Make "life"—not "biodiversity"—our salient conservation banner!
The change is pragmatically and morally essential.
The word biodiversity is impassive, the word life is animated.
Mischaracterizing a crisis retards solving it. The biodiversity and climate crises are part of a profound life crisis caused by humans who are morally obligated to solve it.
The human predicament is not equivalent to the life predicament.
***
In the 1980s, along with fellow conservationists, I applauded growing popular use of the term biodiversity to characterize life on Earth. We were enthusiastic about this new “tool” for enlightening the public on the amazing cornucopia of genes, populations, assemblages, ecosystems, and landscapes that comprise the natural world. Biodiversity has since become the catchall term and goal of conservation. It dominates virtually every speech, article, book, and public discourse on the subject.
However, I’ve changed my tune. I am convinced that biodiversity is now retarding rather than advancing the cause of conservation. As a victim of its own success, it is fast becoming a term of convenience for limitless growth interests that placate conservationists with false hopes of “sustainability” through the corporate establishment.
Witnessing the horrific global loss of life that’s occurred in recent decades, I’m now certain that the emotive, inclusive, and powerful word life should replace biodiversity as conservation’s banner word. Here’s why:
The word life conveys moral imperative, the word biodiversity does not. The root of the word biodiversity indicates something to be measured, a quantity. The word life reflects value, even the sacred. Biodiversity is about diversity and secondarily about life. Life is straightforwardly about life.
Biodiversity signals utilitarian value, life signals immutable, universal value. If you want a word that can be easily used to represent a mere “resource” for humans, it’s biodiversity. By contrast, the word life resists utilitarian capture. It refers to living beings and complex phenomena related to their existence.
(A technological society that cares little about unique forms of existence can substitute one species for another to maintain or enhance numerical diversity for its own benefit. It can artificially increase diversity by importing common species from other places, by creating and releasing genetically-engineered organisms, or by attempting to “bring back” creatures from the distant past. From a utilitarian perspective, there’s little reason to conserve native species if there are substitutes that are as good as or even better for human advantage).
Human impacts on the living world affect far more than biodiversity. Countless wild beings are destroyed each day by our civilization’s insatiable demand for living space and resources (water, foods, fuels, minerals, wood, etc.), and by its perpetual release of toxic products or substances inimical to life. Such loss of life is beyond the scope of biodiversity. The word commonly means little more than the number of species, absent the great variety of unique individuals, populations, and life experiences. Characterizing the global destruction of life as a biodiversity crisis trivializes what is, in fact, a profoundly tragic life crisis.
Making life the banner word for conservation would rectify the meaning of pro-life. The term pro-life was insightfully co-opted by the anti-abortion movement. Equating life with human embryonic or fetal life is perhaps the greatest vocabulary coup d'etat of modern times. While I could not find a single research article on the social or cultural influence of the term pro-life and its corollaries such as sanctity of life, the effectiveness of emotive words to advance an agenda is well documented. Conservationists would do well to advance their cause by promoting the words life and pro-life in ways that closely reflect what those words, in plain English, actually mean.
(Words matter greatly. They shape not only speech but also social and political thought. Words can promote the established way of thinking about the world, or they can propel fundamental change, for better or for worse. They can have rapid and lasting effects on culture. For example, terms such as gay, pride, and gender-affirming are now influential banners for the LGBTQ+ community.)
What the word shift from biodiversity to life would mean in practice: It would enhance the ethical standing of conservation. It would push back against the prevailing (anthropocentric) worldview that only humans have intrinsic worth. It could ultimately improve prospects for human survival and well-being.
Some examples upon making the switch:
The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services becomes The Global Assessment Report on Life.
The Biodiversity Conference 2023 becomes The Conference on Life 2023.
The Center for Biological Diversity becomes The Center for Life.
Changing a paradigm, not just a word. The word change I am suggesting for conservation would fly in the face of a strong tendency in media, religion, and politics to equate life with human life. But that’s the point—this false equivalency is exactly what needs to be undone.
Resist language capture! Conservationists ought not accept constricted word meanings that undermine their cause.
Conservation means little if it is not about justice for more-than-human life. I’m referring to ecological justice in its broadest and truest sense. Achieve it, achieve it well, and the results will surely astound us—humans will emerge as heroes on a fruitful Earth.
I've been thinking same, thank you for articulating it so well.
Good point about the word “biodiversity” being a way to avoid taking responsibility for humanity’s crimes against the natural world. It’s a word that has the gloss of science, measurement, quantifiability. It is a word without a strong and vivid image—maybe like the word “habitat.” Not sure about the word “life” as a replacement that will catch on but I agree we need a better word for these concepts. Look at what’s happened to the word “woman”—defined by Stanford as “non-man”!! OMG!