Question

"Useless Creatures"

by Richard Conniff

Improbably, wildlife conservationists now also often hear the call of the useful. Along with a large
contingent of eco-finance bureaucrats, they try to save threatened habitats by reminding nearby
communities of all the benefits they derive from keeping these habitats intact. Forests, meadows and
marshes prevent floods, supply clean water, provide habitat for species that pollinate crops, put
oxygen into the atmosphere and take carbon out, and otherwise make themselves useful. In some
cases, conservation groups or other interested parties actually put down cash for these ecosystem
services—paying countries, for instance, to maintain forests as a form of carbon sequestration. The
argument, in essence, is that we can persuade people to save nature by making it possible for them
to sell it. They can take nature to the bank, or at least to the local grocery. They can monetize it. (The
new revised version of Genesis now says, “God made the wild animals according to their kinds, and
he said, ‘Let them be fungible.’ ”)
I understand the logic, or at least the desperation, that drives conservationists to this horrible idea. It
may seem like the only way to keep what’s left of the natural world from being plowed under by
unstoppable human expansion and by our insatiable appetite for what appears to be useful. But
usefulness is precisely the argument other people put forward to justify destroying or displacing
wildlife, and they generally bring a larger and more persuasive kind of green to the argument. Nothing
you can say about 100 acres in the New Jersey Meadowlands will ever add up for a politician who
thinks a new shopping mall will mean more jobs for local voters (and contributions to his campaign
war chest). Nothing you can say about the value of rhinos for ecotourism in South Africa will ever
matter to a wildlife trafficker who can sell their horns for $30,000 a pound in Vietnam.

Use the passage linked below to answer the question.



Reprinted by permission of author Richard Conniff

"Useless Creatures"
How would the author describe the idea that “we can persuade people to save nature by making it possible for them to sell it”?


(1 point)

a false dichotomy, because it presents the idea that there are two opposite choices

a slippery slope, because if people value money over animals, they might start valuing money over people

a bias, because choosing the value of nature over the value of money is a personal judgment

a fallacy, because if people’s motivation is money, they might sometimes choose money over preserving nature
Skip to navigation

Answer 1

d. a fallacy, because if people’s motivation is money, they might sometimes choose money over preserving nature

The author calls the idea “this horrible idea” and argues monetizing nature can fail—people or developers with greater monetary incentives will still choose money over conservation.