Economic Growth Effect on Biodiversity

¶ … Economist on impacts of growth, "The Effects of Growth: The Long View" discusses, in brief, how economic development of human societies is actually beneficial to biodiversity, in spite of some negative aspects linked to it. It starts with a comparison of two nations -- South and North Korea -- and the way their economics and politics contribute to local biodiversity, that is, the region's forest cover. An identical comparison has been done of the Dominican Republic and Haiti; but this comparison has employed the nations' gross domestic products (GDPs) for proving impacts on biodiversity.

The next half of the article discusses how poverty poses the greatest challenge to biodiversity. It states that poverty has a greater adverse impact than human development on biodiversity. Furthermore, it remarks that poverty minus the presence of growth, together with an increasing population, proves disastrous to biodiversity. Meanwhile, even if growth accompanies poverty, the impact may be just as calamitous. However, once a society reaches a particular prosperity level, growth-related advantages to biodiversity begin outweighing its shortcomings (The Economist).

It has been argued in the article that people have overlooked economic development's advantages to biodiversity. Firstly, the report highlights the fact that, after some particular period of development and achievement of some approximate GDP level, forests will be better sustained than in nations where income or growth is less. Actions of developed countries have been described, which have been effective in cleaning up local marine habitats and waterways. Another point taken up for discussion is, intensive farming (or farming that utilizes fertilizers and pesticides but not much land), employed by developed countries, saves larger areas of land for the remaining species sharing the ecosystem, compared to conventional farming techniques. A combination of clean water, increased habitable land, and sustained forests, brought about by economic development greatly profits other species as well as the overall biodiversity (The Economist).

Growth is linked to other benefits, as well. It advances states intellectually, and hence, results in creation of more effective and smarter conservation policies, which are further benefited by effective state police forces. Economic development is also typically followed by scientific progress and decrease in birth rates. The latter factor reduces competition for resources between members of species. Further, the article demonstrates how scientific development leads to environmental data gathering and analysis, which can make future conservation a lot easier. All the above factors combined can bring about a more habitable, less competitive environment for all species, including human beings (The Economist).

Merits, Weaknesses and Validity of Arguments

The Economist's report is rather interesting in its explanation of economic growth benefits on biodiversity. Limited literature exists to explain this phenomenon; most authors address biodiversity's adverse impacts. Therefore, this report may be considered an enlightening article on economic development's positive impacts on biodiversity. It contains novel information, which requires further scholarly research.

Another merit is that, in this article, the Economist has made considerable efforts to prove its points through quoting or using research work that has already been conducted and demonstrated by other studies and authors, making the report credible and valid in its arguments. The Economist has taken care not to cite unsubstantiated facts. Moreover, it has used illustrations (pictures and graphs) that help give readers an overall enjoyable experience. Further, the terminology used is simple and written for lay readers' easy understanding. No reader -- whether the common man or scholars -- will have difficulty reading and grasping its contents.

One weakness that is apparent early on into reading the report is its introduction, which is rather shallow and fails to provide background information on the subject. It cites examples of nations adversely affected and explains the issue using their GDPs. But for the common public, which probably won't possess background knowledge of the present situation in these nations, the choice of countries will prove quite confusing to them.

Another weakness lies in the Economist's facts regarding economic growth impacts on biodiversity. While the benefits cited within the report appear to be promising and encouraging, one must study and examine them in the globalization and climate change contexts. The aspect of economic development's impacts on the serious issue of global warming hasn't received enough attention. Using developed nations' example of increasing and sustaining forest cover does not suffice in capturing and reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases, as forests aren't growing fast enough. Further, they have limits, defined naturally, of the quantity of gas they will be able to capture. While pollutants are being successfully purged from water sources, their concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. Economic development has, in fact, resulted in increased fossil fuel extraction and consumption. This will only serve to aggravate climate change impacts and hurt biodiversity, since a number of species cannot effectively adapt themselves to the constantly warming earth (Colman 2).

Air pollution, in addition to the threat of ruin of extensive areas of land due to intensive farming, are also adverse impacts of economic development. This report by the Economist maintains that toxic chemical fertilizer and pesticide usage is, in truth, more advantageous than conventional farming practice, as it limits toxins to smaller areas of land, thereby saving significant habitat for the rest of the species in the ecosystem. But one source cited within the article as an argument actually disagrees with these findings. Apparently, intensive farming may be an ineffective technique if more land is used for meeting the growing demand of the population for food. This is truly a reality -- food is considerably increasing in demand, and one can easily observe that more land will be contaminated through toxins, by employing intensive farming. This will ultimately prove detrimental to biodiversity in the area (Colman 3).