Why Preserve Threatened Ecosystems?

Skeptics doubting many of the most fundamental premises of conservation often ask me about the reasons for preserving our ecosystems. Why save species, flora or fauna, if, as part of evolution, one species encroaches on another, causing natural extinctions? In other words, why police or interfere with ourselves if we are part of natural selection? If unprecedented human expansion is natural, should we not continue dominating the planet to the detriment of incalculable numbers of lower forms of life that share our world and depend on it as we do? Ensuring human health and well-being is the biggest reason we should preserve threatened ecosystems and the biodiversity that has characterized life on earth for millions of years.

Here is a small example of what can happen when man interferes with nature. Where I live, there are agricultural interests who, with the help of the federal government, would systematically kill all the coyotes to save a few calves in their herds. These are domestic animals already subsidized by taxpayer dollars. The kill is not limited to predators like the coyote, but can include, at the request of ranchers, virtually the gamut of wild creatures wandering the grasslands and forests of southeastern Arizona. After the last coyote is killed, what will these people do when they discover their homes are under siege by an exploding rodent population, attracting the most feared and hated of all creatures, the rattlesnake? How will the rancher feel if a nutritious grass he depends on for his livestock is depleted by jack rabbits, a favorite prey of the coyote?

In another example, If the Bush administration succeeds in removing the wolf from the endangered species list, who will benefit even temporarily besides a few powerful agricultural interests? It is counterintuitive to force one undesired species into decline, allowing another to overpopulate with unwanted effects. It should be obvious to all, including the Bush administration, why nature herself brilliantly designed the wolf as a vital part of the food chain. Nature has achieved balance (intelligent or otherwise), through a process understood well in scientific circles as evolution. It is not a right, nor is it particularly “intelligent,” of governments to try and engineer processes that have governed the natural world since life first emerged from the primordial soup. Clearly, it makes good sense to preserve an ecosystem in its natural state, as the Endangered Species Act is designed to enforce.

The second reason for conserving ecosystems, the first being a scientific one, is a moral argument. For years I believed that we Homo sapiens were simply the highest form of life, yet essentially the same as other animals. Lately, after all the talk about creation, I have come to understand why some religious fundamentalists seem tempted to consider humankind spiritually separate, and not necessarily dependent on lower life forms, other than for food. There is, after all, a huge gap between humans and our nearest relatives in the wild. Still, if we are divinely created beings, endowed with a spirit and consciousness that are unique to us, do we not have a special moral obligation to protect and preserve our world, which includes all of creation? As the most highly evolved animal on earth, we have an implicit obligation to act as stewards and to stop the rising tide of human encroachment on the natural environment.

Lastly, a simple argument. Many of us mistakenly value nature as an invariable given. Despite these feelings, who could argue that nature is not fundamental to our sense of well-being? Life would not be the same without sunlit mornings or moonlit nights, or lush green meadows and towering forests of ancient trees, filled with the sounds of singing birds. Nature gives us comfort with its assurance that we are not alone. Who doesn't want to breathe clean air or drink fresh, clean water? Why not err on the cautious side and take steps to ensure its health, as we do that of our own bodies? Millions of years of evolution formed the world as we know it today. How could it be bad to honor it by preserving and protecting it?

For life on earth to survive and prosper, biodiversity in the environment must be preserved intact. Human impact is taking a heavy toll on critical ecosystems, as evidenced by the destruction of wetlands and rain forests. Rain forests are incubators of plants and animals which could play critical roles in developing new medicines and technologies. As marine ecosystems are being destroyed by pollution, oceans are being depleted of fish populations. The still undetermined cause of a blight that is decimating U.S. honeybee populations suggests the perils of imbalance in the natural world, in this case, losing the bee’s role as a pollinator. Can we afford to have irreplaceable habitats at the mercy of global free markets, dominated by human greed and fear, intent at any cost on short-term prosperity?

Preservation of ecosystems can be achieved only through government action and intervention. It requires individual political awareness and responsibility, as well as financial sacrifice. It will mean finding practical ways to limit population growth, develop alternative energy, rethink consumption-based economics, and much more. I am personally willing to accept short-term inconveniences to know that the earth I love will be preserved as it is in my time for those people, plants and animals who will follow long after I am gone. How can anybody argue with building a natural legacy of this kind?