Just a bonkers nonsense statement, I am stunned by this perspective. Do you think you could live in an antiseptic paper envelope? Biodiversity doesn't "benefit" anyone so much as it comprises, entirely, the world from which we're inextricable.
Absolutely bonkers modernist anthropocentrism.
Is it though? There's been several extinction events that wiped out the biodiversity of the planet and they were all natural too. We might be inextricable from the world but we can and do manipulate it to our benefit.
I don't understand what is the problem with anthropocentrism. Given the chance, I'd prefer more biodiversity for sure, but if it's objectively bad for human beings I think human interests should come first. It's just that the current cycle of overproduction and global warming isn't benefiting humans either. That's not the fault of human-centered thinking, it's the fault of profit-centered short-term thinking.
But global trade is helping them to become richer by selling avocados to americans. Growing an avocado is devastating to local biome, but I bet people would rather destroy it than live in poverty.
I have never seen an edible chestnut tree and really don't care about how many species of them are all over the world.
I'm not talking about antiseptic envelope, it is not related to biodiversity. It is sad that biodiversity is decreasing, but we can live with smaller amount of species on the planet.
Will you fill the difference if there will be 20 instead of 60 species of ash tree?
It can result in “health” via symbiotic relationships, just as much as it can result suffering, war and hardship via the introduction of pests and diseases.
The point is it’s daft throw around biodiversity as some kind of absolute idea of virtue. It is not equitable with “goodness”.
Some species help to transmit diseases over long distances. Some diseases cause extinction of some species. Nothing is new on the face of earth.
If you think that humans have some sort of a mission to preserve biodiversity then it's just arrogance, nothing more.
If you think that it's optimal problem-solving for humans to just ignore any and all evidence that they would be healthier if they interacted differently with their environment at scale, that's just arrogance.
It's absolutely nothing more, although I predict you'll keep assigning primacy to your gut feelings because engaging in thorough analysis would involve admitting you were wrong, which would make you feel bad.
If the goal is the prosperity of humanity then I'm all for it. However, if that's the case two things must be noted beforehand:
1) This is an anthropocentric approach. The parent comment seemed to imply that anthropocentrism is bad for some reason, so it might be an issue on your end too.
2) Prosperity of humanity as a goal is at odds with biodiversity. I don't regret the extermination of smallpox for one thing. I also appreciate for example that we largely replaced natural ecosystems with agricultural monocultures that yield more tons of food per square kilometer. This is great, we won't be able to sustain 8 billions of humans otherwise.
If you agree with these points then this means that we agree on principle. The rest are implementation details that can be figured out. E.g. your question of whether "would be healthier if they interacted differently with their environment at scale" -- probably yes, there are many things that can be improved.
I roundly refute this frankly riduculous assertion. It shows a grave lack of understanding of the actual mechanisms that maintain the natural world in a state fit for human habitation.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=biodiversity+and+human+...
You may argue that at some point we have to stop and I agree. However this doesn't contradict the fact that up until now reducing biodiversity (e.g. by replacing forests with monoculture field crops) worked out extremely well.