Vox magazine just published an article under the social media banner ‘biodiversityWhat is the definition of biodiversity? When we ask, what is the definition of biodiversity? It depends on what we want to do with it. The term is widely and commonly misused, leading to significant misinterpretation of the importance of how animals function on Earth and why they matter a great deal, to human survival. Here I will try to More is a social construct: it’s more controversial than you think’. It doesn’t make sense to try to force a definition into the debate. Biodiversity conservationWhy is animal conservation important? Animal conservation is important, because animals are the only mechanism to create biodiversity, which is the mechanism that creates a habitable planet for humans. Without animals, the energy from today’s plants (algae, trees, flowers etc) will eventually reach the atmosphere and ocean, much of it as carbon. The quantity of this plant-based waste is so More makes us healthy, this is not a social construct. You can quite easily say the same thing about the word ‘health’ which we happily accept. Scientists get bogged down in wanting to delineate, describe and quantify biodiversity, when we should be protecting it. We don’t describe what health means. Science helps us behave healthier.
On biodiversity and health
Biodiversity is the sum total health of the planet. If we are individually healthy, that means we feel good and live longer, but that’s the outcome of being healthy. We don’t need to define health to strive for that. However, there are many of us, whereas there is only one planet. Because our health and the planet’s health are intimately connected, biodiversity becomes the total result of our behaviour (and the behaviour of all animals, since we are in this together). The decisions we take every day to stay healthy by keeping our environment healthy for people and wildlife, is how we maintain one planet in good working condition. A biodiverse planet is one where people and animals can maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Biodiversity is the outcome of our actions
I happen to agree that the Convention on Biological Diversity’s definition is inappropriate. That’s because biodiversity cannot be defined by what it is, only by what we do to protect it. It is a word that encompasses everything that makes our planet habitable and healthy.
One key misunderstanding is summed up in a line of the Vox article, which says:
‘… a new generation of scientists is taking up the debate about what to do about “biodiversity” itself.’
Scientists can’t ‘do’ anything about biodiversity. Science needs to teach us about our place within biodiversity and how to create a healthy balance with other animals. When things are too complex to understand, we like to define them, because we think that’s the path to taking control. Control isn’t an option though, because nature is too powerful and unyielding. A habitable planet requires billions of animal specialists working together and we will never fully understand how it works.
So, we spend far too much time talking and investigating, and not enough time listening to the world around us and acting in our interest. It really should not be as ‘controversial’ as the article suggests. Indeed, among most ordinary people and conservation groups, it isn’t.
Biodiversity conservation is the next frontier for human survival
The biggest existential threat our species has ever faced will be from wildlife extinction. So why does this article and many others, want to debate whether to let animals go extinct or not? Biodiversity conservation makes us healthy and animals are the components of the equation for healthy ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More.
This problem dwarfs climate change by comparison. But nature-based solutions (one of the latest emerging buzzwords for conservation) is already attracting all sorts of egotists wanting to make their mark. Scientists are arguing things like, what biodiversity means, whether animals are important and how we can ‘manage’ the outcome we want. Politicians will use this to sow division.
Does this article in Vox mark the beginning of this new frontier? It may. The next decade is going to define our future, like climate change defined the last (and we’re only just taking that seriously). But these debates can confuse people and miss the point that we can’t survive without protecting biodiversity. The question is, what do we do about it?
The secret to ecosystem health is animals
When I read about biodiversity and wildlife, I rarely see people making the connection. It’s often hard to know where to start when reviewing articles, papers or books on the subject. If a fundamental context is out of place, the whole basis for discussion falls apart. The aforementioned article doesn’t help, as it gives airtime to views without any context.
The fact is, most scientists, even ecologists and many conservationists still do not understand how ecosystems stabilise and the critical importance of animals in that process. G. Carleton Ray was saying this about marine animals in the book Biodiversity edited by E.O. Wilson in 1992 and Sylvia Earle was repeating it in 2019 about ocean health and fish.
E.O. Wilson had this to say recently, when asked to present a talk on ecosystems:
‘I sort of bumbled my way through, and I came to think that understanding ecosystems and what threatens their equilibrium is going to be the next big thing in biological science. To save the environment, we have to find out how to save the ecosystems.’
– Edward O. Wilson, 2019. Quanta Magazine.
A context for biodiversity conservation
There are two things we have to accept before we can even begin to talk about biodiversity, our place in it, and what we need to do.
- Human beings are just another animal and we share a common future with all other species, depending on the same ecosystems for our existence.
- A diversity and abundance of wildlife, all operating together is the only thing that can make healthy ecosystems.
Biodiversity conservation makes us healthy. It is not a social construct to keep ourselves and our planet in good condition. If we don’t accept that humans are part of nature, then we will always undermine your own argument, as I’ve explained here.
So, we have to take a massive mouthful of humble pie and reject the notion that we can control nature. We have to refind our respect for wildlife and our environment, which means adopting the notion of protecting wildlife and biodiversity, rather than waiting on scientists to catch up with what most people know needs to be done. Remember, we are not servants of science, science serves us.
Here are a few take away points for you:
- We cannot define biodiversity by what it is, only by what we do to protect it.
- Science can never find a way to ‘manage’ biodiversity. The only way to create healthy ecosystems is to allow wildlife to flourish.
- Biodiversity means different things to different people’s cultures. That’s the point! People have to be able to able to make their own determinations. Science should be with, not for communities.
- This means empowering people to protect their own environment – but that also means, understanding the principles of human connection to the Earth and how we can be both a threat and part of the solution.
- Biodiversity definitely does not mean the number of species and we have to turn away from description science, towards problem-solving science.
- We need to stop over-thinking and start acting like responsible citizens.
