TED Conversations

Drew Thompson
Eugene, OR
United States

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How does affluence impact biodiversity?

The idea that affluence plays a role in environmental harm has been around since the 1970’s. During that time, Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren incorporated affluence into their IPAT equation which stated: environmental impact equals population times affluence times technology. While biodiversity is not explicitly mentioned in this theory, it is intimately linked to environmental health. Biodiversity is the measure of variation among life forms from microbes to trees, and as such, the state of the environment will directly effect the diversity of organisms it supports.

This issue of affluence and the environment is more prevalent today than ever, as the number of consumers is increasing dramatically in rapidly growing nations such as China and India. These consumers often follow in the footsteps of Western countries, with appliances and automobiles becoming the norm for many households. The need for more material wealth brings the need for more energy and the extraction of raw materials. A more urbanized landscape can be expected as well. As these cultures shift in their lifestyles and values, how will biodiversity be affected? In what ways do a society's affluence harm the genetic and species diversity of the surrounding environment? Is it possible that positive changes in values or technology could allow for affluence to rise without detriment to natural habitats and biodiversity?

Sort By:

Mary M. 100+
- 0
Apr 30 2012: Your question reminded me of an article I have from the 1990's on the rainforest. I am only giving you the first few paragraphs of the article. It is food for thought:

"A CROWD is watching a soccer match and cheering wildly. They wish the game would last forever. But they keep shooting the players. One by one, the dead are carried off the field. The crowd becomes enraged when the game slows down.
Deforestation is much the same. Humans enjoy the forests, depend on them, in fact. But they keep killing off the equivalent of the players: the individual species of plants and animals, whose complex interplay is what keeps the forest alive. This is more than a game, though. Deforestation affects you. It touches the quality of your life, even if you have never seen a rain forest.
It is the tremendous variety of living things, what scientists call biodiversity, that some argue is the greatest asset of the rain forests."

(The article is longer, but I am cutting it here)

Affluence in and of itself does not have to harm earth's biodiversity. It is thoughtless humans who are responsible for not looking at the consequences of their irresponsible acts and wastefulness.

Let's hope that we see a dramatic change soon....as Paul Palmer mentions in his comment.

But how will the change come? And who will take the lead worldwide? We'll have to wait and see.

Finally, you ask as your final question: "Is it possible that positive changes in values or technology could allow for affluence to rise without detriment to natural habitats and biodiversity?"...........my reply.......I hope so, I sincerely hope so!!!!!
Matthew Kinsella 50+
- +1
Apr 30 2012: With cultures like China and India shifting their lifestyles and values to a more materialistic, westernized influence, the biodiversity that surrounds those area's can be negatively affected. Convenience is the main driving force for many people in the world today and more often than not technology and material items help make that possible. Unfortunately while this is being made for humans, other things have to pay the price such as biodiversity. Land that was once home to a number of plants, animals, and other organisms will be destroyed for the sole purpose of extracting raw materials that just happen to be there. Even the development of roads so that that mining area can be accessed more easily pushes the organisms further away, perhaps even killing them. The wants and needs of items made from raw materials start to outweigh the appreciation for having those raw materials and privilege that the materials are there in the first place. The notion that being able to want something and doing what you can to obtain it sets that view that anything can be yours, but why is that true? What gives you the right to feel you can have what you want? Resources are made available for the opportunity to live, not as something to make a living on.
Sydni Rucks 50+
- 0
Apr 30 2012: The consumption of Americans is at an all time high and is still on the upward swing. And, as you mentioned, other countries are growing to the level that we have been operating at. This has to cut down drastically on biodiversity since more humans and more consumption means that there will be a huge decline in the diversity health. Simply because there is a limited amount of space and if humanity continues to use up and take up resources, we are a sort of invasive species that spreads and thrives in the environment that we degrade. I don't mean to say that we don't have the capacity to live within our means, but we do live outside of what it should be.

