Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Promoting Biodiversity

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advances in biotechnology mean that it may soon be possible to recreate previously extinct species. This has led to an emerging debate within bioethics about whether we ought to reintroduce extinct species into our ecosystems. In this paper, we discuss the role that biodiversity could play in this debate. Many believe that biodiversity is a good that should be protected. We argue that if biodiversity is a good, then this suggests it should also be promoted, including by reintroducing previously extinct species. We begin by outlining different ways in which biodiversity could be conceptualized, and then analyze various accounts of its value. We suggest no approach justifies an asymmetry between “protecting” biodiversity by conserving species alive today, and “creating” biodiversity by introducing previously extinct species. This suggests that if we have reasons stemming from biodiversity to protect species from extinction, we will have similar reasons to reintroduce previously extinct species. We close by asking whether arguments from biodiversity speak in favor of introducing some novel species into the ecosystem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is also possible to produce numerous hybrid combinations of the above types of diversity. For example, we might understand biodiversity as requiring a certain amount of unit diversity, combined with a certain amount of feature biodiversity. We do not consider hybrid accounts here, because we do not believe they will affect the core ethical analysis we undertake in Parts 3 and 4.

  2. Understood as species richness.

  3. A phylogenetic tree is a diagram that depicts the lines of evolutionary descent of different species from a common ancestor.

  4. For a more extensive account, see (Maier, 2012).

  5. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this point.

  6. This view is implied by (Parens, 1995).

  7. We thank Russell Powell for these points relating to the “balance of nature.” See (Powell, 2010) and (Powell et al., 2011).

References

  • Bostrom, N., & Ord, T. (2006). The reversal test: eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics, 116, 656–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., Garcia, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1, e1400253–e1400253. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2010). Synthetic biology and the ethics of knowledge. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 687–693. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.038232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, T., Powell, R., & Savulescu, J. (2013). Is the creation of artificial life morally significant? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44, 688–696. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.05.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, 2015. Encyclical letter on care for our common home.

  • Gotelli, N. J., & Colwell, R. K. (2001). Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters, 4, 379–391. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoag, H., 2010. Confronting the biodiversity crisis. Nat. Rep. Clim. Change 51–54. doi:10.1038/climate.2010.38

  • Keith, D. A., Rodríguez, J. P., Brooks, T. M., Burgman, M. A., Barrow, E. G., Bland, L., Comer, P. J., Franklin, J., Link, J., McCarthy, M. A., Miller, R. M., Murray, N. J., Nel, J., Nicholson, E., Oliveira-Miranda, M. A., Regan, T. J., Rodríguez-Clark, K. M., Rouget, M., & Spalding, M. D. (2015). The IUCN red list of ecosystems: motivations, challenges, and applications: design of red list criteria for ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 8, 214–226. doi:10.1111/conl.12167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiessling, W. (2005). Long-term relationships between ecological stability and biodiversity in Phanerozoic reefs. Nature, 433, 410–413. doi:10.1038/nature03152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, C. M. (1983). Two distinctions in goodness. Philosophical Review, 92.

  • Lefcheck, J. S., & Duffy, J. E. (2015). Multitrophic functional diversity predicts ecosystem functioning in experimental assemblages of estuarine consumers. Ecology, 96, 2973–2983. doi:10.1890/14-1977.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A.L (1949). A sand county almanac: and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, New York.

  • Loreau, M., & de Mazancourt, C. (2013). Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecology Letters, 16, 106–115. doi:10.1111/ele.12073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, D. S. (2012). What’s so good about biodiversity? The international library of environmental, agricultural and food ethics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. G. (2005). Evolution of ecological and behavioural diversity: Australian acacia thrips as model organisms: book review. Systematic Entomology, 30, 177–178. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3113.2005.00295.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., & Worm, B. (2011). How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology, 9, e1001127. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 16, 95–100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nations, U. (1992). Convention on biological diversity.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, J. (1992). The varieties of intrinsic value. The Monist, 75, 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parens, E. (1995). The goodness of fragility: on the prospect of genetic technologies aimed at the enhancement of human capacities. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5, 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peet, R. K. (1974). The measurement of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5, 285–307. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.05.110174.001441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2012). Unfit for the future: the need for moral enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, R. (2010). What’s the harm? An evolutionary theoretical critique of the precautionary principle. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 20, 181–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, R., Buchanan, A. E., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2011). Response to consultation on emerging biotechnologies the ethical implications of synthetic biology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revive & Restore, 2013. . Revive Restore.

  • Rolston, H. (2006). Intrinsic values on earth: nature and nations. In H. ten Have (Ed.), Environmental ethics and international policy (pp. 47–67). Paris: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, K., & Foote, M. (1997). Morphological approaches to measuring biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12, 277–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. (2010). The value of species and the ethical foundations of assisted colonization. Conservation Biology, 24, 424–431. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01351.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J., & Powell, R. (2013). Mammoth cloning: the ethics. The Conversation.

  • Soule, M. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioScience, 35, 727–734. doi:10.2307/1310054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sukdev, P. (2008). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vucetich, J. A., Bruskotter, J. T., & Nelson, M. P. (2015). Evaluating whether nature’s intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation. Conservation Biology, 29, 321–332. doi:10.1111/cobi.12464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E.., 1988. Editors forward, in: Biodiversity. National Academy of Sciences/Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. v–x.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Gyngell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gyngell, C., Savulescu, J. Promoting Biodiversity. Philos. Technol. 30, 413–426 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0234-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0234-2

Keywords

Navigation