In The Huffington Post article, “America’s Commitment to Nature: Another Endangered Species?” (20 October 2010) the authors, Peter Seligmann and Harrison Ford, make a few striking claims regarding biodiversity. These claims seem to be used as evidence in why the United States of America should sign the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international agreement that ensures native plants and animals, as well as the interests of the indigenous people, are fully considered by all nations.
The first claim made by the Seligmann and Ford is as follows: “For every species of plant and animal that disappears, humanity forever loses the unique and sometimes critical scientific resources that species can provide” (Seligmann & Ford, 2010). There is no evidence provided that suggests this, but rather it itself is used as evidence in convincing people why America should sign the CBD. The problems with this claim will be further discussed.
The second, and perhaps most radical, claim is: “For each biological secret we have uncovered about Earth's plants and animals, there is exponentially more that we do not know about nature's potential benefits to people. That is why protecting the planet's vast biological diversity should matter so much to all of us. Every person, every family, every nation, depends on nature to survive and thrive” (Seligmann & Ford, 2010). This quote suggests that the reason for protecting biodiversity is that we do not know the benefits we may be giving up. It does not take into account the argument of intrinsic value, where we should protect biodiversity for itself regardless of its benefits towards humans. This argument will also be further discussed.
By examining the above claims, it appears that Seligmann and Ford’s argument is that all species of plant and animals are beneficial to human beings, and should be protected accordingly. The authors offer no evidence, appearing to assume that it is true. I think there are two problems with these claims and intended argument. First of all, even though many species do provide scientific knowledge, especially regarding medicine, that does not mean that every species will be beneficial to us. Many species do not provide us with any new medicine, and can even cause us bodily harm. Second, as mentioned above, there is no account for the intrinsic value when protecting species. The authors have not addressed the question of why one should protect a species if it is not beneficial.
Species without Benefits
When considering reasons for protecting biodiversity, many people believe we should because of all the benefits received from nature, and those that may come. This is very understandable when one considers that more than 25% of prescription drugs come from plants and other natural resources (Seligmann & Ford, 2010). For instance, the bark of a white willow tree contains acetyl salicylic acid, more commonly known as aspirin, which is a very prominent pain reliever (John Innes Centre, n.d.). In addition, extracts from the skin of the Ecuador phantasmal poison frog can block pain up to 200 times more than morphine, seemingly without side effects or addiction (Seligmann & Ford, 2010). However, not every species of plants and animals are beneficial to humans. For example, mosquitoes transmit many deadly human diseases such as malaria (Science Clarified, 2010), and more recently West Nile Virus. In addition, many species of fungi cause infections to the skin and cause over 37 million people to have allergies (Doctor Fungus, 2007). Considering that these species, and many more that may be undiscovered, are or could be harmful to humans and other species, people would see little reason to protect them. However, these species are still important to food chains, ecosystems, and biodiversity. Such a weakness is problematic when trying to convince people, and the United States government as in the article, that biodiversity must be protected for the sole purpose of the benefits received.
Intrinsic Value
Following the problem of protecting species that are not beneficial to humans, the argument of intrinsic value arises. When something, in this case a species or ecosystem, has intrinsic value it means that it is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. Another way to put it is that its value is not based on the benefits it provides to others, but rather the benefits to itself. A common example of something with intrinsic value is human beings. There are four viewpoints that I will briefly describe, each with a different view on what has value. The first is called anthropocentrism and states that nothing in the world would have value if there were no humans, since they are the only species capable of feeling happy, which according to utilitarians is the only thing that has intrinsic value. The second is sentientism and is similar except it states that humans are not the only ones capable of valuing things. They assert that sentient creatures, those that can consciously feel pain, are also capable of valuing. The third is biocentrism, which declares that all living organisms have intrinsic value, even if no creature is around to recognize it. Finally, the viewpoint of ecocentrism holds that everything, including non-living things like species, habitats, and ecosystems, has intrinsic value. The latter of the two views explains why living, or non-living, things that may not be beneficial to humans should be protected—for their intrinsic value. Of course, there is a need to justify if something has intrinsic value, but that is not the focus here. If the authors had taken into account the concept of intrinsic value, then I think that their argument about why the United States should sign CBD would be more convincing.
Conclusion
Seligmann and Ford’s argument is that all species are beneficial to human beings and, therefore should be protected. I think this is the wrong way to approach the notion of protecting biodiversity. There is no doubt that there are species that are beneficial, especially in the area of medicine. However, many species do not benefit us in any particular way, and even cause us pain or death. Therefore, those oppose to protecting biodiversity would argue that the loss of the species would in fact be better and that we should pursue their extinction. However, the argument of intrinsic value, especially from an eco- or biocentrism point of view, counteracts this notion and gives a stronger position into why the protection of biodiversity is so important. By including this, the authors would have a much better argument for convincing the United States to sign the CBD. I personally think the belief that biodiversity should be protected solely for its benefits is the wrong approach and can create problems in some situations, as seen above, not to mention devaluing the reasons why we believe conserving is so important.
By: Megan Nelson
Word Count: 1122
References
Doctor Fungus. (2007). Introduction to Fungi. Retrieved from http://www.doctorfungus.org/thefungi/index.php
John Innes Centre. (n.d.). Plants & Medicine Top 10. Retrieved from http://www.plantsandus.org.uk/top-10_medicine.htm
Science Clarified. (2010). Insects—Insects and Humans. Retrieved from http://www.scienceclarified.com/He-In/Insects.html
Seligmann, P., & Ford, H. (2010, October 20). America’s Commitment to Nature: Another Endangered Species? The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-seligmann/americas-commitment-to-na_b_769442.html
No comments:
Post a Comment