Paul Ehrlich

[Louis Proyect]

Paul Ehrlich's most recent thinking is contained in a long article at:

http://www.defenders.org/ehrlic01.html

This is part one of that article:

Biodiversity and the Brownlash 

by Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich 

Fall 1996 

The time has come to challenge the efforts being made to minimize the
seriousness of environmental problems. We call these attempts the
"brownlash," because they help to fuel a backlash against "green" policies.
The brownlash has been generated by a diverse group of individuals and
organizations, doubtless often with differing motives and backgrounds. We
classify them as brownlashers by what they say, not by who they are. With
strong and appealing messages, they have successfully sowed seeds of doubt
among journalists, policymakers and the public at large about the reality
and importance of such phenomena as overpopulation, global climate change,
ozone depletion and losses of biodiversity. 

Biological diversity -- the plants, animals, and microorganisms that are
working parts of society's life support systems -- is one of humanity's
most essential resources. Although Americans think of society as dependent
on inanimate resources such as coal, oil, copper, and iron ore, society in
fact depends much more on those living resources. Many components of
biological diversity (biodiversity) are dwindling, and attempts to conserve
them in the United States through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
other policies affecting land use and aquatic resources sometimes conflict
with the short-term economic goals of individuals, firms, industries, or
political entities. The ESA is a particular target of the brownlash, in
part because it lends itself to a simplistic us-versus-them mentality.
After all, what's more important -- the economic well-being of people or
the existence of a single species of owl, or snail, or butterfly? 

As citizens, we are particularly incensed by attempts to derail the ESA
because they strike at our love for our grandchildren and our love of
nature in one blow. As biologists, we are outraged that the pioneering
efforts by the United States to preserve biodiversity, primarily through
the ESA, the National Forest Management Act and a variety of other national
and state laws, and participation in international conventions on
biodiversity, forests, and international trade in endangered species (such
as CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora), should be threatened by an outspoken minority of
people who clearly do not realize what is at stake. We are generally proud
of our government's record on conservation. Thanks to the ESA, for example,
the status of roughly 40 percent of the listed endangered species is
considered stable or improving. We are not proud, however, of the failure
of the Senate to ratify the Biodiversity Convention, an important
international tool for protecting living resources, or of the efforts of
many politicians to reverse the progress that has been made. 

Living predominantly in urban and suburban environments, most Americans
never think about society's dependence on biological resources. Yet
biological resources supply humanity with all crops and domestic animals,
timber, many other industrial products, food from the sea, about half of
all medicines, and, above all, those critical ecosystem services that are
essential to producing food and supporting the economy. 

But many Americans are also aware -- if only subconsciously -- that those
resources play a central role in maintaining their emotional equilibrium.
Speaking for ourselves, Earth's biological riches greatly enrich our daily
lives. Who can place a price on the pleasure of walking among wildflowers
on the open hills behind the Stanford campus, seeing a kestrel or
white-tailed kite hovering in search of prey, glimpsing a prowling coyote,
or watching a fluttering female Bay checkerspot butterfly look for a
suitable plant on which to lay her eggs? Like many other people, we find
that time spent in natural surroundings and with other organisms -- be they
pets or the birds we watch -- restores our spirits as little else can. One
of the great joys of our profession is being paid for doing what we love,
working with animals and plants -- and having the privilege of studying
biodiversity across the globe. It is an inexhaustible source of inspiration. 

The job of preserving biodiversity is going to be desperately difficult.
Earth's biological capital is being hammered by direct destruction of
habitats and by habitat alteration through mechanisms such as the addition
of toxic substances (e.g., pesticides, acid rain) and the introduction of
exotic organisms (e.g., rats, starlings, goats, and kudzu vines). Outside
the environments in which they evolved, such invaders can be very
destructive of other life-forms. A few types of organisms are
superabundant: human beings, domesticated animals, and the pests, weeds,
and other life-forms that thrive in response to the activities of Homo
sapiens. 

The concern of the biological community over the present spasm of mass
extinction cannot be overestimated. The just-completed and monumental
Global Biodiversity Assessment, commissioned by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the Global Environmental
Facility (GEF), is a 1,149-page, large-format, peer-reviewed document to
which some 1,500 scientists from all over the world contributed. It clearly
represents a consensus of the relevant scientific community, and its
foreword is worth quoting: 

"Biodiversity represents the very foundation of human existence. Yet by our
heedless actions we are eroding this biological capital at an alarming
rate. Even today, despite the destruction that we have inflicted on the
environment and its natural bounty, its resilience is taken for granted.
But the more we learn of the workings of the natural world, the clearer it
becomes that there is a limit to the disruption that the environment can
endure. 

"Besides the profound ethical and aesthetic implications, it is clear that
the loss of biodiversity has serious economic and social costs. The genes,
species, ecosystems and human knowledge which are being lost represent a
living library of options available for adapting to local and global
change. Biodiversity is part of our daily lives and livelihood and
constitutes the resources upon which families, communities, nations and
future generations depend." 

Among the causes listed for the loss of biodiversity, the first is
"increasing demands for biological resources due to increasing population
and economic development." Another is a "failure of government policies to
address the overuse of biological resources." These basic causes lead to
"the loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitats; the conversion of
natural habitats to other uses; overexploitation of wild resources; the
introduction of non-native species; the pollution of soil, water and
atmosphere; and . . . signs of long-term climate change." The summary
concludes: "Unless actions are taken now to protect biodiversity, we will
lose forever the opportunity of reaping its full potential benefit for
mankind." 

As one might expect, the brownlash sees biodiversity very differently from
the way the scientific community sees it. The brownlash views Earth's
biological capital pretty much as it does non-living resources: both sets
of resources are essentially infinite, are in no danger of depletion, and
exist just so people can exploit them without restraint -- as the following
positions related to biodiversity illustrate: 


Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)