Some might not realize the tangible value of birds, but it would be foolish to underestimate how tough life would be without them.
Odds are, if you’re reading this magazine, you feel a moral and aesthetic imperative to support bird conservation. With an estimated 1,200 species facing extinction over the next century, and many more suffering from severe habitat loss, the impulse to protect birds must be universal. Right?
Well, if you happen to be a birder or a biologist, then “of course, birds have an intrinsic value, and we have an ethical obligation to conserve them,” says University of Utah ornithologist Cagan Sekercioglu. But bird enthusiasts don’t add up to a social consensus. “A lot of people want something more utilitarian,” he points out. Elected officials face competing constituent pressures; corporate executives must answer to shareholders; working folks have more immediate economic concerns. If we want policy makers and the public to take conservation seriously, then perhaps we must offer credible research showing that healthy bird populations are essential to human welfare.
Fortunately, there’s plenty of proof. Birds keep farmers in business. They protect our drinking water by preventing erosion. They slow the spread of disease. They keep the furniture industry supplied with timber. They provide critical environmental data. The list continues ad infinitum. The collective term for the many ways birds (and other animals, plants, and landscapes) support and improve human life is “ecosystem services.” Understanding these services, and quantifying their dollar value, has been a growing priority for scientists worried about the unprecedented loss of biodiversity we’re now seeing—by one popular estimate, some 27,000 plant and animal species each year, many of them driven extinct by human activity.
[…]
