File:Moral issue-biodiversity protection.jpg large.png

How Much Nature Is Enough? Leatherbacks Linger; Caribbean Monk Seal Gone

By Andrew Revkin / Dot Earth / NYT

Not surprisingly my rhetorical question on the value of leatherback turtles — to nature and/or the human subset of nature — got under the skin of some of my favorite scientists. Three of the world’s leading champions of ocean conservation weigh in below. Personally, I cherish the last vestiges of the pre-human seas. But in a crowding world increasingly shaped by our actions, there will be losses, either knowing or accidental.

The answer below is from Sylvia Earle of National Geographic and many other endeavors, Carl Safina of the Blue Ocean Institute, and James R. Spotila, widely seen as one of the leading experts on the species.

···························································

The World Needs Leatherback Turtles

There are two races going on in the Pacific Ocean. One is “The Great Turtle Race” greatturtlerace.com being presented on the Internet by The Leatherback Trust and over 20 other organizations to inform and educate the public about the biology of the leatherback turtles. The second race is a “Race for Survival” being presented by humanity as it strip mines the Pacific Ocean for fish, and the surrounding lands for development sites, minerals and forests. Recent blog posts question whether we, humans, really need the leatherback turtle and by extension the rest of biodiversity as well. Obviously we think the answer is yes.

Leatherback turtles are the “Panda of the Pacific.” They are symbolic of the great biodiversity that inhabits the oceans. That biodiversity is threatened by human activities ranging from overfishing to global warming. So what? Does it matter? That is the way the situation is usually addressed. We humans focus on the next paycheck, the cost of gasoline, and the next meal. So let’s put the leatherback in a broader perspective. Let’s look beyond this week and beyond the next financial quarter. Why do we need the leatherback and all the rest of the earth’s biodiversity?

First, we need the leatherback, the panda and the worm because they might be useful to us. We have all heard about medicines that come from the rain forest. That is true. But consider this. With all of the millions of species on this planet is it possible that there is a cure for colon cancer in the genetic information of a beetle, a plant or a fungus in the forests of Costa Rica? The earth is like a house overflowing with wedding presents. When the bride and groom come home from their honeymoon they decide it is too crowded and throw out some of those gifts. A few weeks later they find that they don’t have a toaster or a vacuum. They were there but got thrown away. That is what we are doing, throwing away the gifts of biodiversity before we even unwrap (study) them. There are scientists who question whether biodiversity is needed for the stability of ecosystems. We might want to keep that biodiversity around until we figure that out.

Second, we save biodiversity because of aesthetics. We like pandas and leatherbacks, and eagles and pretty insects, if they are not biting us. So we save charismatic animals and plants because we like them, because we are emotionally attached to them. Leatherback hatchlings are cute. Pandas are cute all the time. Sturgeons aren’t exactly cute, but are certainly interesting. We keep them because we are in control and we like to have them around. The farmer in Africa is less enamored of the elephant that crushes his garden than the city dweller in Manhattan who like to watch elephants on television. So we save the things that we like, unless someone can make more money and biodiversity happens to get in the way. So we put houses and hotels on sea turtle nesting beaches and shopping centers over wetlands. It is hard for cute to win over money.

Third, and most important, even if we don’t need biodiversity, the species that make up that biodiversity have their own right to exist. All species survive by eating or out competing members of other species. But all species have an inherent right to exist in the world as it continues to evolve. We, the humans, do not have the right to cause other species to go extinct, whether that is the polar bear in the melting arctic, the butterfly in the rain forest or the rattlesnake in Pennsylvania. Extinction is natural given the normal processes of nature, but when humans cause a species to go extinct that changes the equation of evolution. Quite frankly this is a moral issue. We did not put other species on the planet and we do not have the right to take them off of it! Leatherbacks in the Pacific Ocean have declined by 90% in the last 20 years. They are going faster than you think. Watch the Great Turtle Race, cheer them on, and help them to survive.

GreenPolicy360: Biodiversity and the reasons to 'save species' go far beyond "we like them" and are "emotionally attached to them". We are big supporters of Sylvia Earle and he amazing and profound work in the oceans of the world, but we often talk about the species who are not easily seen and described, the "charismatic species" so often on wildlife conservation campaigns.

We go much further in our scope of environmental protection.

