How do you value biodiversity?

[carol]

I have read that it is valued less than it should. but i think it would really depend on what kinds of organisms are involved.

 

How to give monetary value to biodiversity? How much value should one give to biodiversity?

[ChemSiddiqui]

Enough I think because biodiversity is the result of evolution. So if there is no evolution then no one would survive in coming time(at least I think!)

[CaptainPanic]

It's priceless.

 

An organism can evolve into something new in thousands/millions of years. If it's extinct, obviously this is no longer possible.

 

Additionally, we can use any organism for our own benefit. We can develop medicine from it, and learn about the workings of nature. Humans are also nature.

 

Additionally, a biodiverse environment is usually more balanced. If we're talking about growing crops, a diverse agriculture is less vulnerable to disease. Any disease breaking out may spread slower and will affect a smaller portion of the crops.

 

And I'm sure more arguments can be found in favor of biodiversity.

 

The one argument against it:

One single crop means that agriculture can be industrialized easier. That means big money.

[foodchain]

Enough I think because biodiversity is the result of evolution. So if there is no evolution then no one would survive in coming time(at least I think!)

 

I agree with you very much on that. In many nations the amount of chemicals introduced to human beings I think is amazing when thought of in chronological sense, to add to this how do you understand what you are doing?

 

In say forestry trying to sustain a forest and or manage it I think also hints on value in that sense. I mean how do you know fully the genetic reality as it would relate to various possible phenotypes alone over time? Yet nursery operations of course are alive and well in terms of replanting for instance what was cut. The point being is dynamic elements of the ecology in time are being rapidly distorted in a short period of time, and of course this is done for gain. So really I could see the difficulty even in just trying to put a value on a natural process billions of years old really either, yet I guess it has to occur really.

[Mr Skeptic]

Many of our medicines stem from other species. Big money there. We are at the start of being able to do stuff like genetic engineering, and biodiveristy represents millions of years of evolution. Until we can design our own proteins very well, the ones found in other life will be of much use to us in the near future.

 

However, this is more related to whether we can can keep the knowledge gained from them, not the species themselves. So as we advance technologically, biodiversity may become less important.

 

In the environment, biodiversity helps maintain an equilibrium.

[CDarwin]

What value do you place on options in an insurance policy? That's what biodiversity is. It is a well of genetic potential. The more diversity the more robustity in a potential catastrophe.

[thedarkshade]

As long as it can be used for the betterment of humanity and other useful cases (scientific research), it absolutely priceless!

[Daecon]

As long as it can be used for the betterment of humanity and other useful cases (scientific research), it absolutely priceless!

But isn't scientific research, by definition, for the betterment of humanity?

[carol]

But isn't scientific research, by definition, for the betterment of humanity?

 

at least that's what i think science is. biodiversity can be valued for the potential benefit that can be gained. if a certain area has some organisms that were identified to have no economic value at the present, economists would put a small value to the biodiversity of that area. thus, it becomes exploited. i think they are ignoring the quasi-option value, the value of the information made available through the preservation of a resource.

[thedarkshade]

But isn't scientific research, by definition, for the betterment of humanity?

Creating nuclear weapons is also scientific, but I don't see the good we get from it!

[Daecon]

Creating nuclear weapons is also scientific, but I don't see the good we get from it!

Oh yeah...

 

Aha!

 

Nuclear weapons are application, not research. The research enabled us to have nuclear power and have lots of (cheaper?) energy for our increasingly technological civilization!

[Sisyphus]

Creating nuclear weapons is also scientific, but I don't see the good we get from it!

 

What, preventing World War 3 wasn't good enough for you?

 

In answer to OP, I should think overall monetary value would be impossible to predict. And since driving a species to extinction is irreversible, it is always something to be strenuously avoided.

 

More importantly though, thinking about it monetary terms is probably too small-minded (understatement). We're talking about securing the continuation of life on Earth. It's bigger even than humanity itself. What is the monetary value of avoiding human extinction?

[CaptainPanic]

I have read that it is valued less than it should. but i think it would really depend on what kinds of organisms are involved.

 

How to give monetary value to biodiversity? How much value should one give to biodiversity?

 

Why would anyone want to put a pricetag on our biodiversity?

