One of the most important yet undervalued environmental crises
of our era is the issue of biodiversity. As specified by Webster’s dictionary,
biodiversity is “biological diversity in an environment as indicated by numbers
of different species of plants and animals.” The biodiversity crisis involves
the extinction of one or many species within an ecosystem, and because the
natural world is a closed system, disturbance of one tiny part can affect the
whole on a large scale.
An ecosystem
thrives on the balance and mingled interactions of its many
assorted parts, creating a cohesive melodious whole. When
one of these parts is diminished or removed in its entirety the balance is
thrown off, and the survival odds of the entire system is compromised. For
example, wolves, deer, shrubs, and songbirds exist together: the wolves feed off
the deer; the deer feed off the shrubs; and shrubs provide shelter for the
songbirds. If the humans in a nearby community consider the wolves a threat and
choose to reduce the population, the rest of the biological system stemming from
the wolves is affected. The deer populations will increase, therefore eating
more shrubbery, leaving no habitat remaining for the avian life.
When considering the morality of the human action in this
situation different people may view it in various ways. If the wolves are a
serious threat to the human populations, some may say that human life is the
priority and that the wolves must be removed regardless of the effect on the
rest of the ecosystem. There are many approaches to all moral issues involving
the environment. The theory that places human comfort and success above all
others is called anthropocentrism. However, it is equally reasonable to expand
the recipient of moral consideration. Some say that animals should also be
considered in making moral decisions because they are sentient beings and can
feel pain. An additional theory is that of biocentrism. This is the belief that
humans are not the center of moral consideration, and that all life forms are
equally important and valuable. It suggests that the balance of biological
systems is superior to the importance of societal interests.
All of these theories have equal number of supporters and
valid reasons for justifying their beliefs. Why should one consider biocentrism
over one of the more comfortable and convenient moral positions? If humans are
happy and thriving what difference does it make if the natural world around us
is not so natural? The thing that many people fail to realize is that humans are
not outside of nature but rather one part of a very large interlocked system.
Humans may think themselves to be very self-sufficient and above nature; however, everything that humans have ever possessed has come from nature. Even the ingredients we use to create our synthetic materials originally came from the elemental earth and its many resources. If we continue to ignore the well-being of the natural world, we will slowly yet effectively be sabotaging our own survival. Humans could never exist on their own and as far as species go, we are one of the most dependant, relying on the labor and resources of the earth and our fellow creatures.