Let's Agree to Disagree: We Can Use Biodiversity However We Want to!

“The value of biodiversity must be accounted for, says Pavan Sukhdev. It is time for governments to invest to secure the flow of nature's 'public goods'. Biodiversity is essential to the continued survival of all species and the well-being of all eco-systems.” states an article in the November 19 edition of Nature. In college, you will encounter many arguments that surround extremely important issues, such as biodiversity.When dealing with these types of discussions it is best to be able to both support and argue an opinion effectively. For example, two articles, both addressing the best way to improve biodiversity, disagree on which method to use to achieve improvement. Biodiversity is essential to the continued survival of all species and the well-being of earth's ecosystem, and in Nature, a weekly science journal, the two articles "Costing the Earth" and "Let the Locals Lead," discuss the important issue of the preservation of biodiversity. "Costing the Earth" presents a much more convincing argument than "Let the Locals Lead," because it provides evidence that focuses on reaching a broader audience, gives information relative to multiple countries, and explains how biodiversity is relative to both everyday life and the bigger picture, whereas "Let the Locals Lead" uses the discussion to shed more light on biases that occur behind the scenes.

In “Costing the Earth” by Pavan Sukhdev, a brief explanation about what biodiversity is and what exactly is threatening it is given in an effort to make the subject more understandable to more than the average reader of Nature. The article explains that biodiversity is disappearing due to what is known as the “Tragedy of the Commons,” in which the natural systems, such as forests and oceans, are considered as public goods and when these goods are used as a shared resource they are bound to be destroyed. “Costing the Earth” also gives multiple examples to show that decreasing biodiversity is a problem occurring all over the world. It describes that the United States loses billions of dollars due to over exploitation of resources, how Costa Rica’s government provides incentives to those who help to preserve the biodiversity of forests, and how the poor in India suffer more than they should have to due to the decrease in resources that they rely that is provided by biodiversity. “Costing the Earth” also uses the effect of decreasing biodiversity on the poor in India to give an example that show how relative this issue is to the lives of some people and how far reaching the effects are.

Although, “Let the Locals Lead” by Smith, Veríssimo, Leader-Williams, Cowling, and Knight agrees that something must be done to improve biodiversity, and believes that if academics and non-governmental agencies (NGOs) stepped back and “let the locals lead” it would improve, it does not use the opportunity to fully explain the hows and whys of improving biodiversity. Instead, “Let the Locals Lead” constantly restates that academics, non-governmental agencies (NGOs), and other agencies all have a vested interest in how to approach improving biodiversity. The article explains that academics often have pet projects and are trying to get published more than helping the areas that need it most. “Let the Locals Lead” also explains that NGOs push to use their own methodology without taking into account what would work best to improve the biodiversity of a certain area. Lastly, “Let the Locals Lead,” explains that agencies often lack funding or have donors who want to help specific areas, so once again areas that really need the help are overlooked.

In conclusion, in discussion arguments or opinions are only as effective as the strength of the evidence that supports them, as is the case in the discussions that occur in college classrooms. In this case the two articles agreed that something had to be done to improve biodiversity, however they disagreed in what would best improve biodiversity. In the case of “Costing the Earth” the evidence that was given helped explain what biodiversity is, what is threatening it, how it affected multiple areas in the world, and how it’s decline was relative. Unfortunately, in the case of “Let the Locals Lead” the evidence pointed to a desire to expose some biases that can occur while also explaining how to best improve biodiversity.

Smith, Robert J, et al, Let the Locals Lead, Nature, November 19 2009,462.7271, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/462280a.html
Sukhdev, Pavan, Costing the Earth., Nature, November 19 2009,462.7271, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/462277a.html
Rickey Rogers / Reuters / Corbis, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1904174,00.html