• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Biodiversity
“Biodiversity” is often defined as the variety of all forms of life, from genes to species, throughto the broad scale of ecosystems (for a list of variants on this simple definition see Gaston 1996)."Biodiversity" was coined as a contraction of "biological diversity" in 1985, but the new termarguably has taken on a meaning and import all its own. A symposium in 1986, and the follow-up book 
 BioDiversity
(Wilson 1988), edited by biologist E. O. Wilson, heralded the popularity of this concept. Ten years later, Takacs (1996, p.39) described its ascent this way: "in 1988, biodiversity did not appear as a keyword in
 Biological Abstracts
, and biological diversityappeared once. In 1993, biodiversity appeared seventy-two times, and biological diversitynineteen times". Fifteen years further on, it would be hard to count how many times"biodiversity" is used every day by scientists, policy-makers, and others. The global importanceof biodiversity now is reflected in the widely accepted target to achieve a significant reduction inthe rate of loss of biodiversity by the year 2010 [see2010 Biodiversity Target].While the history of this term is relatively short (compare it to other terms covered in thisencyclopedia), it already has raised important, distinctive, philosophical issues. Some of theseare entangled in the very definition of "biodiversity", an issue treated in the first sections below.A challenge is the reconciliation of process-based and elements-based perspectives on biodiversity. Overall, the major issue for biodiversity is how its conservation may be integratedwith other needs of society.
1. Concepts of Biodiversity
The sequel to that first biodiversity book, naturally titled
 Biodiversity II 
(Reaka-Kudla et al.1997), documents the rapid rise of the term "biodiversity" in importance and influence. But italso traces the study of aspects of biodiversity back as far as Aristotle. To some extent, biodiversity merely offers a new, emotive, term for some older ideas and programs. In fact,"biodiversity" is now used sometimes to mean "life" or "wilderness" or other conservationvalues. "Biodiversity" also has served on occasion as a catch-all for "conservation" itself.The scientific literature illustrates how most any conservation activity might use the label"biodiversity". On the one hand, workers taking advantage of the acknowledged importance of the term have expanded its meaning to capture concerns at a fine scale, such as that focussing ona favourite single species. This focus might be referred to more accurately as one of "biospecifics". At the coarser scale, one important interpretation, discussed below, advocates a primary linkage of biodiversity to the maintenance of ecosystem processes — what might becalled the "bio-processes" approach.The nub of the problem of defining biodiversity is that it is hard to exclude anything from aconcept that is taken so easily to mean "everything". Sarkar (2005) has argued that interpreting biodiversity across all biological levels, from genes to ecosystems, amounts to considering all biological entities, so that biodiversity absurdly "becomes all of biology.The idea that the choice of a measure of biodiversity depends on values finds support in Sarkar (2005). He argues that biodiversity operationally amounts to whatever is the valued target of conservation priority setting for different localities.Biodiversity may be a catch-all for various aspects of conservation, but the fresh perspectivesarising from recognition of "biodiversity" suggest possible unifying concepts. E. O. Wilson(1988) sees "biodiversity" as corresponding to a dramatic transformation for biologists from a"bits and pieces" approach to a much more holistic approach. Wilson describes this change in perspective as a realization that biological diversity is disappearing and, unlike other threatened
 
things, is irreversible. Wrapped up in the term therefore is the idea of a "biodiversity crisis".Ehrenfeld (1988) similarly reinforces this idea of the value of diversity in the aggregate. Heargues that diversity previously was never regarded in itself to be in danger, but that biodiversitynow is recognised as endangered in its own right. Wrapped up in the term therefore is the idea of a "biodiversity crisis". While the case for such a crisis itself raises debates about measures anddefinitions (see Sarkar, 2005), the definition of "biodiversity" sometimes explicitly reflects theselinks to an extinction crisis. Takacs (1996) reviews cases where the definition of biodiversity iswrapped up in the idea of strategies needed to preserve variation. In accord with this perspectiveis a shift to a focus on valuing ecosystem processes. This focus arguably will ensure maintenanceand ongoing evolution of these systems, and therefore all of biodiversity.Holistic perspectives on biodiversity have emerged also through another important focus. For Wilson (1988), biodiversity captures the idea of a "frontier of the future", presenting a dazzling prospect of largely unknown variety, with unanticipated uses. Biodiversity is seen by many as a
 symbol 
for our lack of knowledge about the components of life's variation, and their importanceto humankind (see Takacs 1996)..Focussing on this important aspect of biodiversity does not throw away the other possible"biodiversity" values that might be listed (process-based "resilience" of ecosystems, currentcommodity values of species, etc.), but facilitates integration of biodiversity's option values withthose other values. These possibilities are discussed further in the section onIntegrating Process and Elements Perspectives.
