From Envirowiki

There is no question that earth’s resources are limited and will ultimately run out if over-harvesting and environmental destruction continues unabated. As a result of human development and settlement, the clear-cutting of forests, depletion of marine fisheries and encroachment upon ecological communities is steadily accelerating the extinction of natural ecosystems and species.

Many scientists have asserted that we are currently facing one of the largest mass extinctions in all of human history. This startling statement prompts many to contemplate how we might go about un-doing the damage that has already been done. The root of the problem, as E.O. Wilson might argue, lies in the stark ideological differences between an economist’s viewpoint and an ecologist’s viewpoint. Both sides raise many thought-provoking arguments that lead one to wonder whether it is really possible to reconcile human progress and development with environmental conservation.

[edit] 1 The Economist

To summarize the chief differences between an economist and an ecologist, it is important to note that an economist is generally more concerned with contemporary issues and tends not to worry about the future consequences of present actions. Thus, an economist is principally concerned with reaping the short-term benefits that the environment could provide at long-term costs. For example, clear-cutting a patch of forest for the quick profit that the timber would provide may come at a long-term cost of driving an indigenous species to extinction, or eroding valuable top-soil. An economist is what Wilson would call a “People-first” thinker. This type of thinker believes that wilderness should always give way to human settlement and civilization, an anthropocentric concept that deems human being as the center of the universe. An economist may further argue that biodiversity is not necessary for human flourishing. Since we cannot put a price on species variation, does it really matter that this variation exists? Because particular species do not necessarily have instrumental value, from an economic standpoint they are not important one way or the other. It should be noted that these are just generalisations, and that there are economists who see the longerterm picture, including the not-so economic long term values or biodiversity and conservation. They are just hard to find amongst the money grubbers.

[edit] 2 The Ecologist

An ecologist, on the other hand, adopts a more biocentric view, in which human progress and development must respect life in the entire biotic community, seek to preserve it and live in harmony with it. While an economist points to the fact that many species do not have economic value, an ecologist would argue that we cannot and should not put a price on biodiversity because a species has value in itself. All life forms have inherent, non-instrumental value; they therefore deserve respect and should not be subject to human domination. Humans have no right to reduce the richness and diversity of life forms except to satisfy vital needs. These ideals parallel Aldo Leopold’s land ethic.

Leopold’s land ethic states that a thing is right if it seeks to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community and it is wrong if it does otherwise. Also, an ecologist is generally more of a forward-thinker, and tends to view our present actions in the long-term, with grave concern for the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In order to attain a level of sustainability today that will allow for the generations of tomorrow to do the same, an ideological shift in values must occur. An ecologist would thus say that humans have a moral duty to appreciate life quality rather than adhere to an increasingly higher standard of living.

It is worth noting too, that the field of ecology has given us many insights into the complexity of life, and the hidden utilitarian values of biodiversity (such as medicine, ecosystem maintenance, etc.). Such insights help to draw the study of Economy back from the simplified mechanised form that it has been increasingly taking since the industrial revolution.

[edit] 3 Finding Common Ground

If the myriad species on our planet have a hope of surviving so that future generations can enjoy them, we must strive to find common ground between the economist and the ecologist. While this task may seem daunting, scientists such as E.O. Wilson believe that building a bridge between an economist and an ecologist’s goals is feasible. The ethical solution, as Wilson would say, is to diagnose and disconnect the two ideologies, as a means of reconciling economic progress with conservation by treating them as one and the same goal.