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)