Surrounding environments are always changed by urbanization either through edge effects or lack of range for larger animals. This would in turn lead to a cascade effect of the negative kind. As to whether or not we can continue to consume at this rate, or even a higher one, without affecting the biodiversity and natural habitat; I don't think we can. We are very good at changing our environment and dealing with problems after they have occurred, but I feel like we would adapt too little too late.
Beatrix Bacher
- 0
Apr 30 2012: I think that the way that affluence is measured has a negative impact on biological diversity. Affluence in our culture is seen as something to flaunt, have a big house which requires lots of materials to build and energy to heat, have a big car that consumes gasoline, etc. As more countries have the ability to follow this model of "affluence" which leads to environmental degradation, then more and more biodiversity will be lost. However, if there is a shift from such unnecessary excesses to more sustainable consumption of resources then biodiversity can flourish. There are enough resources on earth to sustain every person, but not at the rate that resources are being wasted and destroyed.
However, affluence makes this change seem unnecessary and counterproductive because everything seems fine as it is. People who live with affluence are generally happy to live as they have and changing the value structure of society would disrupt what many see as normal and positive. Affluence can lead to apathy and the desire to remain at the status quo.
Austin Diamond
- 0
Apr 30 2012: I think affluence is undeniably inversely related to biodiversity and will be so for the forseeable future, until the Green Age -- that is, the time when the paradigm shifts -- comes to fruition. Today, there are "green" entrepreneurs, a select several businesspersons who are able to capitalize on the environmental wave sweeping through (parts) of America, but the majority of the affluent (those who have the highest "standard of living" and income) are those have the largest footprint.

Traditionally we think of the affluent as the technology-producers. All else falls to the wayside. However, I think a paradigm shift will be marked by a grassroots passion, in which the sparks that lighten up the country will be born from marginal and unmarked movements. "Corporations are people" too, but it is the individuals (who do not necessarily fall under a larger umbrella term) who are most potent, who have witnessed the earth's energy ebb and flow, who are free to weave the stories which will bind the web of diversity together once more.
Wayland Tan
- 0
Apr 30 2012: More likely than not, as developing countries try to obtain the same affluence as the developed countries, biodiversity will take a hit. I say this because thus far, most of the developing countries will be trying to follow the infrastructure, plans, and so on that were already set down in the past by the developed countries- it's already there and they're trying to "catch up" anyways, so they'll choose the easiest path (or at least, the path that seems to have the least risk). For the ones that choose this path, this will result in things that we've seen in multiple other areas; exploitation of resources to gain revenue, fragmentation of ecosystems and environments, etc.

As for the possibility of positive changes in values/technology allowing for affluence to rise without damaging natural habitats and biodiversity... I think it's there, in that we'll be capable of doing it. It just becomes a question of whether people will become motivated enough and do so in time to make it reversible. People are capable of many things, some of which are brilliant and wondrous, and I really hope that we can get -both- the change in cultural values and the right technology in time. Because if we don't put our whole being into preventing biodiversity loss , or at least do some little bit that we can do to help, it won't be enough.
Neil Deatherage 50+
- +1
Apr 30 2012: The equation by Ehrlich and Holdren that environmental impact can be expressed in terms of I=PAT is very intriguing particularly in relation to the degradation of our earth's biological biodiversity. I can't help but wonder if the equation could use some modification or possible updating or tweaking? The discussion at large here is how does Technology and Affluence affect environmental impact- and I believe there are many great ideas and arguments here for each side of different coins- is Technology the demise or possible future hero and how much Affluence is the right amount to be beneficial?

So with all of opinions and debates on the table and once the dust settles, I can't help but wonder which of the three (Population, Affluence, Technology) variables is most important, and what, if any coefficients could go in front of them?