Take a quick look at:

• Anthropocene

• TinyBlueGreen

TinyBlueGreen.com begins with a quote from Sylvia Earle:

"A single kind of blue-green algae in the ocean ('Prochlorococcus') produces the oxygen in one of every five breaths we take"

~ The Fate of Small Species and the Oceans -- Sylvia Earle

"How Our Fate and the Ocean’s Are One"

~ Saving the Oceans ○ 'Mission Blue-2' ○ Sylvia Earle - video

• Extinction

• Tree of Life

···················

Comments:

Elizabeth Tjader June 9, 2008

I love when you address these subjects in the context you have here.

“Quite frankly, this is a moral issue”, is the heart of this entire discussion. And with all due respect, using the analogy of a newly married couple discarding a toaster as equal to our throwing out a species forever isn’t quite on equal playing ground.

I’m always intrigued by the phrase suggesting we keep something around to figure out if WE have something from which to gain by its presence.

How about we keep around for the reasons stated in here: All species have an inherent right to exist in the world as it continues to evolve. All species, not just the human species. End of discussion.

This is very reminiscent of Roderick Nash’s article, “Why Wilderness”.

I’m so happy to read the thoughts of Sylvia Earl, Carl Safina, and James R. Spotila, LEADING EXPERTS in the field. And they aren’t economists or politicians.

I joined the Great Leatherback Turtle Race and receive daily email updates on the progress of all turtle participants. It’s very cool. In addition to the enjoyment of rooting on this particular species and following it on its journey, symbolically I’m rooting on its and the millions of other species whose lives rest on the mercy of the homosapiens better and best judgement.

Thanks for putting this in, Andy.

--

Alec June 9, 2008

Biodiversity is important, but it was left unsaid as to why it is important. The food web is extremely complex, and the removal of species from it can have profound effects.

If you have ever seen the computer models used to look at this, it is quite apparent that removing any organism can restructure, damage, or destroy certain ecosystems. If there is an extinction of the leatherback, I would imagine that there will detrimental effects to overall oceanic health (not that this isn’t already occurring). And as a member of this ecosystem, we need to keep this in mind.

--

John Shane June 9, 2008

Need? In order to determine whether we NEED a certain species we would have to have a clear understanding of the complex of webs and feedback systems that connect all parts of the earth’s ecosystems.

It seems to me an act of extreme hubris to dismiss any species as “unneeded.” How many times have we been wrong about the ultimate impact of changes we have brought about in the biotic and abiotic environment? You remember, “Surely we can dispose of this waste in the river, after all, there’s nothing important downstream.”

Even if a species is only distantly related to our proximate human needs, and perhaps not as essential as some other species, I thought we had learned that the fluctuations of species’ populations are often important indicators of changes in ecological parameters that we are important to us.

The connections are everywhere you look but the nature of the connections are often subtle and often removed in time or space from our place of original action.

Our species has certainly become the 800 pound gorilla on the planet. But our size does not entitle us to crash around at will, nor does it guarantee us immunity from the follow-on effects of the damage we cause while we are throwing our weight around.

Ecology is a difficult science. It deals with outrageous, mind-boggling levels of connectivity. Time and again it has shown that it is what we don’t know that we need to be careful of.

Lack of total clarity (which I’m pretty sure we will never achieve vis a vis ecological systems.) should not be a signal to rush ahead with business as usual. Incomplete understanding combined with warning signs like significant population shifts in numbers or distribution should encourage us to go slowly and carefully lest we do damage that matters and cannot be undone.

--

Greg Harman June 9, 2008

If... humans will only value (protect) what is valuable for our survival, we’re in deep trouble.

As a species we obviously have only a tentative grip on what “survival” means. Is reproducing, eating, sleeping, working, and dying enough?

What is humanity without sea turtles (or doves, lions, penguins, or eels)? Bees, we hardly knew ye.

Are we poorer or richer without other species if their passage has no affect on the brightness of our teeth or square footage of our homes?

What if we could boil all diversity down to five organisms and could trash the rest and yet “survive”? What would the process of living look like then?

It doesn’t matter whether leatherbacks “contribute” to our continuance or not. Likely we won’t know one way or another how such a creature influences greater ecosystems for many years yet.

For eons our survival has hinged on the destruction or overcoming of Nature. Now peering from the top down, what have we left?

Pretty great cities. Some passable art. Secondhand “smoke” on a global scale. And an evolutionary survival instinct urging us yet to press on.

Until we have the collective wisdom to turn this argument on its head and ask why do sea turtles need us (and respond accordingly), I would suggest that perhaps we deserve to be alone in the planet.

That is, if such a thing were possible.

○