Human needs must supercede conservation of biodiversity?

Question

For and against about this topic. Pls help

Answer 1

I tell you what I think, we should work now to cut the greedy overpopulation of the earth from the present 6.700,000,000 down to about the level it was in 1800, that was just over 1,000,000,000.

Birth control for justice to the other species which inhabit this planet

Answer 2

Absolutly not...city dweller!

Answer 3

have know idea

Answer 4

"When the animals come to us,

asking for our help,

will we know what they are saying?

When the plants speak to us

in their delicate language,

will we be able to answer them?

When the planet herself

sings to us in our dreams,

will we be able to wake ourselves, and act?"

--Gary Lawless

I think we need to start talking about "Bio-dependence" rather then biodiversity.  To that end it is clear that the lack of human effort to sustain a diversity in our ecosystems will only harm us in the long run.  We will NEVER supersede the environment.  We are linked to this in ways we are only beginning to understand.

Take the sudden and sweeping disappearance of bees this past spring.  It was called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).  Thankfully we've been finally able to track down and identify the causes of this.  Say we hadn't though.  And bees throughout North America were wiped out.

Now take a look at your dinner table tonight -- 70% of everything there is directly linked to the ability of bees to pollinate orchards, crops and fields.

Maybe our place now is to make sure others have a place in maintaining biodiversity.

Answer 5

When humans can wrap their heads around the difference between needs and wants perhaps this question can be answered.  

If you want a car but need clean air ... which one do you think the average hairless ape would choose?  

Biodiversity IS a human need.

Answer 6

I will argue the view opposite to my own. I will argue  species redundancy view: that there is absolutely no way of knowing if living things actually need biodiversity or not. The diversity/stability versus species redundancy is a historic and ongoing debate.

Whoa! wait with the thumbs down, read to the end!

Diversity may be:

Species diversity - the number of different species of plants/animals

Genetic diversity - the number of different plants/animals

Ecological diversity - the total number of ecosystems and wild plant and animal species on Earth.

Cultural diversity - including man's activity

Diversity in an ecosystem is determined by the number of NICHES which are filled. A niche is 'career' of an animal or plant in that ecosystem, how it functions in relation to other species. A niche is filled by one thing, be it plant or animal. The richer or more diverse, the greater the number of niches.

So diversity and stability tend to go hand in hand.

Species redundancy theory states that only a few species are actually VITAL for the functioning of an ecosystem. Most species could be lost and the ecosystem would recover.

There have been lots of examples of animal extinctions/habitat depletion that have affected the food chains in that particular area and the ecosystem has recovered or will in time.

However, there is absolutely no way of knowing what will sustain life. We are at present doing the experiment by reducing biodiversity. We have no way of knowing the outcome. If species redundancy theory is not correct and living things (including us) do need biodiversity it will be too late, the conclusion can only be that all living things will die off.

So putting it in these terms, human needs ARE reliant on biodiversity, OR are we prepared to continue taking the species redundancy wager, when the stakes are so high?

Answer 7

ADIS huh??

Answer 8

You really need to be doing your own homework.

But if one doesn't recognise that then one is going to have a hard time convincing people to actually want to conserve biodiversity (i.e. you have to make biodiversity conservation a human need if you want it to happen).

Answer 9

Well Joey, I think if we just clean out your mind we can have enough manure to fertilize our food supply for the next several years.

We need to learn to conserve what we have, to be mindful ouf our environment, and to preserve what species we have left. Every time we lose a species, humanity is the poorer for it. I don't believe we should supercede our wants over the needs of the planet. After all, it is the only one we have, and if we destroy it, where are we going to go?

Answer 10

While that may be true, you have to consider the 880GTS specification of a Pential cesletial conversion of the 357 CID edelbrock.  The philosopher Jean Sartre once said the ministry of industrial divergence sometimes undercedes the krebs cycle of the Z-based budgeting.

Also never underestimate the agnostic way of DISI, or direct gasoline injection of the variable nozzle einsteinian way of  supply and demand in contrast to marekting implementation and control.

Now this doens't really go into effect once the strategicmassaging of corporate biological enhancements.  Cognitive dissonance of the decision making process will ultimtely prevbail in a SWOT analysis type of way.

Any questions?  Let me know.

Answer 11

To an extent, i would say yes. Human needs must come first. However, we need to be mindful of what were doing. Reasonable efforts should be made to preserve biodiversity when posible, but when the two conflict, human needs should overrule conservation. The grey area here is where "reasonable efforts" start and end, but thats another debate.

Just my two cents, hope it helps!

Answer 12

In my own opinion, the fact that we feel like we have  to make "us" or "them" decisions is a fundamental flaw. We are part of the system and until we fully accept that as reality, we probably won't make the best management decisions.  We are held to the same biological and physical constraints as other living organisms and we are entirely dependent on them for life.  Fine, so maybe we could live on a planet filled with corn and cows but I doubt it.  while it's true that ecosystem function may not be impaired by fewer species, the "redundancy" allows for changes; function remains even if the species composition changes.  Also, there is something biologically and spiritually (I said it) reassuring associated with diverse ecological systems.  A professor I had in college used the analogy of a brick wall, symbolizing life in general.  Sure you can remove a brick here and a brick there and the wall still stands.  If you keep removing bricks, however, the wall eventually collapses.  Can't prove it, and I hope we never do (but it doesn't look good).