Current equation: I=PAT

What I wonder: I=xPyAzT

The topic here is focused on Affluence and Technology, yet can any value be added to either three to give greater importance and how that might change from today to 2050 or 2100? I feel Population should have the highest coefficient by a long shot because we humans are undoubtedly the cause of not only biological degradation but nearly all other problems we are facing on earth- yet what weighs more detrimental with Affluence or Technology? And how might those values change as Technology becomes more advanced and Affluence shifts around our world over time? I understand such questions might be slightly off topic, yet very relevant because it is important to consider which of the three variables is most damaging to biology- for this discussion in particular Affluence or Technology- so we may then better understand what questions to be asking next.
- Drew Thompson 50+
  - 0
  Apr 30 2012: Some very interesting thoughts Neil. Obviously the simplistic nature of the IPAT equation cannot encompass the true complexity of human-environment interactions. I like that you mention how value can be added or subtracted to each component. These additions and subtractions of value could come from differences in scientific advancement or even cultural values. It will be interesting to see if in the coming decades, similar environmental "equations" come forth in the literature to try and boil down the complex balance between humans and the environment.
Theresa Berkovich
- 0
Apr 30 2012: I think that with positive changes, that affluence could continue to rise and not have such a negative impact on biodiversity and the environment. I think that it all depends on what the affluence actually is. Sure we might have an abundance of wealth or of products but if they are things that do not damage the environment as much such as eco-friendly products, then I think that we can reduce the negative correlation between affluence and the environment. In some ways an increase in affluence and technology could be beneficial if it is used in the right way such as advancements to help the environmental causes. We cannot go forward and fix all of the damage that has been done to the environment and to biodiversity without an increase in affluence. For example, in the early 90s there were high levels of lead found in the air due to cars. Now, even though the amount of cars has significantly increased, the process in which they are made and the materials in which they are composed of are much more eco friendly causing less overall lead concentrations in the air. This is significant because lead is a heavy metal that can bioaccumulate in many species which could directly result in the loss of bio diversity.
Alexa Westerbeck
- 0
Apr 30 2012: I think that if we continue to grow populations and expand on technology in a way that is ignorant of the environment, we will most certainly see biodiversity begin to be affected. As areas become more urbanized we will begin to see certain species disappear as their natural habitats are tampered with. However, I think that there is hope in maintaining biodiversity in developing nations while also advancing technology. While other countries such as India and China have already affected their environments to a point of near no return, I think that more recent ideas about being eco-friendly will be incorporated into areas that are not fully developed as they become more affluent. Remaining conscientious about our surroundings and evaluating the consequences that our actions may have are key in moving forward.
Kirsten Gotting
- 0
Apr 30 2012: These questions immediately make me think of the book "Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh" by Helena Norberg-Hodge. This ethnography illustrates how the affluence of modern society can negatively impact not only the environment, but also interpersonal relations of the people that live on the land. When Helena first arrived in Ladakh the air and water were clean and clear, and the people happy and content without the need of any modern conveniences. Helena watched over the course of twenty years as modern society reached out to infect this society. As the Ladakhi became more and more involved in modern society, the air and water became polluted, and the people became homeless and unhappy. In this situation not only was there a negative impact to the environment, but the people were also severely affected. This exemplifies how modern technology as we know it negatively impacts the environment as well as the people. At this point, most indigenous cultures that once lived in harmony with the land have now been exposed to modernization. With this modernization comes abuse of the land to expunge its resources, and general discontent at the inability to become affluent. Material wealth isn't important if both the people and the environment are suffering, especially when the means to obtain material wealth involve sacrificing the land and biodiversity that maintain this planet.
Logan Hein
- 0
Apr 30 2012: To me it seems inevitable that affluence has a negative impact of biodiversity. Greater affluence=Consuming more of the world's carrying capacity=less carrying capacity to support others=less organisms can survive=less biodiversity. Although like with many things, the issue of affluence's effect on biodiversity is more of a "how much" than a "whether or not" and in that sense, I think there are far too many factors to create some sort of "conversion factor" between the two.

