By Paoula Sehannie
"Our loyalities are to the species and the planet. We speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves but also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring" . Another wise and respected man once said that “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” . Sadly we must concede that we are failing in these obligations and our moral progress has stalled. Consider some of the alarming trends:
- 989 US and 517 foreign species are currently listed on the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) (US Fish and Wildlife Service). Not to mention the hundreds of threatened species also to be found on that inauspicious list.
- All of the great apes – among them the gorillas, chimps and oragutangs – are at risk of extinction (Abley, 2000).
- One in eight (12%) species of bird and one in four (25%) of mammals face extinction .
If this all sounds a little alarmist or pessimistic, it should. A brief glance at the headlines should be sufficient to make us all take note: “Entire North Atlantic Ocean on the Verge of Collapse”, “Many Fish on the Verge of Extinction”, “Amphibians Declining Worldwide” or “Reptiles Vanishing Faster than Amphibians”. If the number and diversity of sources – international organisations, news agencies and scientific groups from across the globe – are not enough to convince you that there is some validity to these claims, consider that these are organisations of good repute. Among the agencies weighing in are the United Nations, The World Wildlife Federation, the BBC and IUCN (the world Conservation Union). Despite the apparent concensus in the scientific community that we are on the brink of disaster, Olivier Jalbert (a Secreteriat in the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity) argues “nobody seems to be paying much attention” (Abley. 2000).
My goal is to alarm every reader into paying attention. If you are wondering what all this means to you, I'll give you the 411 on that too. Finally, and to counter the preceding prophecies of doom, the optimist in me will offer some indications that extinction and destruction of biodiversity are not irreversible trends. This is a situation of our own making and it can and must be unmade by us.
So what is this dire situation of which I rant? By some estimates as many as one third of the world's animal and plant species will be extinct in 30 years (American Museum of Natural History). This means not only “high profile” animals like the Florida panther (there are less than 100 left in the wild) or the mountain gorilla (approximately 350 remain in the wild and none in captivity), it means butterflies and coral reefs and algae and insects. As one scientist has put it, we have become an “exterminator species” (Morell, Virginia. February 1999). This loss of species means a loss of biodiversity, so critical to maintaining balance in the natural world. According to a survey conducted by the American Museum of Natural History a majority of scientists (70%) agree that we have entered into a period of mass extinction. Furthermore, many of these scientists (who were drawn, from among others, the fields of botany, conservation biology, entomology, genetics, marine biology and molecular biology) believe that this is crisis more dire that pollution, ozone depletion and global warming (Ayers, Ed. September 16, 1998).
While it is true that extinction and even mass extinctions have been present throughout Earth's history, the current mass extinction is unique in a number of ways. First, it is the only mass extinction engineered by a dominant species. There is no consensus on how many previous mass extinctions there have been, but it is generally accepted that there have been at least five (New Scientist.com. March 18, 2004). Unlike these prior extinctions, which were the result of some natural phenomena, this is almost entirely the result of human activity. Leakey and Lewin (1995) describe the three main ways humans threaten species. Hunting is the first. The second is through the introduction of alien species, which plays havoc with the ecosystem. It is the third practice that is the most damaging and that is the “destruction and fragmentation of habitat, especially the inexorable cutting of tropical rainforests”.
The next issue is the scope of species at risk. The current extinction is between 100 – 1000 times higher than “natural ‘background’ extinction” (Strieker, Gary. August, 2002. Finally, scientists predict that this will be the fastest mass extinction in the 4-5 billion year history of the Earth. At the current rate this will be an extinction faster even than those associated with meteor collisions (Warrick, Joby. April 21, 1998).
So what does this mean to you and me? Talking to my sister about this article her response: “That is just sad!” Yes indeed and I would hope that would be reason enough to try and reverse this course of destruction. I realise however, that the thing that resonates most strongly with people is their own best interests. So if we will not save leopards and bats and sea urchins, simply because they have a right to be here, then let us think about what their disappearance will mean to human wealth and health.
Exactly what this mass extinction will mean to humankind is not yet clear. Some posit that we are dependent on biodivesrity for our very survival. Edward Wilson calls us “an environmental abnormality" and warns that, “[a]bnormalities cannot persist forever; they eventually disappear” (Leakey & Lewin. 1995). An opposing argument suggests that history has shown survival is possible despite the loss of a majority of species (BBC Extinction Files). Whatever your stance, it is clear that a major loss of diversity will be detrimental to human prosperity.
