- Biodiversity
Some ecologists claim that biodiversity has decreased in most of the Earth's land area past "safe limits." This "safe limit" supposedly marks the point at which ecosystems could no longer support human civilization. Critics say the limit—set by the Planetary Boundaries framework—is based on many assumptions, does not take into account the influence of invasive species, and could not easily take into account the complex interactions between species. (See "Earth's Biodiversity Has Fallen Below 'Safe' Levels? Ecologists Disagree.")
- Saving Endangered Species
The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling, and species evolve and go extinct along with it. Most ecologists agree that we are currently going through an extreme, human-caused version of those historical extinction periods and should do what we can to save species from extinction. A few, even if they believe this mass extinction is human-caused, claim that it's pointless to go out our way to save endangered species; we should only worry about the extinction of our own species, and only save other species if it's convenient. (See "What is the point of saving endangered species?" and "We don't need to save endangered species. Extinction is part of evolution.") - Journal Impact Factor
Researchers often choose which scientific journal to submit their work to based on Journal Impact Factor (JIF), a value given to a journal based on its perceived quality. Libraries have also used it to choose which journals to subscribe to. JIF is probably the most prevalent rating system for journals, but many ecologists and other scientists criticize it for misrepresenting the quality of journals and articles. (See "The Journal Impact Factor and alternatives.")
Of these three controversies, I am most intrigued and emotionally affected by the second. I am a proponent for saving animal species; I love animals, and for as long as I can remember I've been taught that we need to save endangered species. All species contribute in some way to their ecosystem, and the loss of one can cause a drastic change. Additionally, myriad species are endangered because of habitat loss inflicted by humans. However, it is interesting to read anti-conservationist arguments from biologists. I can see where some of their claims make sense, which is surprising for me. Maybe what it comes down to is focusing on efforts that will best conserve the human species?
Taking a long-term view of things, I see the first issue as being the most troublesome. Without diversity, we and the animals around us are unable to evolve as species without technological assistance, while microrganisms such as bacteria and viruses are able to keep evolving beyond our best efforts to stop them. Unless we are able to maintain diversity in not just culture, but in nature as well, we will not die a quick death, but a long drawn-out variant of such.
ReplyDeleteIt's always interesting to see both sides of the debate for conserving the environment. We know from our theology as Latter Day Saints that we are to be stewards of the earth. We have an obligation to take care of the environment. However each of us in modern society does things that harm the environment, every car driven, every light switch flipped. We have grown accustomed to modern convenience which causes harm to the planet. How do we justify this?
ReplyDelete