Preservation of Biodiversity Preservation of biodiversity should be secondary to the well-being of people. Biodiversity preservation has drawbacks. Human beings are the most superior to all other living things on the Earth, and there is no doubt about this given the enormity of human intelligence and what humans have achieved using it since the evolution of mankind on the Earth. In light of this argument, public lands should not be used primarily for the conservation or economic purposes. However, this might have certain negative environmental effects. “ One negative influence, for example, is the agricultural forms of the new migrants to the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. In pre-Colombian times, this area supported an estimated 700, 000 persons (a multiple of todays population) in a sustainable form” (Lutz, n. d.). Interest of human beings needs to be served first. All countries should not be held to the same standards in the preservation of endangered habitats and species because different countries have different levels of economic strength, and socioeconomic and political issues. It is not practicable to establish same standards of preservation in all countries because different countries give different priority to the conservation of biodiversity, and the stance of individual nations is governed by their cultural and religious beliefs, that often vary across nations. Traditional practices such as whaling and killing wildlife for ivory, tiger bones, and rhinoceros horns, etc. are not justifiable because there are better alternatives to these which are not only environment friendlier but also good for the well-being of animals. Conventionally, bones retrieved from animals have been of little to no use for humans. Mostly, these bones have been used for ornamental purposes which can be lived without.
References:
Lutz, W. (n. d.). Population and Biodiversity: A Commentary. Retrieved from
http://www. aaas. org/international/ehn/biod/lutz. htm.