An environment rich in diversity is a source of foods and medicines. Some of our most effective medicines, morphine and aspirin to name just two, are derived from plants. We are eliminating plant species faster than we can catalogue them. Every species lost is a potential cure lost. Makes one wonder if, with our great hubris and disregard for nature, we have destroyed the cure for cancer or AIDS (Morrell. 1999). The American Museum of Natural History cites a number potential adverse consequences of a mass extinction: we make destroy the natural systems that purify the world's air and water. A severe loss in biodiversity increases the probability of flooding, drought, and other environmental disasters (American Museum of Natural History). Agriculture stands to suffer resulting in damaged human food supplies and production.
The American Museum of Natural History further argues that loss of biodiversity will contribute to economic decline. And should you doubt the economic value of a conservation ponder these numbers: Whale watchers spend an estimated $3 million annually in Washington state’s San Juan Islands.
In 1996 Wyoming residents and visitors spent in excess of $234 million wildlife watching. New Mexico's Carlsbad Caverns National Park is host to more than 76,000 summer visitors, many of whow are there to see the cave’s resident bat colonies (Youth, Howard. August-Sept, 2001).
Youth argues that in the past animals were prized as trophies to be hung on a wall. We now seeing a trend where the they are more valueable free and living in their natural wild places. And it is not just animals that are economically beneficial. One acre of sustainably managed tropical forest can yield $220 annualy. This includes $60 of non-timber products, $110 from timber and $17 spent on recreation (Roberson, Emily. November 22, 2002).
The economic beneftis associated with preservation and sustainable development go on. The Center for Biological Diversity and the California Native Plant Society’s delivered a white paper outlining the benefits of environemtal protection. Acording to said report in 1996 (the latest available data) $101 billion was spent in the US alone on wildlife associated recreation. These recreational pursuits supported over 1 million full and part-time jobs (Roberson. 2002). Roberson provides additional job and revenue benefits associated with environmental protection. For example, in 1994 water pollution prevention generated $170 billion, pollution control efforts created 774 000 US jobs and the environmatel technology sector is believed to create jobs at twice the rate of the overall economoy (Roberson. 2002). If humankind cannot value nature for the pure joy it can provide, then maybe we will pay attention to the almighty dollar.
The optimist in me cannot leave you believing that nothing is, or can be done to reverse this calamity. Indeed there groups working to inform people of the severity of the situation. The American Museum of Natural History study cited earlier included a survey of lay persons and Science teachers in an effort to inform the educators of the dire need for action. As we have seen this is an issue receiving considerable attention from those in the scientific community. The various environmental groups and activists are perhaps working most actively to protect endangered species. Groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club have ongoing campaigns striving to save all manner of species from extinction.
Certainly this is not a comprehensive list and it is perhaps overshadowed by the challenges. But let us remember that unlike any previous extinction this is of our own making. Perhaps the question is not can we, but rather do we care enough, to reverse the damage we have done.
I have given you numbers and facts, but I leave you with the far more eloquent words of Rick Gore who wrote:
For the first time, a living organism can consciously do something to halt a mass extinction. Perhaps most important, for the first time a living creature can gaze out across the species of the Earth and say : This is beautiful. I care. I will not let it go.
(National Geographic Magazine. June 1989).
SOURCES:
Carl Sagan, Cosmos.
Mohandas Gandhi.
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSBoxscore
Abley, Mark. July 22, 2000. Environmental News Network.
New York Times, September 29, 2000,
American Museum of Natural History.1998,
Morell, Virginia. February 1999. National Geographic.com. The Sixth Extinction.
Ayers, Ed. September 16, 1998. Environmental News Network. World Watch Report: Fastest mass extinction in Earth history.
New Scientist.com, March 18, 2004,
Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin. 1995. The Sixth Extinction
Strieker, Gary. August 23, 2002. CNN.com Sci-Tech. Scientists agree world faces mass extinction.
Warrick, Joby. Washington Post. April 21, 1998.
BBC Extinction Files,
Youth, Howard. August-Sept, 2001. National Wildlife. Cashing in on Conservation - economic benefits of wildlife watching.
Roberson, Emily. November 22, 2002. Economy vs the Environment: Fact or Fiction?
Paoula Sehannie is working on a Ph.D. in Public Policy at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Return to Table of Contents
