The Cult of Biodiversity is Anti-Human

The rallying cry to “save biodiversity” has become ubiquitous in environmental discourse, yet this seemingly self-evident imperative deserves closer scrutiny, particularly given that human civilization has fundamentally been built upon selecting, transforming, and reducing biodiversity rather than preserving it wholesale.

In recent years, biodiversity has emerged as one of the dominant slogans in environmental policy and activism. Scientific reports, public policies, and advocacy platforms continuously sound alarms about its supposed decline and call for its protection. According to Causeur, this framing presents biodiversity as a fragile treasure upon which the future of both the planet and humanity depends.

The moralistic tone of these campaigns makes opposition appear almost unconscionable—who could possibly stand against the diversity of life? Yet before proclaiming that biodiversity must be defended at all costs, fundamental questions remain unaddressed: Should it be preserved for its own sake, as if possessing intrinsic value, or merely because it serves human needs? And if the latter, is all biodiversity beneficial to humanity, or only certain types?

The Sacralization of Biodiversity

These critical questions rarely surface in public debate, where biodiversity appears as an unquestionable good requiring preservation in its current state. The scientific community, which positions itself as guardian of biodiversity, has likewise largely avoided such examination. The latest book by biologist Marc-André Selosse, “De la biodiversité comme un humanisme” (Seuil, 2026), exemplifies this trend, as Causeur reports—rather than clarifying these fundamental issues, the work contributes primarily to the sacralization of biodiversity.

Contemporary discourse treats biodiversity as artwork requiring museum-quality preservation. Yet the concept encompasses three distinct forms of diversity: genetic variation within species, diversity among species themselves, and diversity of ecosystems in which they evolve. Which element should receive protection? The number of species, their genetic diversity, or their habitats?

The conventional answer would be all three. But this raises a deeper question: Why should the status quo be preferable to evolution—that is, to the continuous variation in biodiversity levels? This demand appears particularly puzzling given that biodiversity has never ceased evolving on our planet. Why attempt to freeze the movement of life itself?

The Resilience Question

Some voices warn of an approaching sixth great extinction. While possible, this scenario remains far from established, especially as certain factors contributing to biodiversity erosion—such as agricultural land expansion—may diminish in intensity in coming decades. Significantly, even Selosse himself acknowledges that from the standpoint of biodiversity as such, a collapse would not prove definitive. Like past mass extinctions, including the event that eliminated the dinosaurs, life would find ways to flourish anew.

In other words, biodiversity is not the fragile treasure so often described. On the contrary, it demonstrates remarkable resilience.

The Human-Centered Argument

If concern about declining biodiversity should not stem from biodiversity’s intrinsic value, Selosse argues it should arise from human self-interest. He contends that biodiversity must be viewed as a form of humanism because it proves crucial for human health. Indeed, no human life can exist without some degree of living diversity. Our survival and health depend upon an ensemble of organisms—animals, plants, bacteria—from which we derive resources indispensable to our wellbeing, such as the intestinal microbiome.

As a fungi specialist, Selosse also emphasizes their decisive role in agricultural functioning. On this point, he is certainly correct. But does this mean biodiversity as such benefits humanity?

The Overlooked Threats

Discussion of biodiversity must never forget that a nature rich in species is also a nature saturated with threats. Pathogenic agents—viruses, bacteria, parasites—constitute a full part of this living diversity. Human history is equally the story of our struggle to contain them, from plague to malaria to emerging diseases.

Similarly, great diversity of plant and animal species is not always compatible with human needs. The entire agricultural enterprise has been constructed upon ecosystem simplification, selection of a few species, and elimination of those that harm them. And who would not be relieved that large predators no longer roam our countryside?

Put simply, humanity has progressed by sorting through, transforming, and reducing biodiversity rather than preserving it indiscriminately. The question is not whether biodiversity matters, but which forms of biodiversity serve human flourishing and which pose obstacles to it. This fundamental distinction remains conspicuously absent from contemporary environmental orthodoxy.

With information from Causeur