Saving Earth's Biodiversity Through Markets and Technological Progress

A review of Half Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life by Edward O. Wilson


Dreamstime: Robert Adrian Hillman

Half Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life, by Edward O. Wilson, Liveright, 259 pages, $25.95

The world's greatest living naturalist, Edward O. Wilson, shares my conviction that economic, technological, and demographic trends point to a brighter future both for humanity and for the rest of nature. In his latest book, Half Earth, he sometimes comes off as practically a visionary transhumanist, predicting vast improvements by means of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and robotics. He even thinks that scientists will succeed at whole brain emulation—that is, the installation of human minds on digital devices—by the end of this century.

But that hardly means he has no worries. In Half Earth, he cites data showing that human activities, chiefly the expansion of agriculture and the introduction of species to new habitats, has likely raised the rate of species extinction considerably above the natural background trend. Recent research, he writes, "suggests species extinction rates at the present time are closer to one thousand times higher than that before the spread of humanity." Wilson urges us all "to adopt a transcendent moral precept" that states, "Do no further harm to the biosphere."

If the species extinction rate is this high, how many species are going extinct each year? Biologists estimate that the background rate of extinction without human influence is about 0.1 species per million species-years. This means that if you followed the fates of one million species, you would expect to observe about one species going extinct every 10 years. So far biologists have cataloged about 2 million species, but believe that many millions more remain to be discovered. Let's assume a moderate estimate of 5 million species.

If the extinction rate is now 1,000 times higher, that would mean that about 100 species are going extinct per million species-years. So if the world contains 5,000,000 species, that would suggests that 500 are going extinct every year. If that rate continued for the next 85 years, some 42,500 species would disappear by the dawn of the 22nd century.

Some researchers have suggested that species extinction will accelerate to 10,000 times the background rate. That would mean that 5,000 species would be going extinct per year, and 425,000 species—about 8.5 percent of the total—could be gone by the 22nd century. Most of the vanished species would be small creatures, such as insects, arachnids, worms, and so forth.

This is not the first time that biologists have sounded the alarm. For example, in 1980 the Global 2000 Report to the President predicted: "Extinctions of plant and animal species will increase dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of species—perhaps as many as 20 percent of all species on earth—will be irretrievably lost as their habitats vanish, especially in tropical forests." In his 1992 book The Diversity of Life, Wilson himself made the "cautious" calculation that "the number of species doomed each year is 27,000. Each day it is 74, and each hour 3."


That did not happen. In 2007, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) calculated that humanity had "forced 869 species to extinction" since 1500. On the other hand, the IUCN estimated that nearly 17,000 plant and animal species are currently threatened with extinction.

Let me be clear: I mourn the loss of species. The creatures currently inhabiting this planet have made it through the brutal natural selection sieve (and asteroids and volcanic eruptions) that destroyed over 99 percent of all species ever to have existed on Earth. Each embodies complex genetic libraries, behavioral repertoires, and evolutionary histories that are both scientifically fascinating and aesthetically fulfilling. As a relatively well-off first-worlder, I have had the intense pleasure of walking in the wild within 40 feet of grazing rhinos and of swimming with Galápagos penguins. It would be a shame if future generations do not have an opportunity to enjoy such experiences.

One area where Wilson goes wrong is his forceful rejection of the notion of the Anthropocene, defined as the new era in which humanity is the dominant force on Earth. He particularly loathes the researchers who urge their colleagues to accept the end of "pristine" wild lands and instead investigate the "novel ecosystems" that humanity is busily creating by moving species around the planet. Wilson points out that introduced species are sometimes a threat to native species. Species that evolved in isolated ecosystems on oceanic islands and freshwater streams are especially vulnerable. For example, a 2013 study estimated that Polynesian wayfarers with their rats and pigs caused the extinction of 1,300 species of birds as they spread across the uninhabited Pacific archipelagos.

Clearly some invasive species have caused considerable damage, especially disease organisms like the fungus that wiped out the American chestnut and the one that is currently assaulting amphibian species around the globe. Nevertheless, human-introduced species do seem generally to be increasing the species richness and perhaps even improving ecosystem functions, such as nutrient cycling, in many new habitats. For example, New Zealand's 2,000 native plant species have been joined by 2,000 from elsewhere since the arrival of European settlers, doubling the plant biodiversity of its islands. Chris Thomas, a biologist at the University of York, suggested in 2015 that plant speciation has actually sped during the Anthropocene and that the current "plant speciation rate could be comparable to the extinction rate."

Wilson regards such Anthropocene musings as "the product of well-intentioned ignorance" and pleads for biology to restore many ecosystems to pre-modern or even pre-human-interference baselines. He may be in luck. Researchers using the fantastic new CRISPR gene-editing technology have devised gene drives that can curate plant and animal populations in the wild. To extirpate invasive rats from a Pacific island, researchers could create a gene drive that will insure that all rat pups are born male. Notionally speaking, such gene drives could rid New Zealand of the 2,000 non-native plant species that have taken up residence there.