A tricky thing about affluence in terms of affluence is that it's a situation where the bar is set high. By that I mean is that that average level of affluence in a nation like America is, as far as I've seen, set as a sort of minimal acceptable level-everything below that is considered to border on inhumane. This all despite that fact that, compared to most of humanity's history, the average American basically lives like a king, and a lot of the things we take for granted are really very much luxuries. But because this kind of lifestyle has already been attained by many, it is considered inhumane for people to be stuck with less-and I can't say that way of thinking doesn't have its merit; it's certainly the "kindest" way of thinking about things. But for everyone in the world to live at such a high level of affluence, and even for the people who already live the high life to continue indefinitely isn't feasible. And the bar can't be lowered. For now at least, that high level of affluence is attainable and everyone knows it, and the idea that it lasts now but can't last forever doesn't stick and it never has. I do think, however, that if education and-dare I dream, advertisers-started treating like new advancements as added luxuries rather than all new necessities that you absolutely need even though somehow everyone before got by just fine without it, and treated advancement itself as a luxury as opposed to some inalienable right, I think it might be possible to stop the bar from going higher.
Bre Senate
- 0
Apr 30 2012: I don't believe that an increase in affluence necessarily equates an increase in environmental impacts. I am not of the thought that technology will solve all of our problems. I do agree that with the right motivation and development affluence can promote biodiversity when applied towards technological and scientific advancements which promote biodiversity.
Casey Gibbons
- 0
Apr 30 2012: What I don't understand is the role of "technology" in the equation by Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren stating: environmental impact equals population times affluence times technology. If anything, I would think technology would decrease environmental impact with the switch to cleaner energy sources such as wind turbines and hybrid cars. It seems to me that the increase in technology would help the environment considerably. I do believe however in the case of hybrids, they need to make them appeal to a different group of people. Currently it feels like they are made to appeal to those who already are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, whereas they should be targeting those who are unaware of their actions. This could be done by putting the cleaner system methods in meaner looking cars such as the mustang, camaro, challenger etc. I for one would never drive a Prius based purely on aesthetics, until a hybrid muscle comes out, I will stick to my 15 miles to the gallon 2 seater. I have veered off the point a little, but the bottom line is with increasing affluence, they need to make the cleaner choice more appealing not to those who are actively looking for ways to reduce their carbon footprint, but to those who do not decide what products they buy based on environmental impact.
- Victor Petri
  - 0
  Apr 30 2012: And technology has always been as such, when automobiles replaced horses as the main transport, it was an environmental blessing. 20% of all land in agriculture was used for feeding them. The amount of methane they produced was insane, and horse dung lay knee deep in all the big cities, with vacant plots filled with dung piled higher than people.
- Drew Thompson 50+
  - 0
  Apr 30 2012: The technology component to the IPAT equation can positively or negatively contribute to environmental impact. There are obviously endless technological advancements that reduce ecological damage, but there are also a good deal of technology that allows humans to cause more destruction.
Lisa Murphy
- 0
Apr 30 2012: Obviously as the numbers of humans rapidly grows, and perhaps more importantly, the amount of damage to the Earth each person does grows, biodiversity will be more and more negatively affected. Growing societies are becoming more industrialized and this will only add to the pollution, habitat loss, and resource loss that humans create on Earth. It is unfair and unrealistic to expect developing countries to forgo using and implementing many of the technological advancements that developed countries have been enjoying for decades, even if so many more people using these advancements will be more than the environment can handle. So, since it is inevitable that vastly more people will soon be contributing a massive amount of energy and resource usage on the planet, the best thing to do now is try and prepare for that. Research towards greener technologies is key because humans cannot continue to consume how they do now and expect to be on this Earth for much longer. The best thing people can do now is prepare for a future with higher energy needs and hopefully come up with better ways to get the energy.
Tina Zhu
- 0
Apr 29 2012: There are over 7 billion people on the Earth today. The energy used to keep this place we call home functioning is 259,000,000 MWh and counting. More than 90% of that energy comes from a non-renewable source. If we take a second to think about the what this means, not only are we denying future generations the use of natural resources such as coal and natural gas, but we are also emitting so much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that it is starting to affect the climate. This drastic climate change is affecting not only the animals and the overall biodiversity of our planet but also affecting us humans. If this isn't enough, the timber we are using per year to heat those big houses that we built are knocking out a number of species at a time. A lot of people are avoiding this topic because it doesn't seem like a big enough issue. And we have plenty of money, technology, and even intelligence to fix the problem when it gets here. And its true, we are a smart and if we all put our minds to it, we could fix the problem when its at its worst. But will it be too late? Will we have lost too much by that time? I believe we could have a positive impact on the environment and biodiversity but only if we start soon.
Derek Smith 50+
- 0
Apr 29 2012: Until there is a paradigm shift in the way we interact with other nations and nature itself, biodiversity is going to suffer. The ever growing need of resources from affluent nations will out strip most short term benefits. That being said technology can help alleviate some of the issues, such as burning fossil fuels into another resource, but will other resources like solar, wind, and/or hydrothermal on a large scale be any better?
Amanda Hooper 50+
- 0
Apr 29 2012: It is clear that biodiversity is being affected by humans, but biodiversity would be changing whether humans were here or not. I feel like another way to look at it is how much are humans affecting biodiversity beyond what would be naturally occurring. However, are humans not also natural? Where should the line be drawn between naturally occurring human activity and the unnatural?

