A Look @ Biodiversity

I agree that when compared to the efforts going toward preserving endangered species, that the decline versus the recovery is absolutely stifling, however, research from this decade suggests that positive results are on the rise (Jeffery, Kiernan, Martin, Rachlinski, Suckling & Taylor, 2011). In regards to the Endangered Species Act, it was documented throughout the 1990’s that recovery starts to become a realistic goal the longer a species remained on the endangered species list (Jeffery, Kiernan, Martin, Rachlinski, Suckling & Taylor, 2011). What is the price of quality living? What is the price of life? I believe those are questions one need ask oneself when considering opposition of any brand of environmental reform. The fact is, as of 2010, the evidence of a need for further environmental reform is undeniable.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in 2010 12% of all birds, 21% of mammals, 28% of reptiles, 37% of fresh-water fish, 50% of amphibians, and a horrifying 70% of botanical species are in danger of extinction and actual number are on the rise, daily (Godoy, 2010). According to the World Wildlife Fund, (WWF) 27% of known species vanished between the years of 1970 and 2005 (Godoy, 2010). Europe’s TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) suggest loss of 7.2 billion USD between the years of 2000 and 2050, attributed to the decline in biodiversity (Godoy, 2010).

From a biological perspective, biodiversity is essential in maintaining the biosphere and sustaining life on our planet. The decimation of biological diversity, in turn, complicates research and developmental possibilities, including future and present preventative measures (Alters & Alters, 2008). From a personal stand point, not only would my nutrition and that of my children be compromised in a life with limited biodiversity, also, the economy would fail to recover causing further hardship in the lives of my loved ones as well as myself, but as a nature enthusiast, seeing our planet in any worse shape than it is presently would be devastating to say the least (Godoy, 2010). Nutrition will suffer when crops begin to fail because of harsh conditions and a lack of pollenating species, the economy will deteriorate with the crops and when poor nutrition has many people out of work because of a difficulty recovering from illness and injury(Jeffery, Kiernan, Martin, Rachlinski, Suckling & Taylor, 2011). That being said, I certainly would be willing to put economic gains on hold to preserve the environment. Of course, I see that as a temporary but necessary chiseling of the economy.

Preservation to the necessary extent will be a lengthy and involved process that will take man-power on many different levels, and it is, therefore, my belief that these changes will eventually boost the economy (Jeffery, Kiernan, Martin, Rachlinski, Suckling & Taylor, 2011).


References:

Alters. , & Alters, (2008). Biology: Understanding life. (pp. 741-753). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Godoy, J. (2010). Biodiversity: 'pious words won't save endangered species'. United
States, New York: Global Information Network. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/457553476?accountid=8289

Jeffery, J., Kiernan , F., Martin, M., Rachlinski, , Suckling, , & Taylor, (2005). The effectiveness of the endangered species act: a quantitative analysis. Bioscience, 55(4), 360-366.