[ad_1]
POLITICS – Biodiversity, "not everyone cares" Two and a half months after his cry of alarm pushed into the torpor of the National Assembly, 45 days after having unveiled the main directions, Nicolas Hulot presents this Wednesday, July 4 his measures to try to stop the decline of natural spaces and species, marked by an unprecedented acceleration.
Sign of general mobilization, the presentation of this "great mobilization for nature" will be done in an interministerial framework under the aegis of the Prime Minister and under the watchful eye of the former animator who had drawn an alarming report last March. "30% fewer birds in a few years, 80% fewer insects on a European scale." Last week, the last big male of Africa's white rhinos disappeared, "he warned. . Symptomatic examples of a more global problem: the extinction rate of species has been multiplied by 100 in a century, according to a recent study.
And the minister reminds that "behind the sixth extinction, the responsibility, c 'us,' asking MPs for a "burst of indignation" to save biodiversity. An objective on which the overwhelming majority of scientists agree. In several shades.
Extinction, a natural phenomenon?
Let us return to the case of the Northern White Rhino. Scientists have put together a crazy plan to try to save the species. In-vitro fertilization. For some biologists it is a bad idea, too expensive, or that could give the idea that technology can solve everything.
Similarly, some researchers hope to be able to save or almost to resuscitate species thanks to the modifications of the DNA (for example, giving birth to an elephant-mammoth hybrid). Again, a much criticized project
Either. But apart from these somewhat extreme cases, all scientists agree to save all possible species of living things, right? Well, it's more complicated. Last November, in Washington Post the biologist Alexander Pyron set foot in the dish with a platform titled "We do not need to save endangered species, extinction is part of evolution. "
" The only reason we should conserve biodiversity is ourselves, to create a stable future for human beings, "he says. There have been extinctions before and after the reign of Man. Circulate, there is nothing to see
As for saying that it is man and not nature who decimated certain species? "But we are part of the biosphere like all other creatures, and our actions are just as volitional, their consequences as natural," he says.
Pyron went so far as to say that after all, the global warming is not so catastrophic, the Earth having already experienced much higher temperatures.
Green wood flock
A provocative and exaggerated text that has earned Alexander Pyron many comments disillusioned and very critical of his colleagues. An open letter signed by more than 3,900 people including 3,400 scientists was even published in reaction in the Washington Post .
It recalls that if the extinction of species is part of the evolution of life, the one that the human being has unleashed, the sixth, seems a thousand times faster than the previous ones. Carl Safina, researcher in ecology and author of many books, says that it will take millennia, at best, for other species to prevail.
Especially, "new species do not 'arise' Suddenly, they are not really new, they are the evolution of existing species, driven by the change of their genes, "he explains. The dinosaurs have disappeared, of course, but their descendants are none other than birds. To leave genetic inheritances so old to die so fast is a moral fault for Carl Safina
"When I hear about the destruction of a species, I feel like when all the works of a great writer disappear "Theodore Roosevelt
A few days after the publication of his tribune, the biologist apologized not having written the provocative title of the article. As for the content, he then nuances it, explaining that saving species to create biodiversity and a "stable world for ourselves and future generations" is obviously a necessity.
Species do they deserve more to survive?
End of the story? Not really. If Pyron's platform took too many shortcuts, its general purpose is not without meaning. Faced with the many climatic and ecological challenges facing our world, can we face everything head-on? And if the answer is negative, then what should we focus on?
Some scientists have asked the question in rather similar terms. Thus, Chris Thomas, ecologist and biologist of evolution, wonders in the New York Times whether the fact that a species of bird disappears on an island is a problem. Because their disappearance follows the arrival, via trade and tourism, of birds coming from other horizons which are more resistant (to malaria, in the example cited) than the local birds.
In short, is the search for maximum diversity, a maximum of different species is so important? "Even if we lost 10% of the total species in the next century, would biology, ecology stop?" In fact, most people would not even be aware of this loss. " says Chris Thomas
Peter Kareiva, a researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), has a pretty close theory. He is not just anyone: he was the director of The Nature Conservancy, a US environmental NGO with more than $ 500 million in funding. He is one of the 30 most cited conservation biologists in the world.
AFP / Getty Images
When asked about the study that most influenced him, he quotes a colleague who wondered what was happening when a species disappears. "He isolated the case of the American chestnut, which once covered 40 to 50% of northeastern America, and whose impact can not be measured."
"I want to prevent But I think that what should have been a reasonable concern for biodiversity has turned into a mere counting of species, "he says. "Let's go back to ecology, that is to say, to understand how systems work, what dynamics control them, the role of species in particular rather than the number of species, how much ecosystems offset losses Peter Kareiva
Behind, there is a concept that is debated within conservation researchers: "ecosystem services". To put it simply, the idea is to ask what are the characteristics that make an ecosystem useful and necessary for the human species.
There are direct links, like what we eat, the air that we breathe, but scientists are not limited to that. We must also understand the impact of different species on their environment. Because this one often affects, in turn, the human being.
In a tribune published in 2011, Peter Kareiva thus put forward certain species whose impact is very important on their ecosystem. Predators at the top of the food chain, large herbivores … One could also mention bees, necessary for the reproduction of plants and, therefore, for human agriculture. All, of course, are more or less threatened with extinction, this is the problem, according to the biologist.
Endangered species become "conservation-dependent"
Behind all this, there is the the idea that in the face of the urgency and the scale of the problem, it may be wise to know, before acting, what to focus our efforts, scientific, human and financial. Especially when we know that some species saved from extinction will never survive without our help.
A 2010 study estimates that 84% of endangered species saved from extinction in the United States for 30 years are "conservation-dependent ". That means they can not survive without help, constant human development of their habitat. Is it then, as some researchers propose, to "sort" the species to be saved?
The problem is that it is very difficult to predict the impact on its environment of the disappearance of a species, note the opponents of this theory. Any choice to let go of a species is irremediable. Who could have said, 200 years ago, that this useless mold would give birth to penicillin and save so many people?
One could choose the species with the most genetic divergence, as some suggest. Except that behind the practical and "utilitarian" question, aimed at ensuring the survival of the human species and current ecosystems in general, there is another more moral, less palpable one. Which can be summed up with this sentence of Carl Safina, who is opposed to this idea of sorting
The things we "depend on" make our life possible, of course. But things we do not need make life worth living. Carl Safina
The risk of a politicization of the debate
There is also another problem, as the researcher recalls in his post, or the article of New York Times. Since the election of Donald Trump, critics of the conservation of biodiversity as it has been achieved so far have gained ground.
Several projects have been proposed to the US Parliament to amend the law that requires States to protect endangered species, dating from 1973. As the American daily says, if some biologists concede that the law deserves to be amended, some proposals, from elected Republicans, are pensive.
For example for two of them, by allowing local communities a kind of veto over the choice of species clbadified as threatened. And thus give the opportunity to local businesses, who sometimes do not want to see their activity framed, to influence the decision, denounce NGOs.
It would be a shame that conservative politicians, defending the coal and climate-skeptical, benefit from a necessary debate between scientists to try to annihilate all our chances of safeguarding terrestrial biodiversity. Or at least part of it
To see also on The HuffPost :
See also:
• Hulot unveils measures of his biodiversity plan
• "The professions of biodiversity are an underestimated potential"
• S ' subscribe to our YouTube channel
• To follow the latest news on The HuffPost click here
• Receive a free newsletter every day HuffPost
• Find us on our Facebook page
[ad_2]
Source link
