How to Effectively Save Animals: Strategies and Actions for Conservation Success

Reframing the Human-Wildlife Relationship: A Positive-Sum Approach

Rising ocean temperatures, deforestation, and the conversion of grasslands to agricultural lands are undeniably impacting wildlife. A 2019 United Nations (UN) report indicated that approximately one million plant and animal species face extinction, with “the average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats [falling] by at least 20%, mostly as 1900.” Insect species are especially vulnerable, with extinction rates roughly eight times faster than those of mammals, reptiles, or birds.

Despite these alarming trends, the widespread claim of a “sixth mass extinction” is premature. Conservation biologist Chris D. thomas suggests that mass extinction would only occur after approximately 10,000 years if current trends persist. National Geographic clarified, “if all species currently designated as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable go extinct in the next century, and if that rate of extinction continues without slowing down” mass extinction could occur within centuries. However, the extinction of all “critically endangered” species in such a short timeframe is highly improbable. Moreover, science journalist Ronald Bailey argues that mass extinction reports, including the UN’s, frequently enough overestimate extinction rates by assuming worst-case scenarios.

While “mass extinction” fears might be overstated, the increasing rate of species extinctions remains a serious concern, necessitating a clarification of prevailing misconceptions about the interests of Earth’s wildlife.

Challenging the Zero-Sum “Man Versus Nature” premise

A perilous misconception posits that human and wildlife interests are fundamentally opposed. This view suggests that economic growth and industrialization benefit humans at the expense of non-human life’s long-term well-being. In reality, long-term dangers of disordered nature are pervasive, and humanity’s potential solutions are indispensable. Advancing human wealth and economic flourishing is necessary to protect wildlife and increase biodiversity.

This zero-sum perspective frequently enough pits humanists and environmentalists against each other.
The late David M. Graber (1948–2022), former Chief Scientist for the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service, expressed an extreme view in 1989. “We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value—to me—than another human body, or a billion of them.” He further stated, “Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Dave Foreman, founder of “Earth First!,” advocated for “aggressive protection of the environment for its own sake,” embracing a “deep ecology” philosophy that values nature intrinsically, not just for its utility to humans. This includes “returning vast swaths of land to nature, ripping out any trace of human intervention.”

George Monbiot, in his 2022 book Regenesis: Feeding the world without Devouring the Planet, argues that “the more land that farming occupies, the less is available for forests and wetlands, savannas and wild grasslands, and the greater is the loss of wildlife and the rate of extinction.” His “counter-agricultural revolution” implies mass impoverishment to lessen human impact on wildlife.

Even the UN, in its biodiversity report’s “Summary for Policymakers,” suggests reducing economic activity and human population growth to protect biodiversity. The summary claims that, “Transformations towards sustainability are more likely when efforts are directed at … lowering total consumption and waste, including by addressing both population growth and per capita consumption.”

conversely, Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, champions human life as the standard of value. In his 2014 book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,he writes,”This is the essence of the conflict: the humanist…treats the rest of nature as something to use for his benefit; the nonhumanist treats the rest of nature as something that must be served.”

In his 2022 book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less, Epstein states, “To the extent one’s primary goal is animal equality one will be morally driven to eliminate all human impacts on animals, including human-benefitting impacts such as the use of animals for medical research.”

While Graber, Foreman, Monbiot, and Epstein differ on priorities, they share the assumption that wildlife’s flourishing depends on human retreat and non-intervention.

Recognizing Nature’s Harsh Realities

Extinction has been the norm since life’s emergence on Earth.Over 99.9% of species are extinct,predating humankind. Most perished in “background extinctions,” while at least five mass extinction events wiped out over 75% of species each time.

The narrative surrounding human impact on wildlife is often framed as a zero-sum game, but a positive-sum approach is essential. Recognizing both the challenges and the potential for human innovation to benefit all life forms is crucial. By embracing technological and scientific progress,we can strive for a multiplanetary future that supports both human and non-human flourishing. Explore the opportunities for lasting progress and responsible stewardship of our planet. Join the conversation and advocate for policies that promote a harmonious coexistence between humanity and the natural world.

Given Dr. Sharma’s emphasis on positive-sum solutions, bio-economic modeling, and collaborative approaches, what concrete examples of policies or initiatives can governments, businesses, and individuals implement to achieve a harmonious coexistence between humans and wildlife?

