Biodiversity The natural environment is the source of all our resources for life. Environmental processes provide a wealth of services to the living world -- providing us with air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat, as well as materials to use in our daily lives and natural beauty to enjoy.

Complex ecosystems with a wide variety of plants and animals tend to be more stable. A highly diverse ecosystem is a sign of a healthy system. Since all the living world relies on the natural environment, especially us, it is in our best interests and the interests of future generations to conserve biodiversity and our resources.

I know that some may argue that some species have become extinct, with no obvious effect on the environment. I put forth an answer to that statement; the Earth's systems are so complex that we are still learning about environmental processes and resources and the roles they play. The careless loss of any part of the natural environment means that we may never know what use it was or could have been in terms of future technologies, say, or for medical science, or indeed for the health of the planet itself.(Meadows, DH, Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens III, W.W. 1972. Limits to Growth. London, Potomac Associates Book)

According to me it is important to understand that environments are constantly changing. A healthy, robust environment evolves and adapts to naturally changing conditions. I have found it fascinating to observe the far-reaching effects even small changes can make and the importance of genetic

Our future is not only for us. Humans are selfish creatures, we must oversome this and look forward and save the earth for our future generations.Preservation of biodiversity is not necessarily about preserving everything currently in existence. It's more a question of 'walking lightly' on the Earth -- a balance of respecting the natural changes that occur and of protecting species and environments from wanton extinction and destruction.Life on Earth would not be the same if our planet's biodiversity were to be radically affected.
In The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world Bjorn Lomborg addresses the question of biodiversity and concludes that "the background rates of extinction currently accepted by the majority of biologists are grossly exaggerated and that, therefore, the need to preserve biological diversity is likewise exaggerated."(Lomborg Bjorn The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world..)

Furthermore, Lomborg essentially concludes that efforts to conserve some species (e.g., many invertebrates and most microbes) to be of little economic benefit since these organisms do not factor into an aesthetic need (i.e., most of us would not mourn the extinction of the green alga Pediastrum, but many would care deeply if the beloved African Elephant disappeared) nor are these organisms likely to offer any economic incentives for preservation (i.e., they don't produce any economically important byproducts). Interestingly, this topic allowed me to examine the limits of scientific evidence in this grand debate. Besides which we cannot play GOD and decide the fate of another species.(Meadows, DH, Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens III, W.W. 1972. Limits to Growth. London, Potomac Associates Book) wealth of data regarding changes over time in the diversity of organisms can be assembled with relative ease. I found that, the inherent uncertainty associated with these data, however, can allow for varied interpretations regarding, for example, the background extinction rate. More importantly, one cannot test hypotheses about the economic or ecological effects of a given extinction event, since one cannot…