SUBJECT: Discussing biodiversity in public
AUTHOR: Caspian Richards
DATE:

Keywords: public dialogue, intrinsic value, utilitarian and normative arguments.

Summary: The topics of the second session invite us to consider how scientists working on biodiversity can participate in a wider public dialogue with, to take two examples from the list, people who live in particular places ('locals'), and commercial interests. In this contribution I consider how the two rhetorical strategies emerging from the first section, utilitarian and normative arguments, might be used by scientists to engage with the wider public, and how each influences the kind of dialogue that might take place.

In parallel with the debate about whether it is proper to argue for biodiversity conservation on utilitarian grounds (thanks to Andreas for giving this cluster of arguments its rightful name), or whether we should argue only from normative grounds (i.e. on the basis of its intrinsic value), similar concerns are also to the fore among those concerned with human development. As Erling has pointed out, nature conservation has only very recently begun to consider human welfare as part of the equation, and those interested in human welfare often seem to find themselves debating with conservation organisations the practical benefits for conservation of taking human concerns on board (i.e. a utilitarian argument), rather than the intrinsic value of human welfare.

Considering these two types of argument - the utilitarian (i.e. that the thing we are seeking to justify is good for something else) and the normative (i.e. that it is good in itself)- helps us to think about how dialogues between biodiversity scientists and other groups do and might work in practice. Martin has highlighted the important point that to someone who sees intrinsic value in something, discussing its utilitarian value seems to be disrespectful at best, and at worst counter-productive. After all, if the argument for biodiversity conservation stands or falls on whether economists can be persuaded to include enough intangible factors to swing the sums in the balance of biodiversity, then it is on shaky grounds. Different studies will inevitably produce different results, which tends to lead to people citing the ones that suit them and ignoring the ones that don't.

I think it is right, therefore, to focus predominantly, as many contributors have done, on communicating exactly what it is about biodiversity that they find intrinsically valuable, in the hope that other people will come to see it too. The wider success of this approach is, I feel, severely hampered by a reliance on the term 'biodiversity'. I recognise the benefit that the coining of a new word has had as a rallying call to ecologists to think more holistically; new words can also, as this one has, excite policy-makers and open new avenues of funding, another significant factor in their favour. However, Rainer has pointed out that less than 20% of today's population have heard of the word - frankly I am surprised it is so many. I suspect that as a rule we enjoy new words when we have a hand in creating them or contributing to the discussion of their meaning, but that when they are presented to us as already determined artefacts then they tend to be alienating. The term 'buzzword' has (or perhaps has come to have) a pejorative side which captures the outsider's frustration.

Finding an alternative way of expressing to those not in the know what it is that we want to conserve and why is not only essential to establishing wider communication, but is also, I would like to argue, where scientists will benefit most from and contribute most to other people's knowledge. As Andreas has pointed out, people have been discussing the intrinsic value of life for millennia. They continue to do so around the world today, and I suspect that one of the reasons that 'science' and 'society' are now seen as separate entities is because most scientists shy away from spiritual discussions of this kind in favour of a drier in-house discourse. Nevertheless, we have seen in a number of recent posts that both the susceptibility to and ability to communicate the appreciation of the intrinsic value of nature is very much there in at least this subset of the scientific community - all that is needed is surely for people to do it more often, and to find occasion to learn from parallel experiences expressed in non-scientific language by people who appreciate the natural world.

By way of a final point, the kind of argument one uses is not merely a question of effectiveness. Various social scientists have shown that we have many different ways of reasoning, the choice of which can be heavily context-dependent. In other words, if one argues that biodiversity is economically important, people will be more likely to think about it as an economic resource; argue that the variety of life is sacred and people will be more likely to think about it in terms of intrinsic value. References of studies exploring this kind of distinction are available on request, but for the moment I think I've outstayed my word count.

A contribution by:

Caspian Richards
The Macaulay Institute
Craigiebuckler
Aberdeen
AB15 8QH
Scotland, UK