
Economic Growth Is Incompatible with Biodiversity Conservation - bananaboat55
https://wildthingsinitiative.com/the-future-of-conservation-starts-with-wildlife-trade-bans/
======
bko
> Research shows biodiversity suffers at the hands of economic growth due to
> increased resource consumption and pollution

I don't think that's entirely clear. There's a concept in economics called
dematerialization. From wikipedia: Dematerialization refers to the absolute or
relative reduction in the quantity of materials required to serve economic
functions in society.

The idea is that as a country becomes more developed and prosperous, the less
resources are required to serve the needs of the people. For instance: Between
1977 and 2001, the amount of material required to meet all needs of Americans
fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds. The incredible thing
is that this seems to be a reduction in absolute resources not resources per
populace. Much of that reduction is due to technology (e.g. a cell phone
replaced plastic from camcorder, camera, computer etc). The other is due to
production efficiencies and migration to cities . A similar trend can be seen
with carbon reduction in developed parts of the world.

I'm not 100% convinced by this idea, but it's enough for me to question the
premise that economic growth leads to more resource consumption.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_\(economics\))

[Edit] There's a great interview with Andrew McAfee on this concept at
EconTalk. Its based on the McAffe's book More from Less that explores the
topics. He mentions a few limitations of the idea including environmental
concerns

[https://www.econtalk.org/andrew-mcafee-on-more-from-
less/](https://www.econtalk.org/andrew-mcafee-on-more-from-less/)

~~~
mmm_grayons
> moving to cities

You're absolutely right about de-materialization, but just on this point,
migration to cities is probably about over (excluding suburbs, which will
probably grow). Most people who aren't in dense areas are happy outside them,
because the fact is a very large number of people don't like living in urban
areas (those who do are grossly over-represented on this web site.) [0]

[0]:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/18/americans...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/18/americans-
say-theres-not-much-appeal-big-city-living-why-do-so-many-us-live-there/)

~~~
abyssin
They're happy living outside them with their current level of access to cheap
energy. If we address the need to fight climate change, cities might become
much more comfortable to live in, given the economies of scale their
population density allow.

~~~
mmm_grayons
The air pollution problem that commuting causes may be negated in the future
with increases of working from home. I don't see how energy is significantly
cheaper in the city vs. in suburbs or rural areas, aside from transmission
costs. To which economies of scale do you refer, and how would cities become
more comfortable? I assume maybe you mean cheaper? Housing costs, for
instance, aren't actually lower, people just live in disgustingly small
spaces.

I think you're mistaken about the inclinations of the average person. People
like having a decent amount of living space. I don't think most would want to
give up a back yard.

------
dopamean
There's a great political cartoon I saw once (we've probably all seen it)
where a guy in a tattered suit is sitting at a campfire with some other people
and he says, "yes the planet was destroyed but for a beautiful moment in time
we created a lot of value for shareholders." It may be weird to say but that
single cartoon did more to influence my view of my place in the world than
anything else. I had aspirations of working in finance that have since
completely and happily abandoned.

I don't think the point in the title of this post is even arguable anymore.
Now we just have to decide what we want to do about it and what kind of future
we want. I commend organizations that are trying to tackle the problem because
they're really up against a lot.

~~~
VMG
Imagine the cartoon with the dialogue "yes, millions of people continued to
live in subsistence farming and faced an early death, but for a beautiful
moment in time the Yangtze Finless Porpoise continued to reproduce"

~~~
delecti
I don't accept the premise that it's impossible to lift the entire population
out of that existence without unrestrained environmental damage.

~~~
e2021
That literally is the premise of the article though - economic growth is
impossible without environmental damage

~~~
delecti
The problem is conflating societal development with economic growth. Do the
rhetorical people in the GP comment living in subsistence farming need money,
or just food? We grow more food than we need, and if we as a species chose to
allocate those resources as they were needed, we could feed everyone. Instead,
consumers which are unprofitable to provide food to are left to fend for
themselves. Crops regularly go to waste due to lack of demand from customers
who can pay.

~~~
zajio1am
Societal development is more or less limited by economic growth. We grow more
food that we need due to past economic growth, without it almost everybody
would be subsistence farmer, like they were couple hundred years ago.

------
rpiguy
Sensational title that doesn't really match the "meat" of the article.

The article is mostly about changing behavior patterns in developing areas.
Stop these impoverished areas from hunting local wildlife to fill the
nutritional gaps in their diet (with an assumption that some sustainability
framework can be put in place that moves excess resources from one area to the
developing areas so they don't have to hunt local game).

