans expected to be alive in 2050 without destroying the world’s remaining wildlife.
--David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentThe most direct way would be to stop the exponential expansion of ONE species - humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe key issue is whether diversity if increasing or decreasing. Concern about the loss of species is an anthropomorphic issue although man may cause species extinction I believe this to be a manifestation of the natural order.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering just how long it takes new species to emerge and the fact that most of our losses are in the timescale of decades, I'm going to take a wild guess and say diversity is decreasing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDiversity is decreasing as biological stress on the planet increases. I don't know of any other species that has made such a prevalent mark on this planet than Homo sapien sapiens has.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumanity reaching its carrying capacity on earth may not mean a dying out period of humans themselves, but more likely a mass extinction of the animals around us. Our day of reckoning will ultimately follow, however.
The extinction of species is not an issue. Natural history is full of extinction. Natural history also shows that new species arise and find their niche in the environment, and life goes on. Nature will take care of itself. We need to stop taking a decades long view of this issue and realize that nature has been addressing this "problem" for millions, no, billions, of years and nature handles the "problem" of extinction just fine, thank you. Read a little science, folks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCandide, our species is the most important.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Achilles,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is you guys have a hard time distinguishing between sentient beings doing harm and a non sentient actions that do harm? If a man has a refrigerator fall on him by accident and he dies we call it unfortunate. If a man has a refrigerator pushed on him by another man we call it homicide or manslaughter. Why is it that every one can make this distinction but you?
Supposing it wouldn't really matter regarding nature's capacity to deal with mass extinctions, and since most of the folks here seem to put human beings on the pedestal (myself included), the only way to appreciate biodiversity conservation is from a purely Utilitarian point of view. True enough, while we may look at ourselves as the most important species on the planet, preserving biodiversity is tantamount to preserving that which may be useful to Man. Pharmaceuticals, chemicals, building materials, so on and so forth are just an example of what the natural world can provide us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this