Reframing the Human-Wildlife relationship: An Interview wiht Conservation Economist, Dr. Anya Sharma

Here at Archyde, we’re constantly exploring the complexities of our world. Today, we delve into the often-fraught relationship between humanity and wildlife. Is it a zero-sum game, or can we find a path towards mutual flourishing? To shed light on this critical issue, we spoke with Dr. Anya Sharma, a leading conservation economist specializing in bio-economic modeling and enduring progress. Dr. Sharma, welcome to Archyde.

Thank you for having me. I’m happy to be here and discuss this vital topic.

Challenging the “Man Versus Nature” Premise: Is harmony Possible?

Many narratives portray human progress as inherently detrimental to wildlife,a kind of “man versus nature” scenario. What’s your take on this prevalent viewpoint?

That’s a dangerous oversimplification. While it’s undeniable that human activities have a significant impact on the habitat, framing it as a purely zero-sum game ignores the crucial role human innovation can play in protecting and even enhancing biodiversity. We have the capacity to develop solutions that benefit both human societies and wildlife populations. Think of advances in sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, and conservation technologies. These are not mutually exclusive; we can achieve economic growth alongside environmental stewardship.

Nature’s Delicate Balance: Beyond the “Mass Extinction” Headline

The threat of a “sixth mass extinction” is frequently cited. How accurate is this characterization, and should we be focusing on specific areas of immediate concern?

The “mass extinction” narrative, while grabbing headlines, can sometimes be misleading. While it’s essential to take the increasing rate of species extinctions seriously, the term “mass extinction” implies something far more catastrophic than what we’re currently observing. The UN’s report highlighted the risks, but scientists like Chris Thomas suggest that the current rate of species loss could not be considered mass species extinction. The most urgent concern lies in addressing specific threats like habitat loss, driven primarily by deforestation and agricultural expansion. Focusing our resources on mitigating these threats and protecting vulnerable ecosystems will have a more immediate and tangible impact.

The Role of Economic Growth in Wildlife protection

Some argue that reducing economic activity and even human population growth is the only way to protect biodiversity.Do you agree with this, or is there a different path forward?

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that economic stagnation or population reduction are necessary prerequisites for protecting wildlife. In fact, a healthy and prosperous economy provides the resources needed to invest in conservation efforts, research, and technological advancements that can mitigate our environmental impact. Further, technological innovations have continually reduced the land consumption of agriculture, thus freeing land for wildlife without sacrificing human well-being.Moreover, wealthier societies tend to prioritize environmental protection and are more willing to invest in sustainable practices. The key is to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation thru policies that incentivize responsible resource management and promote green technologies.

A Positive-Sum Approach: Collaboration and Innovation

You advocate for a “positive-sum approach” to the human-wildlife relationship. Can you elaborate on what this entails and provide some concrete examples?

A positive-sum approach means recognizing that human and wildlife interests are not inherently in conflict. It’s about finding innovative solutions that benefit both. Such as, ecotourism can generate revenue for local communities while together incentivizing the protection of wildlife habitats. Another example is the development of precision agriculture techniques that reduce the need for excessive land clearing and minimize the use of harmful pesticides. Importantly, bio-economic modeling can direct capital towards the most effective conservation policies, creating larger returns for wildlife. Ultimately,it’s about fostering a collaborative approach where scientists,policymakers,businesses,and local communities work together to create a sustainable future for all.

Looking Ahead: A Multiplanetary Future?

The conclusion of this argument alludes to a multiplanetary future. Do you believe this can assist or be detrimental to future environmental and economic policies?

The idea of spacefaring civilization has potential for both immense detriment and benefit. At it’s worst,it could be used to justify environmental irresponsibility as it would suggest a future that would not require a thriving planet. Under more reasonable circumstances, it could foster technological progress that is beneficial to planet earth, providing technology to solve environmental issues here. Ultimately, though, the success or failure of a program of environmental responsibility for a multiplanetary endeavor will come down to leadership decisions.

Inviting Reader Participation

Thank you, Dr. Sharma, for your insightful viewpoint. a question for our readers: What specific solutions do you envision for achieving a more harmonious coexistence between humanity and wildlife? Share your thoughts in the comments below!