In Wilson's larger vision, he wants to "increase the area of inviolable natural reserves to half the surface of the Earth or greater." This proposed set-aside is based chiefly on Wilson's seminal work on species area curves, which roughly estimates that reducing the area of a habitat by 50 percent will still enable about 90 percent of its species to survive. About 15 and 2.8 percent, respectively, of the Earth's land and oceans areas are now in protected reserves of various sorts. Wilson wants to create more reserves "within which natural processes unfold in the absence of deliberate human intervention, where life remains 'self-willed.'" He thinks many favorable trends will make this possible sooner rather than later.

The first favorable trend is that human population will very likely peak before the end of this century. Urbanization, economic growth, and the education of women all contribute to this trend. Wilson forecasts human population to peak at around 11 billion by the end of the century, and other researchers think the peak will be much faster and lower—perhaps 8.7 billion by the middle of this century. Another highly positive trend is that 80 percent of people will live in cities by then. Currently, about half the world's population lives on the landscape, mostly as hardscrabble farmers. With urbanization, rural populations will be cut in essentially half, dropping from 3.6 billion now to 1.7 billion in 2050. This frees up lots of land for nature.

Wilson also wants a new "green revolution" to dramatically boost crop yields, so that more land can be returned to a natural state. Again, the news is good: Jesse Ausubel, a researcher at Rockefeller University, calculates that we are on the verge of peak farmland. An area nearly double the size of the U.S. east of the Mississippi could be restored to nature by 2060.

Wilson expects humanity's ecological footprint—that is, the amount of land and resources used to support people—will also shrink radically. "The footprint will evolve, not to claim more and more space, as you might at first suppose, but less," argues Wilson. "The reason lies in the evolution of the free market system, and the way it is increasingly shaped by high technology." Market signals relentlessly push entrepreneurs to find ways to do more with less. Thanks to intensive economic growth, Wilson predicts, the "average person can expect to enjoy a longer, healthier life of high quality yet with less energy extraction and raw demand put on the land and sea." This growth will be enabled by a combination of nanotech, biotech, and robotics. Wilson also believes that whole brain emulation will spark an intelligence explosion that will further enable humanity to withdraw from nature.

At the end of my book The End of Doom, I wrote:

New technologies and wealth produced by human creativity will spark a vast environmental renewal in this century. Most global trends suggest that by the end of this century, the world will be populated with fewer and much wealthier people living mostly in cities fueled by cheap no-carbon energy sources. As the amount of land and sea needed to supply human needs decreases, both cities and wild nature will expand, with nature occupying or reoccupying the bulk of the land and sea freed up by human ingenuity. Nature will become chiefly an arena for human pleasure and instruction, not a source of raw materials. I don't fear for future generations; instead, I rejoice for them.

Our views may not be completely congruent, but I am delighted to find that Edward O. Wilson largely agrees with that conclusion.

NEXT: Reason Weekly Contest: Readers Respond to the Emory Chalking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I hope Edward O Wilson gives due credit to Julian Simon who was years ahead of him and reached the same conclusions.

  2. Doomsday cultist writes book.


  3. HEY FUCKWITS you need to proofread your headline

    1. Above comment applies to Hit & Run headline, not the article’s.

      1. W: Yes we do. Fixed. Thanks for your comment.

  4. Ever notice the collectivist bias of those who think species are important and individuals not?

    Ever notice that using technology not all that far in the future, we will be able to bring back species on demand? Extinction of an individual may be forever, but extinction of a species is not.

  5. I think letting half the planet go fallow/wild would be a good thing. People suck.
    But, as Reason has discussed before, if everyone owns something – no one gives a fuck. If someone owns it – they expect some return on their investment and maintenance.…..sheries-ar

  6. So far biologists have cataloged about 2 million species, but believe that many millions more remain to be discovered. Let’s assume a moderate estimate of 5 million species.

    Wasn’t this given the skeptical eye because those are estimates based on averaging averages and all kinds of jiggery-pokerey that had nothing to do with the actual observance of species going extinct?

    1. They’re “hard drive” extinctions.

    2. DR (P): Doing the actual calculations as opposed to merely citing the alarming “rates” I hope should give some indication of skepticism; not to mention the citing of previously failed predictions of imminent catastrophe.

  7. humanity needs to set aside half of the our planet’s lands and oceans as biosphere reserves

    By the way, King County set aside 60% of the county’s biosphere… to be more accurate, 60% of King County Property Owners’ land as biosphere reserves and folks were none too happy. If “we” decide to set aside half of the earth as biosphere reserves there might be some pushback. Just sayin’.

