Yves Meinard

Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect

Standard economic theory predicts that exploitation alone is unlikely to result in species extinction because of the escalating costs of finding the last individuals of a declining species. We argue that the human predisposition to place exaggerated value on rarity fuels disproportionate exploitation of rare species, rendering them even rarer and thus more desirable, ultimately leading them into an extinction vortex. Here we present a simple mathematical model and various empirical examples to show how the value attributed to rarity in some human activities could precipitate the extinction of rare species—a concept that we term the anthropogenic Allee effect. The alarming finding that human perception of rarity can precipitate species extinction has serious implications for the conservation of species that are rare or that may become so, be they charismatic and emblematic or simply likely to become fashionable for certain activities.

Experiencing biodiversity as a bridge over the science-society communication gap.

Drawing on the idea that biodiversity is simply the diversity of living things, and that everyone knows what diversity and living things mean, most conservation professionals eschew the need to explain the many complex ways in which biodiversity is understood in science. On many biodiversity-related issues, this lack of clarity leads to a communication gap between science and the general public, including decision makers who must design and implement biodiversity policies. Closing this communication gap is pivotal to the ability of science to inform sound environmental decision making. To address this communication gap, we propose a surrogate of biodiversity for communication purposes that captures the scientific definition of biodiversity yet can be understood by nonscientists; that is, biodiversity as a learning experience. The prerequisites of this or any other biodiversity communication surrogate are that it should have transdisciplinary relevance; not be measurable; be accessible to a wide audience; be usable to translate biodiversity issues; and understandably encompass biodiversity concepts. Biodiversity as a learning experience satisfies these prerequisites and is philosophically robust. More importantly, it can effectively contribute to closing the communication gap between biodiversity science and society at large.

The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals

A widespread opinion is that conservation efforts disproportionately benefit charismatic species. However, this doesn’t mean that they are not threatened, and which species are “charismatic” remains unclear. Here, we identify the 10 most charismatic animals and show that they are at high risk of imminent extinction in the wild. We also find that the public ignores these animals’ predicament and we suggest it could be due to the observed biased perception of their abundance, based more on their profusion in our culture than on their natural populations. We hypothesize that this biased perception impairs conservation efforts because people are unaware that the animals they cherish face imminent extinction and do not perceive their urgent need for conservation. By freely using the image of rare and threatened species in their product marketing, many companies may participate in creating this biased perception, with unintended detrimental effects on conservation efforts, which should be compensated by channeling part of the associated profits to conservation. According to our hypothesis, this biased perception would be likely to last as long as the massive cultural and commercial presence of charismatic species is not accompanied by adequate information campaigns about the imminent threats they face.

A Final Warning to Planet Earth

In Ripple et al. [1], 15 364 scientists from 184 countries issue a ‘warning to humanity’ and present a radical agenda to protect planet Earth. We, the billions of people believing in human exceptionalism, categorically reject this agenda and issue in return a stark warning to planet Earth. No amount of facts showing that planet Earth is in a dire state will have us changing our mindset, thank you very much. We do not care about planet Earth. We care about our next devices and their latest cool features. We want more stuff. The signatories of Ripple et al. [1] ignore the obvious facts that the era when poets could marvel at the diversity of flower or insect species is over, and that real-world wildlife has now become obsolete. We simply take our smartphones to overlay customized virtual creatures on our surrounding environment and dispose of them when new trends dictate. There is no longer a need to preserve filthy and dangerous wildlife that moreover lives in places where Amazon Prime does not deliver. More iPhones are sold in a few days [2] than there are tigers, elephants, and gorillas on the planet: this should alert the signatories to what really matters, were they not ideologically biased against human progress. Those scientists argue that we are approaching many of the planetary limits. We refuse to accept any type of limits: growth must indefinitely prevail unrestricted. We officially summon planet Earth to abandon its intransigent attitude and accept the inevitable: an extension of its biological and physical limits. Should planet Earth stick with its hardline ideological stance, it needs to be aware that mankind will never compromise and that we will seek a second planet. The universe is like our ambition: limitless. The new economy of nature, whereby ecosystem services such as pollination are monetarily valued, should not be understood as another dogmatic way of protecting planet Earth. It is instead a call to producers and shareholders to conquer new markets by outcompeting nature with better services at a cheaper price for consumers. Ecosystems must fight for their survival like any other business. Protecting nature would moreover give it an undue competitive advantage against our industries. If our agricultural practices endanger the bees that pollinate crops, this does not imply we should change these practices. Instead we will let bees disappear and replace them by AI-powered microdrones – which create many jobs and do not sting. The obvious ideological aim of Ripple et al. [1] is to inspire a generation of scientists to ask broader questions relevant to overconsumption and overpopulation, and how our institutions can meet the challenge of reducing human pressure on planet Earth. We find this unacceptable and call on the 15 364 signatories to join us on the side of winners against planet Earth, and hence to symbolically withdraw their signatures by not engaging in any of the research suggested in the warning to humanity. Fellow scientists, ask not what more you can do for planet Earth, ask what more planet Earth can do for you. And note how politicians on both the left and right are already united in this truly bipartisan issue that beautifully transcends the political divide: worshipping growth and denying that we depend on our environment. We therefore strongly oppose the agenda accompanying the warning to humanity and will not tolerate any obstacle to our way of life – be it tree-huggers or the trees themselves. At the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the 41st US President claimed ‘our way of life is not up for negotiation’. Today, speaking in the name of billions of people, we proudly claim to all be US presidents. Planet Earth: consider yourself warned.