 

I generally consider the price of something when I am thinking about the pros and cons of a purchase or action. Is anyone thinking about reducing (or increasing (GMO)) our biodiversity?

 

I can't think of any group, organisation or company causing a reduction in biodiversity who would be interested in the actual monetary value of this biodiversity, or who would consider this price a real argument unless you are planning to put money on their bankaccount.

 

Oh, wait. My local zoo is interested in biodiversity

[thedarkshade]

What, preventing World War 3 wasn't good enough for you?

I'm not good at politics, but I definitely have no idea of what you're talking about!

[CaptainPanic]

Sisyphus means that WW3 was prevented because of the nuclear (for illiterate Texans: nucular) deterrent. Our great leaders were so afraid to die, that they didn't start another world war.

 

How that relates to biodiversity is... eeh... completely straightforward: nucular war, no more bio-anything.

 

Of course, we have only prevented WW3 once we can guarantee that also in the future we're not going to blow each other up... something which I wouldn't bet on with the current instability and increasing number of countries with nukes.

[thedarkshade]

Of course, we have only prevented WW3 once we can guarantee that also in the future we're not going to blow each other up... something which I wouldn't bet on with the current instability and increasing number of countries with nukes.

Well there has also been going on another evolution, the scientific evolution. As the decades past science became more and more sophisticated and now we have reached the peak so far. Perhaps in the near or far future we will create defensive "shields" against nuclear weapons and then freely try to blow each other up.

 

I've been thinking that in a way we are unintentionally stopping biodiversity. Climate changes, nuclear reactor used for "other" purposes are indicators that show that the situation will no more be cool.

 

Who gives a heck about biodiversity when dead anyway? I don't!

[lucaspa]

But isn't scientific research, by definition, for the betterment of humanity?

 

No. Scientific research is about finding out how the physical universe works. Whether or not it is used for the "betterment" of humanity (and how you decide what is "better") is a separate issue.

 

None of the posters have given a mathematical formula or other means of deciding the value of biodiversity. You have all been making arguments (some valid and some not) that biodiversity is valuable.

 

Carol, you have hit upon perhaps the biggest problem in discussing conservationism: trying to give a monetary value to biodiversity. This is not a crass exercise. Monetary value becomes a means of comparing between two very different alternatives; we can use it as a "common denominator" to compare the benefits and costs of different actions: build a port or a shopping mall along a waterfront, for instance. Yes, you can argue that you can't put a monetary value on some things. For instance, you could give the monetary value in increased tax revenues of converting the Old North Church in Boston to a high rise office/shopping building. However, you can't put a monetary value on the history lost by doing so.

 

However, that's a major problem in conservationism. Conservationists (and I am one) have basically emotional and non-quantifiable arguments for preserving species, but have no objective numbers to counter the monetary figures of jobs lost, revenues lost, tax income lost, etc. of conservation issues.

 

Yes, we get medicines from plants and animals (to use one of the valid arguments for preserving species presented), but what is the monetary value of the medicines produced by, say, the Amazon rain forest, compared to the monetary value of turning the forest into ranches and farmland? What is the cost of the lost oxygen production and reduction of carbon dioxide compared to the cost of global warming by that carbon dioxide? The monetary value of the farmland and ranches can be calculated, but not the other side of the equation.

 

I generally consider the price of something when I am thinking about the pros and cons of a purchase or action. Is anyone thinking about reducing (or increasing (GMO)) our biodiversity?

 

Oh yes! After all, the Endangered Species Act preserves biodiversity. Those wanting to get rid of it would reduce biodiversity as those endangered species went extinct.

 

Remember the snail darter? A very small fish that held up some very expensive dams in the Tennessee Valley Authority. You have the monetary value of the electricity and water for agriculture on one side (the pro) vs the con of losing the snail darter and decreasing biodiversity. How much was preserving the snail darter (as a species) worth? Many, many people argued it wasn't worth the hundreds of millions of dollars lost as a result of not building the dams.

 

Much of the argument about drilling for oil on the North Slope in Alaska has to do with biodiversity. By disrupting the ecology of the area, it is feared that many species would go extinct -- reducing biodiversity. Is the continued existence of those species worth the extra money we will pay at the pump for gasoline or the extra money we will pay for electricity?

