It is interesting that so often we look at the value of conservation from a

anthropocentric (human) point of view. In that regard, the one-health principal

is key. The health of the environment, Animals and Humans are inextricably

linked. So too is the health of human economies - which would be (and have

been) devastated by ecosystems failure.

Keep in mind that ‘the environment’ isn’t a place you go visit. It isn’t just the

trees and lakes: It is all encompassing. It includes cities, towns and farms, the

oceans and the very air we breathe.

In ecological terms, humans are just another animal, albeit one having a

dramatic, and not terribly positive impact on the health of the environment.

Whatever philosophy you hold to be true, the reality is that we are made up of

the same materials as other mammals, and are genetically close to other

primates. We are as much a part of the environment as any other animal - and

every other animal is as much a part of the environment as you and me.

It is not helpful to think about conservation solely in terms of it’s ‘value’ to

humans: we must consider that every other species has an ecological niche and

has as much right to exist as we do.

Let’s consider what we mean by conservation, and what it says about us. If

humans hadn’t developed in the way we have, and had not expanded to over 7

billion individuals (doubling in the last 50–60 years) the environment would not

need ‘conservation’. In effect conservation is an effort by humans to address in

some small way the devastation that we have caused to the planet over the past 2

or 3 thousand years. Looked at from that perspective, surely that is the very least  we  can  do