------
merpnderp
This seems exactly opposite of what we see in the world. As countries get
richer, they expand protection of wildlife and the environment.

"Economic poverty is incompatible with biodiversity conservation" is a much
more believable title.

~~~
Synaesthesia
What is the US doing? Ignoring science for short term profits! Leading the
conservation movement were Morales’s Bolivia (pre coup) who said that we
should leave oil in the ground, and indigenous people around the world.

~~~
merpnderp
Every Bolivian Spring is accompanied with skies filled with soot from the
farmers burning rain forest to plant crops. If that's conservation, I want
none of it. I'll take my ever expanding forests and healthy wildlife even if
it takes a few coal and ammonia plants to make it happen.

------
TSiege
I agree with much of this article, but I think a larger point is that we need
to rethink what economic growth means. The current measure of GDP has become a
cudgel to promote destructive behavior. What's the point of GDP anymore beyond
measuring economic growth and contraction? It doesn't say anything about
sustainability of the growth. Nor whether or not citizens are well taken care
of.

A new measure that could replace GDP needs to do a better job of measuring
environmental as well as human benefit. Imagine if instead of measuring how
the economy grows in pure dollar amounts of economic output we also measure
restoration of ecosystems and happiness, health of citizens and communities.

~~~
mikorym
I don't think one necessarily has to redefine economic growth, but perhaps
redefine what the kind of growth is that _we want_.

Japan has not had much growth for 20 years now [1], and Japan is regarded
generally as one of the most developed, safe and pleasant countries in the
world.

In South Africa, economic growth is a problem in the sense that it needs to be
much higher in the traditional sense for sure, but there are certain aspects
of the country that have dramatically improved in the last 20 years (and many
that have unfortunately declined). The economic indicators don't properly take
into account the informal sector, and specifically _cash transactions_ within
the informal sector. So for example, many low wage workers now have good brick
houses, where only 20 years ago they would have had huts or corrugated iron
shacks. There is also now electricity in most places, with the side effect of
tree coverage getting better in some rural areas as firewood is not necessary
to make food.

I think the inability of the economic and financial sector in Johannesburg
(considered the best in Africa) to properly quantify growth in rural areas
certainly is a social problem as well, with the economy becoming an abstract
concept further removed from many normal people's lives. I also think this is
why populist movements gain traction as their vocalisations are easier to
understand than the a more sober and reserved economist trying to explain
carefully to a crowd why the informal sector isn't properly being quantified
and that we need to develop new economic metrics.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan#Macro-
economi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan#Macro-
economic_trend)

------
at_a_remove
If one changes the title from "Economic Growth Is Incompatible with
Biodiversity Conservation" to " _Continual_ Growth Is Incompatible with
Biodiversity Conservation" you get a much more interesting statement, to my
mind.

You can either decide that the planet can support an infinite number of human
beings or a finite number. I cannot have reasonable discussions with the
former camp, so when it comes to the latter, it's all about that finite number
as a function of lifestyle, healthcare, relative comfort, and so on. _This_
many millions of people if we all live like Americans; _that_ many billions of
people if we are all miserable and flea-bitten.

Bringing the economy in it is at best a distraction, at worst it simply
invites discussion from people who think their pet -ism economic theory will
make the underlying problem go away.

------
carapace
Properly understood economics and ecology should be the same science, or more
precisely, economics = ecology + psychology.

There are a few schools of _applied ecology_ (e.g. Permaculture) and the
result is a new kind of basis for food production that allows us to meet our
needs in harmony with Nature.

E. O. Wilson has proposed setting aside half of Earth for non-human nature:
[https://www.half-earthproject.org/](https://www.half-earthproject.org/)

> Half-Earth is a call to protect half the land and sea in order to manage
> sufficient habitat to reverse the species extinction crisis and ensure the
> long-term health of our planet.

If we were to do this and also convert our food production system to be
ecologically harmonious we could solve most of our problems.

------
setgree
This article identifies some places where economic growth is the deeper, non-
proximal cause of biodiversity loss, but that doesn't mean the two are
incompatible. The answer I personally prefer is to take the brakes off of
urbanization, packing humans into taller and denser places like Singapore and
Hong Kong, and letting the surrounding lands be wild. I know that urban living
isn't to everyone's taste, but elevators are the most efficient and
environmentally friendly public transportation we have, and so long as we need
to cultivate some land to live, we might as well cultivate it as much as
possible (by putting tall buildings on it, for example).

------
VMG
Interestingly, it is mostly affluent countries who even care about
biodiversity.

------
brushfoot
Knowledge work is where the most economic value remains to be added. That's
not at all incompatible with biodiversity.

------
moultano
Something I learned from reading "The Future of Life" is that a third of the
world's landmass is enough to preserve a healthy representative sample of all
of the world's ecosystems.

If the world were a third smaller than it is, we'd certainly still have
economic growth.

------
christiansakai
Wow this is a topic where I’ve been want to ask a lot of questions before. Not
surprised that many people are thinking of the same thing. Are there any other
resources about these I can read of?

------
godzillabrennus
Maybe we switch from GDP to GNH?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness)

