The rationale for protecting Monteverde's flora and
fauna must be widened beyond the simple appeal to
economic self-interest. Conservationists must frame
the argument so that it endures in the face of economic
and social pressures (see Wheelwright, "Enduring
Reasons," below). This is where the Monteverde tra-
ditions of political engagement, artistry, philosophy,
industry, ingenuity, and practicality can join with the
scientific research of conservation biologists to pre-
serve the region's rich natural heritage.ENDURING REASONS TO PRESERVE SPECIES
Nathaniel T. Wheelwrightlittering golden-green and ruby, Resplendent
Quetzals look like giant hummingbirds.
When a male quetzal soars in a courtship
display over Monteverde's tangled forest canopy, iri-
descent plumes extend more than half a meter beyond
his tail and wave like a shining green banner. Roger
Tory Peterson (1973), renowned author of field guides
to birds, called the quetzal "the most beautiful bird
in the New World." These magnificent birds are in
trouble throughout much of their range. The reason
is simple: many of the Central American highland
forests in which they live and that provide their diet
of fruit are being cut down. Despite the protection
quetzals receive in the MCFP and the International
Children's Rainforest, their future is not secure. The
story is the same for thousands of "resplendent spe-
cies" throughout the tropics, such as jaguars, orchids,
and birds of paradise. For other species, such as the
Golden Toad (see Chap. 5, Amphibians and Reptiles),
it is already too late.
Everyone agrees that we must forestall the accel-
erating loss of species. But who takes responsibility
for making the arguments to persuade a reluctant
public to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve
biodiversity? The conventional thinking is that the
only successful arguments are those that appeal to
people's self-interest. Such is the premise of news
articles heralding rain forest plants that might contain
the cure for AIDS. The rationale for protecting tropi-
cal forests rests on the notion that it is in human be-
ings' best interest to preserve them. It is economists
and ecologists who are charged with marshaling sup-
porting evidence. Unfortunately, in many cases, none
exists.
Economic arguments follow these lines: if we do
not save Resplendent Quetzals or the montane for-
ests that house them, we may have unwittingly bid
goodbye to the cure for AIDS (or other diseases),
which awaits discovery in the bark of a plant that
depends on quetzals to disperse their seeds. The van-
ishing tropical forest may hold the key to solving
global food shortages. Even more attractive is the
thought that the tropics may yield some product—a
lubricant, a fiber, a pharmaceutical, a gene, a lure for
ecotourists—that could make someone rich.
However, once we agree to play the "profit-motive"
game, we implicitly accept as our guiding principle
the assumption that a species' right to exist depends
on its usefulness to humans. Yet what happens when
we justify the existence of a particular species be-
cause it provides us with some valuable natural prod-
uct, and then discover a synthetic equivalent that is
cheaper to produce? Who will care about Ancistro-
cladus korupensis, a nondescript vine of Cameroon
that contains an anti-AIDS compound, when we can
manufacture it in the laboratory? How safe are whales,
mahogany trees, or any commercially exploitable spe-
cies if it can be demonstrated that more money could
be made by harvesting the last one and investing the
profits in cattle futures?
Ecologists have added their voices, warning that
the loss of keystone species could ripple through food
webs, shaking the structure until the whole system
collapses. Some have predicted an acceleration of
extinctions following the disappearance of a single
species. The implicit threat is that dying species fore-
shadow a dying planet, and that humans may be the
next to go. This argument is undermined because it
exaggerates the consequences of the disappearance of
a single species. If a surgeon were to remove one of
your vital organs, you would die. But if habitat dis-
ruption removes Resplendent Quetzals, Monteverde's
remaining forest will not die. It will surely be a dif-
ferent forest—quieter, far less dazzling—but it will
not unravel. Species are not equivalent to vital or-
gans, and ecosystems are not comparable to organ-
isms. They couldn't be, or life on our planet already
would have been destroyed by the effects of the count-
less extinctions that have occurred throughout evo-
lutionary history.
Traditional economic or ecological arguments are
insufficient to protect most species over the long term.432 Conservation BiologyG