TED Conversations

Drew Thompson

TEDCRED 50+

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?

Related Talks:
Topics: Biodiversity class TEDinClass TEDinClassroom biodiversity consumption environment
+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    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.
    • thumb

      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...
        • thumb

          Victor Petri

          • 0
          Apr 29 2012: Thanks for confirming my statements.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.