[thedarkshade]

No. Scientific research is about finding out how the physical universe works. Whether or not it is used for the "betterment" of humanity (and how you decide what is "better") is a separate issue.

My my! You mean like if we found the cure for cancer, then it depends if we want to use it or not? We could leave it out and pretend that it's all fine?!

 

NO! First you find out how something work, you master it, than you use it for your purposes. It's not a matter of desire when it comes to the betterment of humanity! It's a matter of ethics and even laws!

None of the posters have given a mathematical formula or other means of deciding the value of biodiversity. You have all been making arguments (some valid and some not) that biodiversity is valuable.

Then why don't you give us one and tell us exactly how biodiverse is our world!

[Sayonara]

I have read that it is valued less than it should. but i think it would really depend on what kinds of organisms are involved.

 

How to give monetary value to biodiversity? How much value should one give to biodiversity?

This thread has an interesting discussion about why biodiversity ought to be valued in the first place. It might help:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21635

[lucaspa]

NO! First you find out how something work, you master it, than you use it for your purposes. It's not a matter of desire when it comes to the betterment of humanity! It's a matter of ethics and even laws!

 

That's exactly what I said. Science figures out how the physical universe works. How you use that knowledge is a matter of ethics. So a definition of science that says science is "bettering human life" is not an accurate definition of science.

 

My my! You mean like if we found the cure for cancer, then it depends if we want to use it or not?

 

Yes. Look at research into using fetal cells to cure Parkinson's. Several papers showing that this approach does work in animals and may work in humans. Now we decide whether we want to use it or not.

 

The classic example, of course, is nuclear fission. Scientists in the 1930s discovered that fission produced lots of energy. Now, do we use that knowledge to make bombs or power plants? That decision is one of ethics, not one of science.

 

Then why don't you give us one and tell us exactly how biodiverse is our world!

 

There are several sources to tell you how many species there are on the planet. That's how biodiverse our world is. Of course, that doesn't tell us how valuable this biodiversity is. And that was my point: we have no means of telling "exactly" the value of that biodiversity. Most of the posters (including me) agree that biodiversity is valuable, but how do we calculate it? I think you reacted before you got to the next paragraphs of my post, like this one:

 

"However, that's a major problem in conservationism. Conservationists (and I am one) have basically emotional and non-quantifiable arguments for preserving species, but have no objective numbers to counter the monetary figures of jobs lost, revenues lost, tax income lost, etc. of conservation issues. "

[vampares]

I was reading a message-of-the-day calender: it said when a location comes up for conservation, intrest in development for the location rises even when there were no development plans.

 

I think both development of the infrastructure and preservation are important. Planned or created habitates can serve two functions.

 

I don't know how much I'd say I value it because there is so little of it left. What is left is not very valueable or even if it is diverse.

 

Much of what is "preserved" is undevelopable landscape, ie mountains, very cold climates. Farmable land naturally is rich in biomass.

 

We now have the ability to view satellite images of the earth. We have the ability to travel to remote locations within a day or two. We have the ability to communicate and distribute information globally. We have the knowledge of Science to guide our decisions. None of this was possible less than a century ago. It is incredibly frustrating to now need to "remove the plank from one's own eye before the splinter in our brothers" when this should have been done. We are saddling our children up our parents problems. The leading nations of the world are concerning themselves with corprate issues.

 

We get by ignoring the eyesore. Politicians are clever. They cool a hot topic off through tiring out an issue. They just tie themselves in knots about something until it becomes easier to ignore. Ignorance is not bliss. Even if problems are "solved" more will be created. Why have an "internet" if it isn't going to be utilized? In this way we even discard many benefits of society we did not discard before radio, television and the internet.

[iNow]

And this has what all to do with biology?!?

[lucaspa]

I was reading a message-of-the-day calender: it said when a location comes up for conservation, intrest in development for the location rises even when there were no development plans.

 

I think both development of the infrastructure and preservation are important. Planned or created habitates can serve two functions. ...

 

Let me echo iNow. Nowhere in your post do you refer to calculating the value of biodiversity and most of it has nothing to do with biology even. It's a lot of heat, but no light.