In regards to positive changes in values or technology, I feel as though a positive change to one person may be seen as negative to another. For example, an advancement in technology may seem positive to people who will directly benefit from it but if this advancement requires a further destruction of an ecosystem in order to harvest raw goods, others would likely view this advancement as a negative. So to answer the question, no I don't feel like it is possible for there to be advancements without detriments because no matter how one goes about it, resources will always be taken from somewhere and someone will always end up disappointed.
Andrew Moore
- 0
Apr 29 2012: I would have thought that developing countries nowadays would be more environmentally conscious than they are, given the changing worldview that the environment is a precious resource and we are destroying it at a rapid rate. However, I don't find this to be the case in many areas of the developing world, China would be a good example of this. Poor water and air quality in many areas of the country only goes to show that, like the United States, they are prioritizing human concerns such as housing over environmental ones. Only when people are negatively affected by prior decisions to neglect the environment in favor of more housing, farmland, etc. will they begin to manage resources more carefully and thus slow the rate at which they damage the environment.
David Liming
- 0
Apr 29 2012: Thought this was an interesting article on affluence and the environment

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/8/4963.full
Heath Jones
- 0
Apr 29 2012: Although technology could potentially reduce our impacts on Earth’s biodiversity and natural habitats, we all need to make lifestyle changes to avoid complete destruction of Earth’s biodiversity. We live as if Earth has infinite resources and humans are the primary cause for the current mass extinction. In my opinion, it will be very difficult to increase our affluence without harming our biodiversity since this current mass extinction is directly correlated to the industrialization of many different countries. Furthermore, the world population will continue to grow and place greater stress on our planet. Given our history of over-exploitation of Earth’s natural resources, I believe it will take something truly catastrophic, such as severe water shortages, for humans to make the necessary lifestyle changes needed to preserve our planet’s biodiversity.
Nancy Sullivan
- 0
Apr 29 2012: For those of us working in the developing world these issues are never going to be straightforward, but quite alot of theory has been generated around appropriate technologies in support of decentralized communities and services which, as you can imagine, are the counterweight to urbanization and big industrial downstream processing centers (as China has planned). In Papua New Guinea, as with other Pacific Island States, wealth creation has tended to rely on environmentally destructive practices, but the communications media has become an centripedal force away from these, allowing small farmers to access markets, services, politicians and ideas from distant locations and cutting out the middlemen and transport costs, including envrionmental costs. Much the way countries like PNG tend to jump forward faster than large first world behemoths, getting fax machines before telexes and mobile phones before landlines, things like solar technolocgies, wind turbines, small scale fermentaries and processing facilities will soon outpace the centralized dinosaurs of the past and in fact create more sustainable wealth for remote people (who dont have to move to towns, can invest in their own areas, bank at home, educate in the village etc), and in this way support biodiversity of a micro order: cultural and linguistic diversity, the richness of plural ideas and thought processes, and thus the constant motion of trial and error and invention---and not least, the protection of local lands and habitats by their natural guardians. It's not a balanced equation by any menas right now, but it could be soon enough.
- Victor Petri
  - 0
  Apr 29 2012: Urbanisation will continue, and that's a good thing.
  http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environmental_heresies.html
  It is increased interaction between people that improves our lives.
Eric Parsons
- 0
Apr 29 2012: If the United States were to step up and create very strict ordinances to combat biodiversity losses, would developing nations feel the need to follow in our footsteps or would they take the path with the least resistance? Unfortunately, the topics of biodiversity loss and the effects of our consumerism tends to be limited to academia and often fails to reach the vast majority of the public who may not be aware of the damaging effects our economy has on biodiversity. If the United States were to put consumerism at the backbone of the issue, then perhaps we could demand "greener" products and help ebb the losses of biodiversity world wide. The affluence that leads to consumerism certainly does not limit the damage to biodiversity to just the country of affluence but also to the countries who produce our products. Essentially, our economy may be able to wield immense power globally because foreign countries which produce our products would be forced to decrease their impact and increase their infrastructure.
Nathan Heidt
- 0
Apr 29 2012: I believe that the current trend of "urbanization" and "modernization" has created a threat to our planet that has never existed before. With more developing countries gaining affluence and consumerist ideals, their effect on climate change and the loss of biodiversity will also continue to grow. This does not necessarily spell doom for the human race however, as developing countries gain affluence they also rapidly gain knowledge. This knowledge base continues to grow as more countries join and share within the global society. Our planet is definitely facing a grim picture right now, but with our ingenuity and a crisis mentality, we can quickly change our malpractices and reverse the effects our society is having on the planet. This challenge must begin at the local level but as more support for a better society is gained, it's momentum will spill over into many different fields and a positive chain reaction will occur on a massive scale. So I believe that the current rise in affluence around the globe can correlate with a healthier planet, however, for this to occur, we can no longer be living in a fog about our effects on the planet. The truth must be realized before our society can truly make a positive change.
Molly McDevitt
- 0
Apr 28 2012: After watching Paul Gilding's talk about the how the "Earth is full" in combination with my own observations, I do no believe that there appears to be any way in which increased affluence can in any provide positive change to the planet. As many of us are aware, humans are the epitome of an invasive species. Therefore, we are out competing the species we share this planet with. Hence, there are very little ways that we will be able to provide for those who we share our ecosystem (the globe as a whole) with. I DO believe that we, as humans, have the capability to have a lesser impact on the biodiversity of the planet. However, in my opinion we cannot have a positive impact on heterozygocity and maintenance of healthy ecosystems. Increase affluence generally implies increased ability to consume (regardless of whether the product consumed is more eco-friendly, consumptions negatives effects the planet). Consumption for the individual is meant to benefit the individual and therefore, increase the individuals wellbeing and fitness on an evolutionary standpoint. Therefore, by increasing our fitness (as an invasive specie) we decrease the quality of habitat for other species, which will eventually lead to a decrease in genetic and species diversity.

