Value in Conservation Decisionmaking

Contents

Note the Question for Discussion "Q:" Below

Lynn Maguire and James Justus argue (Why Intrinsic Value Is a Poor Basis for Conservation Decisions) in a recent issue of Bioscience that “. . . [c]onservationists from Muir to McCauley have championed intrinsic value as the right basis for conservation, one that derives from qualities innate to nonhuman biota, independent of human affairs. They argue that intrinsic value acknowledges the integrity of all species and ecosystems, protects them from short-term human whims, and gives conservation the ethical status it deserves. Many of the same authors deride instrumental value as a basis for conservation, claiming that valuing nonhuman biota in relation to human interests and preferences cheapens the biota’s innate worth and makes them vulnerable to competing demands from human population growth and land-use change. In contrast, they describe intrinsic value as “priceless,” even “infinite,” trumping other assertions of value, and thus providing the strongest foundation for conservation.

[Maguire and Justus] think this view is mistaken for two reasons: (1) intrinsic value is a vaguely formulated concept and not amenable to the sort of comparative expression needed for conservation decisionmaking, and (2) instrumental value is a much richer concept than generally appreciated, permitting a full range of values of biota to be considered in conservation decisions”.

Q: Which do you believe, intrinsic value or instrumental value, should be the guide for conservation efforts?