Biodiversity is healthy for our planet. The questions that often arise in the environmental arena are from issues between those who want to profit from using the earth for humans and those who want to protect the earth’s natural beauty for animals. These two groups frequently squabble during each election cycle. Their motivations are not always as clear as they seem to be.
What they do not realize is that both ideals are partly correct. Using the earth well will help all species (including humans) have food and the resources they need. Protecting the earth’s beauty will identify wasteful business activities like coal-producing electrical power plants in the era of nuclear and wind power.
One of the essential things to do is to identify the places where the interests of business people and nature lovers are clashing too fiercely. Good examples include the San Joaquin Valley, the African jungle, and the South American jungle. The San Joaquin Valley continues to be involved in a fierce debate between environmentally conscious activists in the cities and dehydrated farmers in the country.
The extreme environmental activists are whining about the destruction of a little fish species called the delta smelt. Only a few of these little fish are left.
In the meantime, the California environmentalists are regulating and controlling the entire delta, depriving the Californian economy of $1.8 billion per year in farm revenue. What the environmentalists are unwilling to consider is preserving this fish in a zoo aquarium and letting the farmers have their water supplies back. Habitat conservation—if taken to an extreme—can make environmentalists forget other good options, like preserving rare species in a zoo aquarium.
An example where environmentalists are right is the Brazilian and African rainforests. The source of far more than just an ugly little fish, the Brazilian rainforests have given mankind all sorts of useful products like anti-malaria and muscle relaxant drugs, papaya, palm oil, and rubber.
These rainforests contain the largest amount of species in a single area on the planet. Despite this fact, loggers are destroying 2,315 square miles per year based on data gathered in 2014. With it goes valuable species and a habitat that provides lots of useful plants to both animals and humans. When a habitat is useful to both humans and animals it should be protected more.
When legal protection of an area is only useful to an ugly, tiny little fish or two, the land should be allowed to be used more profitably for more intelligent species. The ugly, tiny little fish can have a new home in a modern aquarium. Farmers will then earn billions more in produce for a hungry and starving nation.
Moderation is the secret to proper habitat conservation. Saving endangered species can be easily done with modern zoo technology. Zoos should be employed if the humans really need a habitat and if the species in question is not that valuable or populous.
Practicing Environmental Moderation
It is tough to avoid the loggers who scream for more rainforest destruction and the urban nitpickers who whine about a little fish that is making strawberries far more expensive. Most people tend to gravitate toward one extreme of the environmental debate.
The best environmental strategy is one that benefits both humans and animals, not just one of the groups. Laws should be in place to protect both species, and if one species is unfairly harming the other, it should be restricted and quarantined from doing so. The greedy humans should be kept from logging away valuable herbs and rare fruits. The ugly fish should be in a good zoo aquarium.
We will be saving endangered species if all species are being treated fairly. The problem that many lawmakers and voters struggle with is bipolar thinking: we can only either hurt the ugly little fish or hurt the greedy little farmer. What if we can help both? Trying to develop solutions that help both populations is very important for maximizing biodiversity.
What is often true is that the extreme public environmentalist like Al Gore is secretly a corporate board member who might be fomenting conflict to increase his personal reputation at the expense of ugly little fish and tired farmers.
Never trust an environmentalist who has not actually gone to the area of endangered species to talk with everybody involved. The ivory tower environmentalist of the urban centers has little knowledge of environment compared to natives of a rainforest. Make sure that people who have real experience are involved in the preservation projects.
Do not listen to extreme voices in the environmental debate. Try to maximize well-being for all the endangered species involved. The voice of moderation is rare but needed. The ugly little fish and dehydrated strawberry farmers are hoping for more of them.
Most solutions are not just A or B. They are a little A and a little B, which means C. Solution C is what the farmer and the ugly little fish need. It is what is lacking in the current political debates in Washington, D.C.