I realize my arguments are not very optimistic because I believe that the damage has already been done. This by no means implies that individuals should stop reducing their carbon footprint, encourage technology to aid in the increase in biodiversity, etc. Each individual and slow down the negative impacts. That is valuable in its own.
Brooke Bilyeu
- +1
Apr 27 2012: This question remind me of the book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" which is about the global issues of climate change, overpopulation, and the rise of the middle class. As the world becomes more even, or flat, financially the "increased quality of life" puts an intense strain on our natural resources. In response to your question is it possible that technology will allow for increased affluence without harm to the environment I would say no. The IPAT formula is not perfect, but it does highlight how important affluence and technology are. I personally do not have enough faith in technology to say that it can counteract the negative impacts of affluence. Technology is very resource dependent, and even as it improves there is no way to, for example, stop using lithium in batteries. On the other hand technology hopefully will help decrease environmental damage to a point. What really needs to be addressed is our consumer society. How we view material things is not natural and although it has it's benefits such as creating a high speed economy, we need to stop ignoring the negative side.
- Matthew Nelson
  - 0
  Apr 28 2012: I agree. Unless we perfect space travel to the point where we can move the entirety of our population to another planet, the advancement of technology may not be enough to propel us towards environmental redemption. Although we can continue to advance technology--as we speak, replacements for lithium in batteries are being researched--we are not addressing the issue of over-consumption. Our planet only has so many resources and although we can make things smaller and smarter, they still use resources. This poses an increasing problem as the global population increases, and with it, affluence. Maybe it isn't possible for every human to own a car? Maybe the way the average citizen lives in western society cannot be spread to the masses? We continue to ignore the role consumption has on environmental destruction. We choose, instead, to buy our new priuses to show the onlookers how "green" WE are, without acknowledging that the increased energy and resources that go into building and running a prius (including the lithium battery) may never be overcome by the fuel saved during its lifetime when compared to the clunker at the used auto lot. In this way, producers have spent billions if not trillions of dollars in advertising to let us know that it's okay to buy that bottle of water because it contains 20% recycled plastic. Isn't that nice.
  
  So, as I sit here on my computer, railing against affluence in my comfortable apartment, how do we make this transition from consumer to steward? Even those of us who realize that consumerism may be the problem are stuck in the way society views these products. I'm at a loss for a viable solution. How do we convince people that the solution might be to work backwards from the INCREDIBLY comfortable lives many of us live towards a life of treating the world with respect?
  
  Food for thought. I don't have an answer people will like.
- Olivia Hurd
  - 0
  Apr 29 2012: I agree with the technology part. I don't think that technology can counteract the negative impacts of affluence. Technology requires us to do lots of mining to get the rare minerals needed to make many of the technologies today. Cell phones, computers and even Prius' require rare minerals which require much more mining than coal and other minerals that are more common. This mining for rare minerals requires more mining and destruction of the environment than normal mining and most often in very remote places. These minerals are only found in small quantities in very remote places.
  
