The word bio-diversity is a bit of a fad lately and used to justify more interference with the existing flora and fauna.
To start with the bio includes all animals and plants and the only problem has been the growth of the human population at the expense of all other bio forms as they are seen and used as resources.
That humans are also used as a resource is often even more notable, when it comes to slavery, poor working conditions, child labour and war etc.
Still it seems the focus of this fad it about increasing the diversity in the land that is cultivated.
Land that is not cultivated can become more diverse, but let's face it, the only reason to make an area more diverse is to further exploit it.
This was argued in the setting up of the trust (Maybe the wording can be amended ~ and has)
Our capacity for development and education being ensured by the variety of forms within our knowledge. Destruction of any form is to be considered carefully due to the possible loss of variety and possible stagnation.
However the overriding act is not to create more diversity for human exploitation but to reduce the exploitation and allow diversity outside of human intervention.
1) To satisfy energy requirements in an increasingly ecological manner, e.g.
Here then is the situation: How to continually improve the manner of exploitation without exploiting more. The answer is in effect to decrease the exploitation, not just of humans, as stated in legislation but to all bio forms.
Vegetarianism does point the way to how abusive humans are to other animals and veganism just hones that concept a little. Still further we have the notion or organic production. The Fair-trade movement is part of the forerunner in that we still treat other humans inhumanely. That we still have issues with Fair-trade shows that care for other bio forms is a hoax to hide that we really don't care. If we are to consume then those forms that cannot defend themselves will be used.
It is an ugly truth that we make laws to protect the vulnerable humans when all other bio forms are up for grabs.
Clearly there is a desire to look 'good' hence all the laws about protecting vulnerable humans, the young, the old, the blind, the deaf, the females, the physically handicapped, the mentally ill, the religious gangs, the sexually abridged etc. No doubt the vegans and other ethical families will want their day. But it is an order and other bio forms are way down the list unless they are part of your personal resource.
So does it make us look good to talk about biodiversity as though we care? Not from where I am, it seems like a cover up and a new business in the making. Another flag in the hat of consumerism.
There is no 'we' and individuals do care for themselves in what they consider appropriate ways, yet as each competes for resources there is conflict. Biodiversity and laws for the vulnerable may well indicate there is concern for the ethical nature of being good but it fails at the consumer level.
There is no doubt a moral overarching or underlying concept that triggers a yearning to be better but ethics are just a business on how to consume with less conflict among people. Bio-diversity is an attempt to control all life forms for consumption and whereas it can be argued that it is ethical, well at least from a 'human' perspective, it has no morality. It is just a business venture.
Bio-diversity along with the Green Party is just a rehash of older religions that indicate that power over the environment is done by the powerful and if you want a share in the spoils then joint the G party, that's the one with the most gravity and power and dance to the topical tune.
Changing the landscape for better exploitation as an alternative to allowing bio forms other than humans to exploit as they will.
Personally, pulling back from control is the only sustainable action and avoiding the twirling dancers is difficult. It is all so easy to see my own vulnerabilities and what to hide them in the group dance of bio-diverse exploitation.
Give me drugs and sex that I don't have to think outside my body cal it diversity and it's definitely bio ~ what could be wrong with that ~ absolutely nothing as it isn't sustainable and will pass for the individual, whilst business will ensure resources are used to hide the ugly truth. We consume, breed, cultivate and use the weak ~ some ethics there.
Printer Friendly Layout 