2. From Species Values to Biodiversity Values
2.1 Species Values and Triage
In developing ideas about the overall value of biodiversity it has been natural to draw on existingarguments about values of individual species (for review, see World Conservation Union 1980; Norton 1988). Commodity value and other direct use values have intuitive appeal because theyreflect known values. But a key problem is that species need to be preserved for reasons other than any known value as resources for human use (Sober 1986). Callicott (1986) discusses philosophical arguments regarding non-utilitarian value and concludes that there is no easyargument to be made except a moral one. Species have some "intrinsic value" — reflecting theidea that a species has a value "in and for itself" (Callicott 1986, p.140) — and there is an ethicalobligation to protect biodiversity.A philosophical issue is whether such species values depend on a human-centered perspective.Theenvironmental ethicsentry notes that assessments of issues concerned with biodiversityallow for "commitment either to a purely anthropocentric or purely non-anthropocentric ethic".Regan (1986) argues that we need "duties that are independent of out changeable needs and preferences." Callicott (1986) sees the intrinsic value of species as
not 
independent of humanvalues, because such values can be linked to Hume's theory of moral values. Norton (1986) seesall species as collectively embraced by an environmental ethic that is anthropocentric.Randall (1988, p. 218) has argued that preference is the basis for value and that it is possible totreat all species values as preferences of humans. Preferences-based approaches to valuation can provide economic (dollar) estimates of value. This valuation process may include methods for assessing and quantifying option values. A claimed advantage of such approaches is that the onlygood way to protect species is to place an economic value on them. Randall argues that suchquantification is advantageous because the species preservation option will fare well when thefull range of values is included in conservation priority setting.
 
The context for many of these arguments has been a consideration of various criteria for placing priorities among species for conservation efforts. These considerations have led to debates aboutthe role of "triage" based on species prioritization. Triage recalls the medical context in which priorities are set for investments in saving patients. Applied to conservation, individual speciesare differentially valued and assessed relative to differential opportunity costs. The bestconservation package is to be found through a process of calculating costs and benefits of  protection of individual species.
2.2 Species as Equal Units and SMS
Many biologists have rejected the idea of triage and argue that we must try to save
all 
species(Takacs 1996). Philosophical issues arise in the debate as to whether biodiversity should beapproached through the process of differentially valuing species, so that choices could be madein the face of a budget, or regarding species as the fundamental unit and trying to protect themall. The latter option is arguably more holistic and in accord with a focus on all of biodiversity(the individual species focus is sometimes viewed as the first of three phases of growth in biological resources assessment; see the section onThe Shift from Elements to Processes).If one nominated a "prequel" to
 Biodiversity
(1988) it might be
The Preservation of Species
(Norton 1986). The title suggests a species focus, but the book's subtitle refers to biologicaldiversity. This book documents an attempt to move from values of species to some overall valueof biodiversity, rejecting typical triage arguments based on benefits versus costs for individualspecies. Here, Norton criticizes the "benefit — cost" approaches as piecemeal because everyspecies must exhibit actual or potential use to justify itself. He argues that every species arguablyhas utilitarian value and that species perceived values are hard to estimate. For this reason, tryingto place dollar values is "doomed to failure" (1986, p. 202). Norton concludes that we can't try tosum up values (in accord with his general advocacy of no aggregation of biodiversity values). Itis argued that we should abandon the "divide and conquer" approach and look at total diversity,with species as a unit: "each species in an area can be viewed as a unit of total diversity."Ehrenfeld's (1988) position is even more sharply defined: "value is an intrinsic part of  biodiversity; it does not depend on the properties of the species in question."This perspective demands some alternative to species-based triage that will still accommodatethe reality of limited resources. The idea of a "safe minimum standard" (SMS) for biodiversityhas been proposed as a suitable alternative to triage. Norton advocates an SMS based on unit-species, interpreted to mean that all species are saved unless costs are intolerable; he argues for "preservation of species as a general policy". Wilson (1992, p. 310) also has advocated an SMSin which all species are to be protected unless costs are too high. He argues that we "treat each asan irreplaceable resource for humanity". This is directly in preference to a cost-benefit approach,characterized as examining single species and their properties and deciding how much to invest.The SMS leaves the idea of "too high a cost" open to different interpretations. These vary with philosophical perspectives about the nature of values. For example, "deep ecology", where biodiversity is independent of human value, responds differently to "utilitarianism", where biodiversity might be preserved to extent that measurable benefits to humans exceed costs (see
The Preservation of Species
). Randall's (1986, p. 103) utilitarian position considers intrinsic or option value of unit-species in conjunction with any recognized utilitarian value: all species notalready distinguished in having recognised human-use values "would be treated as having a positive but unknown expected value; implicitly all would be treated as equally valuabe."In conclusion, the SMS is compatible with an all-of-biodiversity perspective that views speciescollectively, avoiding the seemingly arbitrary "bits and pieces" approaches to individual species priorities that arguably are poorly justified given our poor knowledge. The SMS approach,
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...