  These Prius' are supposedly better for the environment, but in reality they are not. Even though they are advertized and seen as the best for the environment. They require the mining of rare minerals and use other forms of energy to run, rather than gasoline. They use energy that comes from coal, nuclear, and/or hydroelectricity which is just as or more damaging than the burning of fossil fuels.
  
  I think in some ways technology can help, but it is more likely that is will result in more damage to the environment before it does any good.
Christina Thommes
- +1
Apr 27 2012: I agree that it is often the middle levels of affluence that have the greatest impact on biodiversity loss. It is these levels where people have the luxuries that have become necessities, such as cars and large homes, but cannot quite afford the more environmentally friendly equivalents. Higher levels of affluence means more money to contribute to the production of ecosystem-preserving products and conservation projects occurring locally and abroad. In these cases, affluence has more of a positive impact on biodiversity preservation rather than destruction. Also, biodiversity loss can be attributed to the necessity associated with poverty. In many African nations, bush meat hunting is a common practice, and people are killing endangered primates simply because they have nothing else to eat.

Because people are beginning to realize the extent to which our actions impact the planet, technology can be utilized to create new products and services that reduce the number of human caused extinctions. This is only possible with increasing affluence in developed and developing nations. With increased awareness of the importance of biodiversity conservation, perhaps ecosystems can still be preserved as developing nations grow and prosper.
In order for all of this to occur, there needs to be a change in the way we view the relationships between technology, money and the environment. Utilizing technology to better the planet and prevent biodiversity loss must become a necessary process instead of one only used when it will cause minimal financial loss.
- Victor Petri
  - 0
  Apr 28 2012: Considering the first part, with which I agree completely, the logical way forward would be to maximize affluence as fast as possible. Every to humans related parameter correlate positively with wealth, so let us grow.
  - Helen Rappe
    
    0
    Apr 30 2012: On the scale of the individual human's quality of life, I agree that perhaps "maximizing affluence" is a way to slow the destruction of Earth's biodiversity. Hypothetically, let's say we find a person whose job is to extract oil from the Amazon rain forest and give him enough money to be able to quit his job, buy a big house, and live in leisure for the rest of his life. We now have one less person directly contributing to biodiversity destruction. However, this person is still indirectly contributing to the extinction of species by his standard of living. Even if he works to combat biodiversity loss, merely by driving a car, heating his house, and using a lot of water (the lifestyle of most residents of affluent nations), he will be supporting the industries that contribute to it.
    
    The affluent way of life on this planet is made possible by the destruction of habitat, ecosystems, and biodiversity by those who are not as affluent. Without the people clearing rain forest to make way for coffee and oil palms, without those whose farming practices result in desertification of already semi-arid land, without these non-affluent people who must take part in these activities or have no way to feed themselves, the affluent way of life would not be possible. Our society has developed in such a way that not everyone can be affluent. Not only are there not enough resources for everyone in the world to have a car and a nice house and running water and a computer and an ipod, but all these things are made possible by the biodiversity-destroying labors of less well-off nations and people whose activities fuel the world's infinite growth-model economy.
    
    Yes, with affluence comes more opportunity for combating biodiversity loss, but that does not mean that affluence should be "maximized," at least not in the way that affluent countries were able to attain their state of high quality of life--by consuming the world's resources.
Patrick Mazi
- 0
Apr 27 2012: I think the relationship between biodiversity and affluence is probably resembles a bimodal curve. One one side, the smallest levels of affluence (think--indigenous hunter-gatherer cultures) have very little negative impacts on biodiversity. As you move across the spectrum to the middle levels of affluence (the vast majority of countries and people) the impact of cars, electrical power, permanent housing, manufacturing, etc. is at its peak levels. The at the end with most affluence, individuals are capable of generating lots of money to strive for carbon neutrality, conservation efforts, and other "green" efforts and many seem interested in doing so.

