> If we aren't making the world better for people, what are we doing it for? The reason they are so motivated is for fear of biodiversity loss. The concern is

> If we aren't making the world better for people, what are we doing it for? The reason they are so motivated is for fear of biodiversity loss. The concern is that once something is lost it cannot be recovered. The second and third order consequences are that habitats are complex things that depend upon a certain level of diversity to continue to perpetuate. Diverse habitats are necessary for resource extraction, some weather phenomena, medical discoveries, and continue biological research. On one hand all these arguments are entirely valid propositions. Like climate science the science is very real with great research and there are orders of magnitude of complexity that people have yet to fully appreciate. After that there are progressively extreme slippery slope arguments to prevent change out of fear of the unknown whether not those fears are validated. I am not stating any opinion for or against but merely answering your question of why. Most people are not scientists and lack any amount of objectivity, and so the neutrality of basic science concepts are hard to grasp for many people. Science generally comes in only two flavors: research and experimentation. Policy recommendations are politics. Science and politics are distinctively separate qualities. For the non-scientist this is an impossibly hard thing to accept. Whether or not a given set of science is important for (insert any value qualifier here) does not make it any more or less scientific.