Introduction xxxiii
has been bred out of the current domesticated varieties but that may be of critical value in rejuvenating
domesticated strains in the future (for example, if a domesticated strain became vulnerable to some kind
of blight or if there were a need to develop a more heat tolerant strain). As the world becomes more and
more dependent on a smaller and smaller variety of plants and animals for food, timber, and natural fib-
ers, there is increasing concern about the loss of genetic diversity. Third, environmentalists and scientists
warn that we are losing species that may be of great value to humans and that many of these organisms
may not yet even have been discovered.
Because biodiversity reaches its maximum in rainforests, when rainforests are destroyed, incredibly
diverse and potentially valuable communities are also lost. In Indonesia, for example, where the rainfor-
est is being cut down to make way for palm plantations to supply the demand for palm oil, the helmeted
hornbill is but one of the species in danger of disappearing.^11 Opposition to rainforest destruction is
particularly strong among environmentalists, but for loggers, miners, and farmers, who may use the
rainforest in ways that damage or destroy it, the long-term effects of forest destruction are not an
immediate concern.
THE COMPLEXITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
As long as uninhabited or sparsely inhabited lands existed and the human impact on the environment
was confined to small segments of the planet, the consequences of human population growth and tech-
nological innovation could be largely ignored. Today, though, there are few frontiers left on earth, and
many human activities have global impacts. Pollution, industrial and mining activity, disease and popu-
lation dislocations can have devastating impacts not only on nearby communities but also on distant
countries. Chemicals released into the atmosphere cause acid rain that destroys forests hundreds of
miles away from the point of source and may even affect the climate of the whole earth; the fishing and
ocean dumping practices of one nation impinge on the availability of seafood to nations around the
globe; microbes on food produced in one country result in outbreaks of illness thousands of miles away;
people caught in the crossfire of war or facing environmental degradation in their homelands as a result
of rising sea levels, encroaching deserts, or vanishing water supplies become refugees seeking entry into
other countries.
People throughout the world are being forced to make difficult economic and social choices as they
attempt to balance human needs with environmental limitations. They must decide what kinds of tech-
nology and infrastructure their nation should invest in (e.g., alternative energy, biotechnology, roads
and bridges, coastal barriers), what kinds of limits on individual rights they are willing to accept (e.g.,
property, healthcare, child-bearing), and on what basis they want to make these decisions (e.g., economic
impact, moral values, equity).
Recognition that these decisions will affect how we and future generations of Americans will live has
prompted vociferous arguments about where our nation’s priorities should lie. On one side are those who
argue that we must immediately diminish our impact on the environment and lower our carbon foot-
print; on the other are those who maintain that we should use all available resources to further human
well-being and that human ingenuity will enable us to do this into the foreseeable future. While the most
strident of the voices at the two extremes of this debate have often been the most effective in raising peo-
ple’s consciousness, it is only by listening to all the voices in the debate and carefully examining the facts
supporting the arguments that we will be able to comprehend and assess the long-term social, economic,
and political ramifications of alternative pathways for addressing complex environmental problems.