Contra el consenso: Hallazgos que amenazan fundamentos del eco-alarmismo

Abstract

Dissent is a source of scientific progress. Confirmatory bias in scientific communities limits their growth and development by making it difficult for dominant ideas to be replaced by those emerging from new research. I present four groups of findings that challenge well established dominant views (consensus) in the community of ecologists: 1) habitat fragmentation does not generally result in biodiversity losses at the landscape scale, 2) non-native species invasions contribute to increases in biodiversity of plant communities and may even contribute to a diversification explosion during the Anthropocene, 3) planetary primary productivity is increasing, the global area of forests is not decreasing, desertification and burnt area are not expanding (there is no generalized ‘degradation’ of ecosystems), and 4) organic agriculture and landscapes mixing agriculture with (semi) natural ecosystems generally result in decreases in yield, which (in contrast, for example, with GMO-based agriculture) increases the demand for land, further threatening biodiversity and ecosystem services of natural ecosystems. I propose five non-exclusive hypothetical mechanisms to explain the confirmatory bias in ecology: intellectual conservatism, aesthetic and ideological preferences, and the influence of political-institutional and economic power. Challenging established consensus on the basis of new information should imply disruptive changes in the scientific and political agendas which had them as their foundation. The earlier this happens, the faster science will advance and the more effective environmental policies will be. In order to make this happen, I suggest the scientific and educational agenda should be specifically directed to counter the confirmatory bias by promoting critical thinking.