Generally we learned that biodiversity relates to living organisms, what they are made up of, and the habitat they live in. Biodiversity is also the foundation of maintaining agriculture and the world food refuge (Bickell and Angles). Therefore if there is a loss of cultural diversity, which includes languages, and traditional knowledge of the farm communities and native cultures, it is linked to the loss of biodiversity (Bickell and Angles). So if the country is experiencing loss of cultural diversity, it will also experience a loss of biodiversity. Native people and farming communities seem like an important part of keeping the biodiversity and cultural diversity of the country together. Technically farming communities and native people of the country are creators, guardians, and visionaries of biological knowledge and resources (Bickell and Angles). Since native people and farming communities are such a big part of maintaining cultural and biodiversity I do not believe that governing bodies should be involved in protecting cultural diversity. If the native people and farming communities allow cultural diversity to slip away then country governments should not interfere with how they are running things.
There are some great examples of how biodiversity and cultural diversity are linked together. One example is that having control over certain plants and how they vary could be very dangerous in the long run (Bickell and Angles). Another example is that scientists are researching a way to have geoengineering (manipulating environmental process’s to affect Earth’s climate) either reduce or delay climate change (Bickell and Angles). The problem with this is that it could take away climate results from the richest countries (Bickell and Angles). Some computer models show that lowering temperatures or reducing sunlight could benefit some temperate regions, but it will have great consequences for social and agricultural developments in Africa (Bickell and Angles). The UN Convention’s on Biological Diversity is trying to influence nation states to control synthetic biology (SynBio), which is a new form of genetic engineering (Bickell and Angles). This is very popular in South Korea where synthetic biology is developed and distributed without international regulations, which increases the number of synthetically changed products that are going into the market (Bickell and Angles).
There could be many reasons to explain why my conclusion is wrong. One of the ideas that could make it wrong is that native people and farming communities do not actually play such a big part in cultural or biodiversity as we think they do. They could just casually regulate it all or they could not even be the “creators, guardians, and visionaries of biological knowledge and resources” that we thought they are. Along with that they could have the possibility of allowing governing bodies to take over and manage the cultural diversity instead of doing all the hard work themselves. Although after researching and knowing a lot about how native people and farming communities are about land and the biodiversity around them, I could not imagine this happening. I believe that if they are so concerned about the land and the animals that inhabit the land around them they could not give up the power they have to control these things. They want as much power as they can to protect and serve the cultural diversity and biodiversity in their country and area that they live in. It is almost like how the Indians in Arizona are about the Indian Reservation, they are very protective of the land they have, along with the wild animals that inhabit those areas.
References:
Bickell, O., & Angles, M. (n.d.). Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity. Retrieved August 5, 2015, from http://www.etcgroup.org/issues/biodiversity-cultural-diversity.
There are some great examples of how biodiversity and cultural diversity are linked together. One example is that having control over certain plants and how they vary could be very dangerous in the long run (Bickell and Angles). Another example is that scientists are researching a way to have geoengineering (manipulating environmental process’s to affect Earth’s climate) either reduce or delay climate change (Bickell and Angles). The problem with this is that it could take away climate results from the richest countries (Bickell and Angles). Some computer models show that lowering temperatures or reducing sunlight could benefit some temperate regions, but it will have great consequences for social and agricultural developments in Africa (Bickell and Angles). The UN Convention’s on Biological Diversity is trying to influence nation states to control synthetic biology (SynBio), which is a new form of genetic engineering (Bickell and Angles). This is very popular in South Korea where synthetic biology is developed and distributed without international regulations, which increases the number of synthetically changed products that are going into the market (Bickell and Angles).
There could be many reasons to explain why my conclusion is wrong. One of the ideas that could make it wrong is that native people and farming communities do not actually play such a big part in cultural or biodiversity as we think they do. They could just casually regulate it all or they could not even be the “creators, guardians, and visionaries of biological knowledge and resources” that we thought they are. Along with that they could have the possibility of allowing governing bodies to take over and manage the cultural diversity instead of doing all the hard work themselves. Although after researching and knowing a lot about how native people and farming communities are about land and the biodiversity around them, I could not imagine this happening. I believe that if they are so concerned about the land and the animals that inhabit the land around them they could not give up the power they have to control these things. They want as much power as they can to protect and serve the cultural diversity and biodiversity in their country and area that they live in. It is almost like how the Indians in Arizona are about the Indian Reservation, they are very protective of the land they have, along with the wild animals that inhabit those areas.
References:
Bickell, O., & Angles, M. (n.d.). Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity. Retrieved August 5, 2015, from http://www.etcgroup.org/issues/biodiversity-cultural-diversity.