~~~
lazyjones
Ah, the metric at which Venezuela was beating half of Europe in 2016. Seems
like it didn't work out well...

~~~
delecti
It's seemed for a while like most of Venezuela's problems come from the
external sanctions we put on them while trying to help.

~~~
lazyjones
I believed this too for a while, but in the end, happy Venezuela was a fairy
tale like the GDR, built on oil. One strong indicator was the brain drain that
was going on for decades, long before harsh sanctions.

------
joyceschan
Nasa says earth is greener today then 20 years ago. Thanks to India & China.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-
says...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-
is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/#64a3caa66e13)

Nasa: CO2 is making Earth Greener [https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-
making-earth-green...](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-
greenerfor-now/)

------
pochamago
I don't agree with the premise, but if you're going to make me choose I'd pick
economic growth over biodiversity every day, and it's not even hard.

------
qqssccfftt
Is this exactly a surprise to anyone? Governments have specifically avoided
doing things like not causing global warming in pursuit of economic growth.

------
lazyjones
This article makes the strange claim that because bushmeat hunting on one
island was driven by economic growth, the latter is incompatible with
biodiversity conservation. As if economic growth wasn't possible in other
ways!

It makes no attempt to tell us why biodiversity in its present form is
valuable, when species have gone naturally extinct for billions of years. I
could do without bats as breeding colonies for dangerous virus strains, for
example.

~~~
1over137
The bats did nothing wrong. The problem is the way humans treat the bats (and
other animals): keeping them captive, in too-small cages, mixed with too many
other animals, feeding them the wrong things, etc.

~~~
lazyjones
This is not a question of morals or guilt. Some species naturally harm and put
other species at risk, bat colonies breed virus strains that can kill many
mammals. Mosquitoes kill many people every year without "doing wrong". Should
we preserve them at any cost?

------
Synaesthesia
The richest 0.1% and 1% can cut down on their lifestyles first, which are
contributing the most to global warming.

------
surajs
This is exactly the kind of bullshit that keeps us from becoming an
interplanetary species.

------
pjc50
Well, with -5% growth that's not going to be such a problem.

------
esimov
United States is Incompatible with Biodiversity Conservation

------
generalpass
Depends on your time horizon. Eventually, the Earth will be vaporized and the
only thing that will stop that is unimaginable economic growth.

------
cfv
It's oddly infuriating to read this from a "developing" (ie poor) country.

We get permanently schooled by all this rich countries who ransacked both our
and later their natural resources in order to build themselves into
prosperity.

Yes, it would be awesome if every one of us adopted a hectare of land and
personally hugged every little bird and fox every day to try ensure their
precious existence (which is undoubtedly precious and a tragedy if lost), but
we cannot and won't do that if they sit on a source of precious, scarce
income.

It's because of stuff lke this that poachers exist; you don't risk death to
kill rhinos for eating, you do it because you may feed your family for a week
by selling a chunk of it.

People don't risk angering whatever arcane disease some random swamp animal
has for the thrill of it, they do because that's their only means of making
money.

If richer countries wanted to stop poorer countries from exploiting whatever
sources of income they can find, then they should help build other means of
obtaining said income.

As in, not just throwing money at people and expecting that to magically solve
anything, but actually build means of making a living and doing so in a way
that doesn't set up a predatory structure like businesses will do.

EDIT: Loving the insta-downvote with no comment. Please, come out of hiding
and explain yourselves.

~~~
cfv
OK, given the sudden surge in anonymous morons unable to follow basic prompts
for civil discussion and the refusal of the implementors to do something about
the mounting garbage on this site, I'm adding hacker news to my block list.

I'm done with y'all.

