4 ms·
I'm skeptical. Biodiversity, like cute animals, seems like one of those things that's emotionally appealing but may not be important beyond that. That's why sci
by hedgew 10y ago
I'm skeptical. Biodiversity, like cute animals, seems like one of those things that's emotionally appealing but may not be important beyond that. That's why scientists use terms like "ecological roulette" and ambiguous statements about how biodiversity actually affects the world and us.
If people genuinely cared about the welfare of animals, they'd have to accept uncomfortable truths like the fact that wild animals suffer immensely, and that nature itself is cruel. In many cases it may actually be beneficial from an utilitarian perspective to have some species die off. Being infested with painful or mind-controlling parasites, and being slowly gnawed to death are ordinary events for wild animals. They suffer some of the worst fates on this planet.
In some cases, like mosquitoes and malaria, killing off species might be the most heroic and useful action in the history of Earth.
- soundwave106 10y agoA few things immediately come to mind on why at least some biodiversity may be important beyond cute animals: A) We still lean on natural processes for agriculture (for instance, pollination plays a huge role in the production of certain fruits, and some species act as natural deterrents to crop pests). Biodiversity ensures that some of these natural processes we rely on are still functional and resilent to disease and other "cruelties of nature". (The same concern could also be said for biodiversity of cultivated crops, although that's a bit different of an issue than what is highlighted in the paper.) B) Biota oriented drug discovery still is pretty big even now. Less biodiversity means that we will have to lean more heavily on synthetic chemistry.
- placeybordeaux 10y agoYou seem to be making a false connection. People that care about biodiversity without caring about the welfare of individual animals.