Biodiversity

In looking at biodiversity one must wonder what is it, how it is determined, why it is valuable, and why some ecosystems or species, or specific animal or plant is more valuable than another.
What is biodiversity? “Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the variety of the world's organisms, including their genetic diversity and the assemblages they form. It is the blanket term for the natural biological wealth that undergirds human life and well-being. The breadth of the concept reflects the interrelatedness of genes, species, and ecosystems. http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/bri-ntro.html” Biodiversity can be explained for example, when looking at plants. A fir tree and a daffodil would have greater biodiversity than a daffodil and another flower. They are more diverse because they have greater differences in their gene makeup. It is difficult to determine biodiverity because gene makeups are hard to quantify. There are four approaches to estimating genes and characteristics within the environment being tested. They use “genealogy to predict genetic or character richness”, “species richness”, “higher taxa or enviornemntal variables as surrogates”, and a relationship among these estimates to determine biodiversity. According to The Natural History Museum in London, there are three types of biodiversity commonly used to place value, they include genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity. They admit however that, “Many of these relationships remain very poorly understood, so that they must be used with due care for establishing supporting evidence from test samples. (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/science/projects/worldmap/diversity/scale.htm)”
But, what makes biodiversity valuable? According to one website biodiversity is necessary to “maintain and enhance agricultural, forest and livestock productivity” http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/bri-why.html The reasons that I found for biodiversity including making the world more interesting, and protecting weaker species. It seems that if the stronger ones were allowed to spread it would eliminate the weaker species. The destruction of these weaker species would mean a loss of unknown plants that may have medicinal properties for instance.
And why are some species more valued than others? The only reason I could come up with for the answer to this question is rarity of species, which is the supposed reason behind the Endangered Species Act. Value of species was not based upon the “good” the species could do for manknid, which I think would be a valid measure. For example, if the choice was to save a plant that we knew held the cure to cancer, or to save the insect that was destroying them, even if the insect was not found anywhere else, then the logical choice to me would be to save the plant. Even if the plant was in more abundance than the insect.
According to The World Resources Institute there are “Six main obstacles to greater progress in conserving biological diversity need to be addressed:

• National development objectives give insufficient value to biological resources.
• Exploiting biological resources yields the greatest profit for traders and manufacturers (who can externalize environmental costs), not for the local people who have few other sources of livelihood, and who must pay the environmental costs of over-exploitation.
• The species and ecosystems upon which human survival depends are still poorly known.
• The available science is insufficiently applied to solving management problems.
• Conservation activities by most organizations have focused too narrowly.
• Institutions assigned responsibility for conserving biodiversity have lacked sufficient financial and organizational resources to do the job.
http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/cwb-iii.html”

I would go one step further in saying, that these problems lead me to wonder the validity of the Environmental Protection Agency’s actions, and the need for the Endangered Species Act. Since the science is not accurate and we do not know enough about how ecosystems relate, it is hard for me to see where environmental activists can say that one species should be valued above another. For example in the Klamath Falls last summer farmers were denied water that was previously promised by the government. But, the environmental activists did not want them to have the water, so that the bottom feeding sucker fish and two other species of fish would have more water. The problem was that the activists did not look at the valid science before protesting. The facts were that the higher water levels in the upper basin encouraged growth of harmful bacteria, which kills off the same fish they were trying to protect. Instead of helping the fish, they harmed both the fish and the farmers. In harming the farmers the land they had been farming which was lush and green turned into a desolate waste land, and many had to leave their farms because they lost so much money.
This is why I asked the question which species is more important, for in this case not only did the activists not look at scientific facts, they also put a fish above people. The loss of income directly effected the children and their health and well being, because without the income they could not afford healthcare, or to live and attend school in that area. It is also mentioned in this issue of American Enterprise Magazine that the children suffered physically and emotionally because of this act.
Involved in the six obstacles mentioned by The World Resources Institute, there is the issue of bioinvasion, in which species are traveling to other areas from where they originated. For example, this can be seen in Washington State where Gorse was brought over to serve as a dune stabilizer and has taken over the land, choking out native plants. But, again which is more valuable the gorse or the native plants? Currently it has been decided that the native plants are more valuable, but I am not sure the basis of this. The only reasons why I can find, is that gorse is a “noxious weed” and it is spiny and takes over, causing fire hazards. In fact there are towns that have burned to the ground because their was so much dry gorse. It seems though in this bioinvasion issue, that to choose is playing a god-like role, and we should be sure of which species we are placing more value upon.
Is there any way to stop this traveling of flora and fauna around the world? The simple answer is no, eventually there will not be any biodiversity per se. Most of the world will eventually contain the same species, in fact if humans were not here, that may have already happened. Even though people perpetuate the traveling of these species, on purpose and by accident, they also hinder it. It is people that are trying to control the bioinvasions, which if the planet was left by itself spores of these plants would eventually travel globally on their own, via animals, wind currents, and water.
In conclusion, this issue is not a cut and dried one. Who is to say which species is more important that another? It will be left for the future to decide which decisions were right and wrong.

Resources
The World Resources Institute. (July 23, 2002). How and Why Biological Resources are Threatened. Available: http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/cwb-iii.html [Sept, 26, 2002]

The World Resources Institute. (July 23, 2002). Threats to biodiversity. Available:[http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/bri-why.html[Sept, 26, 2002]

The Natural History Museum. (2002). World Biodiversity Map, Available: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/science/projects/worldmap/diversity/scale.htm [Sept, 26, 2002][

Hurst, B. (Oct/Nov 2002) Calamity in Klamath, American Enterprise Magazine

*Originally written in 2003