Article
Thierry et al. (2022) question our assertion that present anthropogenic threats are more important for declines in animal population sizes now than is climate change. Unfortunately, their criticism is misplaced and misjudged: they are using predictive studies that look to the future, whereas we were addressing the present. Our central point (Caro et al., 2022) was that exploitation and habitat destruction are more important right now (in 2022); we did not discuss future threats (next decade and beyond) nor discount an interaction between anthropogenic habitat loss with climate–based loss. Indeed, we emphasized the importance of conserving tropical habitats for reversing climate change. Our study, based on past and current population declines, maintains that there will be much less biodiversity at future risk from climate change due to fires, thermal intolerance, rising seas levels, etc., because we are simply losing the contemporary battle against present threats in part by a myopic focus on the wrong threat. Only a proportion of tropical species, lucky enough to survive the current threats, will face the later arrival of climate change.
More generally, it seems extraordinary to us that the new tilt in conservation science looks so much to the future rather than to the present. This is akin to the decades- old focus on saving highly endangered species rather than focusing on the causes of their decline. For example, for black rhinoceroses Diceros bicornis one perspective was to save genetic diversity across 50+ generations when more than 95% of the in situ rhinos were poached within three decades and many of their unoccupied habitats were being converted to agricultural pastures (Berger, 1994). Suddenly it seems now that putting effort into proactive future measures, to the detriment of present efforts, is deemed to be the correct way to save species. Imagine if doctors in accident and emergency focused on future concerns about heart attacks while neglecting to save immediate patients‘ lives in emergency wards.
Certainly, this nouveau philosophy to conservation is a departure from how conservation was initially conceived (Soulé, 1986). Perhaps it stems from a hidden acceptance that we have failed to stop the development juggernauts of opening up pristine areas, road construction, agricultural expansion, and the wildlife trade. So instead we now focus on climate change as it resonates more strongly with the public? Or is it that we are just so self–obsessed that we are now seconding biodiversity conservation to help stop CO2 emissions because we know that the latter will affect humans directly through conflict over water and food supplies, changing patterns of human migration, war and perhaps disease?
For those of us interested in conserving animal populations, wilderness, and all forms of biodiversity today, we need to tackle contemporary threats while being mindful and astute to also address future threats. Essentially, if we are unable to act on immediate problems now, then what is the point of anxious naval gazing about future threats? \
KEYWORDS
biodiversity, climate change, exploitation, habitat destruction