Nagoya COP10 Primer #2: with a reference to Kevin Bacon

Yes, even Kevin Bacon is part of an ecosystem.

(Continuing on from "Nagoya COP10 Primer #1: with Star Wars references").

Given that the Nagoya COP10 meeting is all about the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), it's probably a good thing to talk a little bit about the convention itself. Let's start with the general stuff, i.e. what it represents, and then save the specifics for later posts.

Put simply, it's the international treaty whose aim is to look after the Earth's biodiversity. Here, the CBD defines biodiversity as:

"the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems."

In other words, the CBD is there to suggest (as well as enforce) that we as humans, should try to have a decent relationship with all of the other organisms found on our planet.

This might sound obvious, but one of the problems with the notion of biodiversity is that sometimes, it feels like it just doesn't get enough credit - somehow it doesn't feel like a "serious issue." You say the word biodiversity, and most likely these idyllic images of the someplace scenic pop into your head - maybe, you even imagine lots of birds chirping in the background, a deer or two in the distance, and of course, a bear who may actually be waving at you. For lack of a better word, Biodiversity just feels "nice."

However, biodiversity stewardship is really mostly about coming to terms with the fact that we, as humans, tend to over emphasize our importance, and forget that at the end of the day, we have a very strong connection and dependence to the other 20 million or so species out there.

I find it akin to the mother of all Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon exercises, since almost everything we subsist on, make, do, and draw inspiration from, has a tenable link to at least one species of organism out there.

Think about what you're doing right now. You're probably sitting in a locale/town/city that was likely settled because of its proximity to certain conveniences: good soil for growing crops, forests for lumber to build things, decent water supply, terrain that was easily traveled, etc. The accommodation you're sitting in is almost certainly full of things that have organic origins - the wood used in the structure itself, the fabric in many of your clothes, the objects that contain things like natural rubber, most anything with a pleasant scent. Then, of course, you have energy to move, and think, and be, and this energy is coming from your food, perhaps the most obvious connection to biodiversity we can think of. Finally, as you read this post on Boing Boing, the computer is rife with inspirations drawn from biodiversity - you are, afterall, surfing on the "web" and there's also a good chance you're using a "mouse" to do this.

In fact, four out of the four Boing Boing editors even have surnames with biodiversity connotations! "Frauenfelder" being something close to "Lord of the Field" in German, "Pescovitz" possibly relating to "fishing", and "Jardin" being french for "Garden." We could then suggest that "Doctorow" likely has something to do with doctors, a profession that is pretty familiar with microbial life.

In other words, no offense to Kevin Bacon (whose surname also has a biodiversity link), but why not have a Six Degrees of Just Bacon.

Anyway, in the general sense, this is what the Convention on Biological Diversity is trying to do. It's trying to work biodiversity into our collective consciousness, encourage governments across the world to realize its value, and then get everyone to behave in a responsible manner. Of course, the big question is, "does it work?" And the short answer is, "No." But we'll talk more about this in the next post.

• [Dewi Morgan]

  When I hear “Biodiversity” I definitely don’t think all the things it describes there. Maybe if you’d tried a less clinical, buzzwordy term.

  Biodiversity makes me think of people flying about the world to form well-meaning committees fumblingly trying to figure what will make people Do the Right Thing, but failing to get any handle on human behaviour, or on business behaviour, to make it happen.

• [ryanrafferty]

  This is yet another poorly thought out “good-intentions” scheme. There are obvious benefits and reasons for maintaining biodiversity, but many arguments can be made counter to biodiversity… For example, tell someone with AIDs or Polio how important these viruses are in the community of biological creatures, or how important they are in maintaining biodiversity in general.

  The reality is there is nothing intrinsically valuable about biodiversity, and denying existence to viruses flies counter to the concept of biodiversity in general… Accepting biodiversity in all it’s ugliness, could be counter to our existence as we know it.. We have to accept that we are humans, that sometimes we need to make anthropocentric decisions to ensure our survival, and rather than be dogmatic about biodiversity, we should just continue to be rational and reasonable– doing things which strengthen our species on an ad hoc basis.

• [Anonymous]

  Unfortunately Dewi and ryanrafferty seem to know very little about basic ecology. their posts are simplistic at best and slightly offensive to people who spend their lives studying and working to protect biodiversity. I get that the ‘concept’ of biodiversity can be challenging to some, but to equate conservation efforts to protect species with saving the polio virus really shows a deep lack of understanding. Protecting and maintaining biodiversity is in everyone’s best interest. We depend on a functioning ecosystem and moreover we benefit greatly from biodiversity ‘byproducts’ that we don’t even realize we are using. I believe that is that point that David was trying to make. That we should stop and look around us at the ways biodiversity enriches our lives

  • [ryanrafferty]

    Is insulting me, and the other poster, the only leg you have to stand on?

    Most biodiversity efforts are hypocritical, and anthropocentric at best. Another point I was trying to make is that biodiversity is of purely instrumental value… Creating a convention on bioethical diversity is misguided, and dogmatic.

    Please, educate me: How much diversity is required for human survival? How much diversity has been destroyed through natural selection, or through human and animal intervention? If humans and animals did not intervene in the evolution of the Apple tree, would I still be enjoying this Apple? Please reveal to the world exactly how many of the fruits and vegetables we enjoy came in to being…

    Humans can exist without biodiversity, in fact we have floursihed without it… Why change things now? Maybe we should put more effort in to being a bit more self sufficient.

    • [Anonymous]

      What are you talking about? An animal that grows on plants pollinated by insects and nourished by mycorhizae, grows other animals by feeding them those plants, and then digests both with the help of gut bacteria, is never going to be “self-sufficient”.

      Humans might not need too much biodiversity to survive, but it definitely helps us to have higher levels. The more you reduce the number of players in an ecosystem, the less efficient and more failure-prone natural processes become. We have never flourished without a great deal of biodiversity supporting us.

      Diversity is destroyed through natural selection, but over millions of years, and except where environments are ruined it tends to replenish at the same rate. When talking about the radical changes people are making, it’s a red herring.