I think a better question would be: how does the generation of wealth affect biodiversity? This question has the ability to be answered with quantifiable metrics... carbon emissions of various companies, habitat destruction by logging/oil/farming industries, and chemical output by manufacturing plants. These things can be measured and subsequent data collection can be done to measure the impact on the environment locally, regionally, and globally. Until the ideas of biodiversity, conservation, and "going green" move past buzz words and into specifics, I think it will be difficult to build enough support for actual positive change.
Brett Gottfried
- 0
Apr 27 2012: Yes biodiversity is being affected largely by humans, unfortunately humans don't care. Just like Paul Gilding said humans don't really care what they are doing because to the average person nothing is changing. Humans wont try and change their ways until their pets start dieing off or the sky turns into a smoggy yellow color. Once the average everyday person is confronted with a change that they can see them selves is when they will change. I think that humans aren't uncaring animals we just are lazy and don't want to deal with problems till they become so massive that they threaten their normal way of life.
- Victor Petri
  - 0
  Apr 28 2012: If humans wouldn't care, there would be nothing unfortunate with biodiversity loss.
  There is nothing intrinsically good of more biodiversity as opposed to less biodiversity. Nature doesn't care, the Earth doesn't care. 4.6 billion years of thoughtless and aimless increase and decrease in biodiversity we had, and 4 billion years are yet to come. The only thing that more biodiversity is good for, is that it supports more biodiversity.
  The amount of biodiversity lacks any intrinsical value, the only value it has, is because of the fact that we do indeed care.
  
  When 65 million years ago a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs was this a bad event? Or just an event? No one was around conscious enough to care, no one was there to provide a moral judgement on the event.
  
  If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
  - Terry Harman
    
    0
    Apr 28 2012: The Permian/Triassic end extinction event, which has been called the mother of all extinctions caused some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Even the insects suffered and it has been suggested that the reason it was so severe was owing to a cascading eco-system faliure, where enough species went extinct to cause the whole thing to collapse like a house of cards. Be a shame for us if that happened, would even have an economic impact and upset the most dedicated cornucopian capitalist...
    - Victor Petri
      
      0
      
      Apr 29 2012: Thanks for confirming my statements.
Terry Harman
- 0
Apr 27 2012: I was reminded today of another bio-diversity side effect of increasing global affluence, as it relies on global trade links it can inadvertantly lead to the spread of invasive species. The news article in question was on the arrival in the UK of disease carrying mosquitoes from South East Asia in a consignment of tires although that appears to have been an isolated incident.

Another invasive species of concern in my local area of UK is the Asian Longhorn beetle, believed to have arived in a shipment of timber from China, a quick google shows it has already become a problem in the Eastern United States. I'm sure that anyone living in proximity to the Great Lakes or indeed many US waterways doesn't need reminding of the Zebra Mussel, thought to have been introduced via water ballast from the Black Sea. Certainly rats introduced to Pacific islands have led to the extinction of many native bird species. The list goes on and on and it's not something that can be solved by consumer choices or changing production and 'waste management' methods.
- Victor Petri
  - 0
  Apr 28 2012: Continental species practically never become extinct, so you could argue that invasive species raise the biodiversity locally in continental regions. In my home town Rotterdam I greatly enjoy the arrival of the beautiful South American Parakeet.
  - Frans Kellner 100+
    
    0
    TED Translator
    
    Apr 28 2012: De halsbandparkiet (Psittacula krameri) is een exoot uit tropisch Afrika en Zuid-Azië.
    
    With this you are as accurate as with everything you claim to know about life.
    - Victor Petri
      
      0
      
      Apr 28 2012: Pathetic to discredit my whole reasoning because a totally irrelevant thing I mention is incorrect.
  - Terry Harman
    
    0
    Apr 28 2012: Well about from the ones on these lists, excepting the ones on the lists from islands which according to you are a special case.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals
    
    Incidently the reasoning for excluding island species is presumably beacuse they are limited in number and geographical extent in the first place? If so we might as well not include the species found in continental rainforests seeing as rainforest species tend to be have small numbers and be limited in geographical extent too.
Georgia Kurtz
- 0
Apr 27 2012: I do believe that positive changes in technology and values can allow for affluence to rise without detriment to natural habitats and biodiversity. Cuba gave a great example of this with the results from their economical crisis in the early 90's. They were able to change their modern agricultural practices to exclude chemical fertilizers and pesticides and to drastically decrease the amount of raw material used to run their population, all of these practices resulted in an increase in biodiversity and a healthier population. Here is some more info on the subject. http://www.springerlink.com/content/q271877700x43578/ peace

Load more comments…

Sign In

To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).

Live Conversations

Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times: