1. Exodus by Andreas Christensen
2. Biodiversity and Democracy by Paul M. Wood
The first is a sci-fi story that takes place in the near-distant future. A large chunk of a rouge planet is on a collision course with Earth so there's a clandestine effort to build a modern Noah's Ark. The second is a work of non-fiction that makes a robust case for the conservation of biodiversity. Here are a few key excerpts from the first book... (they might be spoilers so if you hate spoilers as much as I do and the book sounds vaguely interesting then...)
Here are a few key excerpts from the second book...
The moral of the first book is the importance of diversity. The moral of the second book is the importance of biodiversity.
I really enjoyed both books and highly recommend them. The first book is free and quite a bit of the second book is available online via google books. However, in my opinion, it's really worth it to buy it in order to read the parts that aren't available online. In fact, I'd be willing to subsidize your purchase! If you buy the book and forward your receipt to me... I'll paypal you $5 bucks. Well... for the first 10 people. The expectation is that you'd read the book and use this thread to share any thoughts or questions you have. Send me a telegram if you're interested.
Want some heavy hitting analysis? Ok. Here's a verse from the bible...
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? - Mark 8:36
I'm a xeroist but the economics of this verse are quite wonderful. Let's apply it to the two books...
For what shall it profit humanity, if it conserves all the biodiversity in the world, and loses its planet?
It's pretty basic economics that every dollar that's given to the EPA is a dollar that can't be given to NASA. There's always a trade-off (Buchanan's Rule). Making the conservation of biodiversity our number one priority and allocating society's limited resources accordingly puts far too many eggs in one basket. It's always dangerous to have too many eggs in too few baskets. This is why diversity, rather than biodiversity, should be our number one priority.
Do you agree that diversity should be our number one priority? If not, then what should our number one priority be? If so, then how can we make diversity our number one priority? How is it possible that Paul M. Wood believes that biodiversity is more important than diversity? Perhaps I should point out the logical flaw in his book...
He understands that biodiversity is a public good.
He understands that public goods are subject to the free-rider problem.
He understands that surveys are not effective at measuring the public's valuation of biodiversity (Tabarrok's Rule).
If neither people's actions (spending decisions) nor their words (surveys/voting) accurately reflect their valuation of biodiversity... then people's actual valuation of biodiversity is unknown. Despite the fact that people's valuation of biodiversity is unknown... Wood believes that economic efficiency is inadequate in terms of biodiversity.
Wood doesn't seem to understand that economic efficiency is a function of people's valuations. If he understood this then he wouldn't argue that economic efficiency fails for biodiversity. Because of this logical flaw, his conclusion is flawed.
If public goods were put on equal footing with private goods then, and only then, would people's spending decisions accurately reflect their valuation of biodiversity. If Wood still believed that biodiversity was underfunded then, and only then, could he argue that economic efficiency fails to adequately protect biodiversity.
See also: Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation - A Guide for Policy Makers (PDF)