Text written in Basque and translated automatically by Elia without any subsequent editing. SEE ORIGINAL

What is the purpose of this species?

Nature lovers are always giving cans: listen to the song of this bird, look at this bust, look at this particular plant... Sometimes we seduce the listener, but many times we hear the cursed question: "But what's the point? ".

In an attempt to answer this question and, above all, to accumulate arguments in favor of the conservation of nature, at the end of the last century economist Robert Costanza began to assess the economic value of nature. He was getting huge sums of money. Since wood from forests, fish from the oceans, water from lakes provide enormous amounts each year, Costanza believes this should be enough to keep these ecosystems healthy. These benefits that society receives from nature were called ecosystem services, and a multitude of ecologists and economists set out to save the world with courage.

The reality, however, is complicated. Could a forest give that fortune? Yes, but the day after that data is published, a giant company offers ten times more money to clear the forest and build a factory there. In other words, the economic values of natural resources in the market are not enough for their conservation.

The response of ecological economists? Try to give economic value to benefits that until then the market did not take into account, monetize them. This is how they began to measure, for example, the economic benefit of carbon stored in forests to combat climate change.

But this also does not put society in favor of the conservation of nature. Because, since the economy is based on exponential growth, from the dominant point of view of the economy it is beneficial that today nature is destroyed, leaving the repair of the destruction to the richer society of the future.

The insistent ecological economists began to study non-monetizable ecosystem services, the benefits that nature offers us and that cannot be monetized. They began to list the cultural value of ecosystems, the inspiration they could create in us, etc. But this path was also broken. Because there is always some human whim that is far above these non-monetizable values. Rhino can play an important role in the culture of many African ethnicities, inspiring a multitude of painters, but there will always be some sheikh willing to pay a fortune for the last branch of rhino, rejecting these other values.

Therefore, utilitarian arguments in favor of nature have been of little utility for its conservation.

What if, instead of measuring the benefit that nature does to us, we took into account the values that nature possesses and, consequently, our obligation to preserve it? What if we assumed that not everything had to be for our benefit? If we were to claim that we have no right to destroy a species modeled by evolution for millions of years? That we have the obligation to leave our descendants a world as diverse and wonderful as the one we have received? Moving the approach to another area, do we have to respect minorities, or women, or whatever, because that benefits us? Or do they deserve respect? Same with nature.

So let’s turn the question around. What is the use of this species? And you ask me? You, what are you for?