On the meaning of non-welfarism in Kolm’s ELIE model of income redistribution

Welfarism, a position which for a long time enjoyed a hegemonic status in the field of normative economics, holds that the sole ethically relevant information for assessing social states of affairs pertains to individual utilities. Serge-Christophe Kolm presents the Equal-Labour Income Equalization (ELIE) model very explicitly and repeatedly as breaking with the still dominant tradition of welfarism. This paper explores the meaning of this distancing from welfarism found in the ELIE model. After having provided conceptual clarifications concerning both ELIE and welfarism, we discuss various opposing aspects of this model of income redistribution to welfarism. We show that the refusal of welfarism by the ELIE model does not depend mainly on its axiomatic features, but on its deontological perspective.

A Constructivist Approach Toward a General Definition of Biodiversity

Biodiversity sciences witness a double dynamic. Whereas the need for interdisciplinary approaches is increasingly appreciated, most disciplinary studies are still confined to developing operational, discipline-specific indices. We show that a reassessment of the general notion of biodiversity is needed to clarify this situation. We advocate a new approach, according to which the main usefulness of this notion is not to capture quantitatively biological objects or processes, but to organize meaningful and coherent interdisciplinary interactions by constructively criticizing disciplinary studies. We apply this approach to ecological-economic models, in the hope of launching more fruitful critical dialogs between economists and biologists.

On the overlap between scientific and societal taxonomic attentions — Insights for conservation

Attention directed at different species by society and science is particularly relevant within the field of conservation, as societal preferences will strongly impact support for conservation initiatives and their success. Here, we assess the association between societal and research interests in four charismatic and threatened species groups, derived from a range of different online sources and social media platforms as well as scientific publications. We found a high level of concordance between scientific and societal taxonomic attention, which was consistent among assessed species groups and media sources. Results indicate that research is apparently not as disconnected from the interests of society as it is often reproached, and that societal support for current research objectives should be adequate. While the high degree of similarity between scientific and societal interest is both striking and satisfying, the dissimilarities are also interesting, as new scientific findings may constitute a constant source of novel interest for the society. In that respect, additional efforts will be necessary to draw scientific and societal focus towards less charismatic species that are in urgent need of research and conservation attention.

Satire for Conservation in the 21st Century

In Chapron et al. [1], we issued a warning to Planet Earth and opposed the ideological discourse of Ripple et al. [2]. For example, we suggested that instead of saving bees, we should develop microdrones to pollinate crops. Had we properly done our literature review before writing, we would have known that, indeed, our satiric recommendation had already been implemented through the ‘development of an innovative artificial pollinator against the global pollination crisis’ [3]. Ripple et al. [4] have explained that our satiric tone in Chapron et al. [1] should not be taken at face value, although it retrospectively appears that our text may not have been satiric enough.