Civilization’s not reliant on bio-diversity --- not key to eco-system services, living standards are increasing, and human infrastructure fills in.

Of course, there are ecosystem services like carbon sequestration and flood control that provide clear benefits to society, and this can sometimes justify protecting ecosystems as a whole. But as for the role of species diversity and abundance in enabling these services, the evidence is mixed. In some cases, such as with carbon sequestration, a greater diversity of plants can be a boon. But non-native, generalist species can often support an ecosystem service just as well as native species. Simplification of ecosystems can sometimes enhance service provision; this is the essence of agriculture. And for ecosystem services like flood protection and water quality, there is no clear relationship with biodiversity. A tree canopy and some undergrowth will do just fine in many cases. Even in cases where biodiversity enhances ecosystem function, like primary productivity, it might not improve the service, if there is no human demand for it.

It’s hard not to observe, for instance, that while populations of wild species have been thoroughly depleted in places like Europe, whose landscapes have been deeply transformed for millennia, Europeans are, overall, healthy, well-fed, and enjoy high living standards. Meanwhile, the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations are often found in tropical regions rich in biodiversity, such as the Congo Basin. Furthermore, we all seem to be doing just fine without the megafauna that went extinct even before the emergence of agriculture, at least in part due to human pressures.

Some have suggested that this presents an “environmentalist’s paradox”: why has human well-being increased even as wildlife and natural ecosystems have declined? I’m not sure, however, that it’s much of a paradox. Humans through the ages have altered their environment to better serve their needs — and that has often meant converting natural habitats to cropland or favoring some species over others. For example, while there were also more sinister motives behind the near eradication of American bison, one simple driver was the fact that cattle were easier to raise and provided more food and higher profits.

I’m acutely aware of the fact that the stories we tell can influence the public’s support for conservation, and I am as dedicated as any other conservationist to finding narratives that can persuade people to care for wildlife. It is entirely understandable that many conservationists have embraced the argument that species should be preserved because they provide “life support” to people and societies. But I have a hard time arguing in good faith that further wildlife losses per se would prove catastrophic to the material basis of societies. And I worry that pushing the argument too far — that our lives depend on wildlife — could eventually backfire if it is later perceived as crying wolf. This could jeopardize the public’s trust in conservation scientists and practitioners. To avoid that, we need to reconcile ourselves to the thought that many wild animals, while priceless in the aesthetic and spiritual sense, might be dispensable in the material sense.