ABSTRACT
Nobody can claim to be above the fundamental laws of nature, since we are all products of nature. Life on the planet comes in many forms and the evolution of different living species seems to have favoured some species over others, whose role is often seen as secondary. Yet the more we study and understand the distinct role of each species in an ecosystem, the more we realize the vital importance of each of its elements. The smallest parts often support the largest and provide an essential function in the stability of different ecological systems which ensures the balance of life. Humans sit at the top of the chain of life. Seemingly, the advancement of
intelligence and awareness raised us to a prominent rank. But our position at the top of the pyramid of living does not necessarily exclude us from the ecosystem in which we belong, and does not justify a dominant claim to rise above the basic laws of nature. Humans also depend on the biodiversity of our ecosystem for survival, even if we do not always realize it. Biodiversity is at the heart of ecosystems, and all life, ecological services and
processes linking them, form a whole. Nature has been able to create, modify and maintain balance in these ecosystems that support life. It is from this vast pool of life that man finds its food, heals himself, builds his shelters and protects himself, and uses the abundant natural resources to create the energy he needs or the tools necessary for his development. In our society we give a certain value to things. This is the very principle of
our economic systems. Products or services are valued according to economic rules, and we convert the established value of a product or service by a monetary system that allows trade of these products of different value. This worldwide uniformity of barter has laid the groundwork for a new kind of global economy. However, in this complex business process, supply and demand often determines the value of products and services. For example, without much regard for the processes of production, most
countries provide a higher dollar value per litre of milk than a litre of gasoline, two universal products sold around the world. While milk requires minimal
processing before being consumed, oil, on the other hand, is extracted from the bowels of the Earth in often difficult and costly conditions, transported over vast distances, refined and then sold on world markets before becoming available for local consumption. As the value of the products we consume is determined according to a market we created, it often falls on the architects of this economic system to establish an arbitrary value for these products or services. This simple rule inevitably leads to injustice, by simple discretionary choices that result in some form of economic aberration. Thus, the value given to the producer of milk, a cow, is disproportionately less than that given to the petroleum producer and their oil. But in our current and imperfect economic system, that overconsumption leads to skyrocketing demand for certain products; too often we underestimate the real value of ecosystem services that we take for granted. For example, imagine a simple marsh that acts as a natural filter and
supports a rich and diverse ecosystem. This small patch of wetlands and swamps has only a very small value in our market economies. It is often sold for a pittance, dried and converted into ordinary ground on which we build a new building, part of a housing complex in a new area annexed to a booming city. In this new area of housing, at great expense, we will build a wastewater processing plant by imitating artificially what nature was providing for free. Locally, nature has lost its precious natural functions. Most species living in marshes have been destroyed and the ecological services essential to this environment have been deliberately turned off. This unique habitat, which offered a variety of plants, mature trees, frogs,
insects, pollinators, birds, butterflies and small fish, required no maintenance as it was self-managed. Ecological services were numerous and all the surrounding ecosystems took advantage of the natural benefits of this small and uneventful swamp. Its transformation into a field without much ecological value has made it completely dependent on artificial new services created by human hands. Today, we invest to maintain its bright green grass; we use fertilizer and pesticides for its uniform green fleece on which someone will plant flowers and shrubs to imitate a certain nature. Paradoxically, in our view, the value of the ‘new’ field will, however, be much higher than that of the former marshes. The domestication of nature will bring more to its owner, according to an economic logic based on investment required for processing. Thus, by harnessing a parcel of wilderness and subdividing it into lots of living space, the new owner responds to a market demand we have created. At first glance, there is nothing reprehensible about this simple transfor-
mation. We must respond to the growing demand for urban housing. After all, more than 50 per cent of the world’s population now live in towns or cities and it is in developing countries that we are witnessing the fastest urban growth. But nature in the wild is losing more and more land and it is living species that pay the costs of this urban sprawl. The loss of natural habitats result in a decrease in biodiversity and now the bill for progress is accounted by important losses in plant and animal species that are constantly added to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.