    1. I took that to mean spontaneously set aside, as in be more efficient in using resources because that’s what markets encourage, more efficient recycling, etc. Not Hillary’s village “we”.

  8. Wilson regards such Anthropocene musings as “the product of well-intentioned ignorance” and pleads for biology to restore many ecosystems to pre-modern or even pre-human-interference baselines.

    This is utterly impossible without a whole lot of violence perpetrated by Top Men.

    1. DR (P): Which is why I think he is wrong. On the other hand, I do think that market-driven technological progress will make people so wealthy in this century that they will want to set aside vast areas of nature reserves (both private and government-owned) to enjoy aesthetically.

      1. Maybe. If you look at the rural residents of King County (an excellent example of ‘biosphere reserve’ thinking) almost none of them are “farmers”. They’re simply people who enjoy the rural lifestyle and want a place out in the country which affords all of the serenity, peace, and the freedom to ride their quads you’d expect.

        The point being is that while we might not need large areas set aside for crop production, technology allows us to live further and further away from urban centers but still enjoy a certain semblance of convenience. Many of these rural visitors decry the ‘aesthetic’ set-asides when they can no longer use or reside on the land because a county government housed in an urban center shuts it down in the name of biodiversity.

        I guess what I’m saying is, we may be spreading out from urban centers not out of ‘need’ (farming, crop production) but out of want.

        1. I guess what I’m saying is, we may be spreading out from urban centers not out of ‘need’ (farming, crop production) but out of want.

          I very much agree with this. I can’t imagine living in an urban area and have always enjoyed neighbors that you visited with some conveyance because walking there and back could take an hour or so.

  9. Here’s the problem, Wilson (and Ron) suggest that increased urbanization will free up more land for nature. Not everyone (including me) wants to live in dense urban centers and even if the urbanization trend continues, it will never be good enough for the central planners until nearly everyone is packed into high rises in mega cities. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for conservation and nature, that is in fact why I would prefer to live in the country or a small town near it, but that may be a nearly impossible option.

  10. The body count for Wilson’s project would at least make him history’s greatest monster, by a literal order of magnitude. Evicting people, and barring them permanently, from half the world’s land mass, will require a war of unprecedented proportions. I can’t see it happening without at least a billion dead, and probably twice that.


    Seriously, this proposal makes the most lunatic CAGW supporter seem like a model of restraint and reasonableness.

    1. RCD: If you came away from the review believing that Wilson aims to do what you suggest, I have done a seriously bad job of explaining in this case. Wilson clearly has more faith in government efficacy and good will than I do, but his main point is that technological progress and the wealth it produces will end up with humanity voluntarily withdrawing from nature. In fact, the two cases of conservation he offers are both private efforts, the NoKuse Plantation and the private philanthropy at Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique. I have evidently failed to be a good explainer in this case. My apologies.

  11. Way to plug your own book while reviewing this one, Ron! *sets reminder to consider purchasing The End of Doom

    1. b-c: Makes a wonderful bar or bat mitzvah, wedding, birthday, Christmas and Mothers, Fathers, Flag Day gift. And of course, who doesn’t need a good gift idea for Earth Day – April 22nd? You can’t have too many copies!

  12. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

    go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,

  13. After reading the paper “Estimating the Normal Background Rate of Species Extinction” I have arrived at a solution to the problem. We need to take the computers away from these people.

  14. Serious question: have we actually succeeded in completely killing off an insect species?

  15. RE: Saving Earth’s Biodiversity Through Markets and Technological Progress

    This is preposterous.
    Only an army of bureaucrats, politicians and their cronies can save the environment from future disasters.
    Any government employee will tell you that.

  16. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ?

    1. this account needs to be deleted. Frankly, an interactive post system even as simple as random simple math, like 4+4 + or 4-1 or whatever challenge implemented.

  17. I’ld be more impressed if a book was written on how Southern Africa’s native cat and Elephant populations crashed after cash hunting was outlawed. Cats in particular went from being a resource worth the danger of eating cattle and presenting a risk to family, rewarding 4 years salary for a prize. Then with the enactment of “preservation” legislation became a liability outside parks.

    I own a cattle farm in the east. I kill the trash coy-wolf-dogs that seem to have come with all the yankees. But if someone paid me 800k to shoot one, you can bet your ass I would treat them like family.

  18. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?


  19. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….


  20. Eh bien, je suis un bon poste watcher vous pouvez dire et je ne donne pas une seule raison de critiquer ou de donner une bonne critique ? un poste. Je lis des blogs de 5 derni?res ann?es et ce blog est vraiment bon cet ?crivain a les capacit?s pour faire avancer les choses i aimerais voir nouveau poste par vous Merci
    ????? ???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.