Abstract

Is it unreasonable to ask “How Much Nature Do We Need?” I argue that this is one of the most important questions facing humankind at the turn to the next millenium. In spite of our reluctance to address this question it is a fact that we use nature (almost 50 per cent of the world primary production), that we do not pay for it, and that we make huge profits from this use. As a consequence many services of nature that are important for human survival are threatened. For example, ongoing research in ecology for the first time shows that loss of biodiversity reduces the potential of ecosystems to maintain life-supporting services. To avoid further destruction and to keep the Earth inhabitable for ourselves, all human activities that consume nature must be reduced. This will be difficult to achieve as long as the burden of proof is not on those who act in an unsustainable way, such as nations that rely on economic or population growth to maintain short-term wealth and social stability. The tentative answer to the title question based on new scientific facts is that we need [to maintain] as much nature as we still have for our continued long-term survival. This may be more than we would be willing to keep, if we had the freedom to choose.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.