How to Stop the Ongoing Loss of Species

Can the world tackle poverty and the biodiversity crisis at the same time? It'd better, David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[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 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe