And such a total cost estimate must include the long-run indirect costs of reduction in economic growth to a community's education and general advancement. Maintaining the Amazon and other areas in a state of stability might even have counterproductive results for species diversity, according to a recent body of research. This is another subtle issue which must be taken into account. Conservation biologists' goals with respect to species diversity are not clear. This vagueness of goals makes it very difficulty to compare the worth of a species-saving activity against another value.
Many biologists consider the interests of humans and of other species to be opposed.
There is now no prima facie case for any expensive species- safeguarding policy without more extensive analysis than has been done heretofore. The existing data on the observed rates of species extinction are almost ludicrously inconsistent with the doomsters' claims of rapid disappearance, and they do not support the various extensive and expensive programs they call for. But the question deserves deeper thought, and more careful and wide ranging analysis, than has been given it until now. I do not suggest we ignore extinctions. Rather, we should be as informed as possible.