Protecting nature benefits who?

[u/Nila_Script]

I mean, we spend millions to save pandas, who have very low survival instinct because it is cute and can attract tourists but not passenger pigeon, dodo, tasmanian tiger because of " Charismatic Megafauna Bias". We need vertebrates, not vertebrates, algea, fungi and plants that provides us, is charming or indirectly help us(like tourism).

So, if it a pure act of kindness, why are vertebrates(mammals, birds, fishes, etc) gets 86% of nature conservation funding

And only 6.6% for plants and less than 0.1% for fungi and algea?

Isn't it biased? Who benefits from that?

P.S. This is not a troll post.

I seriously felt we humans are so biased towards protecting only vertebrates that serves us and not the ones that are crucial part of nature. And I thought, it can be changed only if we notice it and decision makers notice a better solution.

I felt like better solutions are not implemented yet either because of ignorance or someone is benefiting from it? Might be govt, businessmen or someone? . But thank you for getting offended guys. I think love towards nature still exist and we are ready to raise our voice against someone.

I mean that's my opinion and I love your opinions.

[u/t0mb0mb87]

Yes. We need to be protecting biomes/climate patterns post haste. Literally ALL life is under threat.

[u/Mvrbs]

this question makes me sick and im not entirely convinced you're not trolling, but in case you're being serious - or someone who actually thinks this way stumbles across this - i will try to give an honest answer

protecting nature benefits nature. this selfish mindset, that everything has to benefit us or it has no right to live, is genuinely disgusting and repulsive. something doesnt have to contribute to us to get to live. we dont get to play god like that

i dont know much the percentage of what is and isnt protected but unfortunately it's easier to raise money to protect larger, more lovable animals, than it is to protect an obscure fungus that people dont know much about. but i do agree there needs to be more money put into conservation, it's just a limited pool unfortunately so efforts are put the best they can. you have to remember that for every 1 dollar put into conservation, there is thousands being put into other industries that damage nature as a whole. rn conservation is like trying to hold back a rolling boulder. it's inevitable it'll collapse without major governmental changes. so yes conservation money is kind of spread thin

but just bc an animal is "useless" to humans does not mean in anyway shape or form it doesnt deserve conservation. again, i have to re-iterate; we do not get to play god. stuff can exist without benefitting us. this mindset that stuff has to benefit us to have any value or right to live is exactly why we're in the state we're in lol

edit: circling back to the panda discussion, just bc one animal seems "useless" doesnt mean it is. nature is all interconnected, so by protecting one species, you indirectly protect dozens if not hundreds of others. so even if there looks to be no real "benefit" to protecting a species, its survival can help countless others

[u/Nila_Script → u/Mvrbs]

I just provided evidence that's what is happening for years. Honestly, I'm against it but who gives voice if we don't even know what's happening in conservation funding?

On contrary, I do believe studying plants, fungi and algea helps humans much more and we might find more microbes, that can digest complex plastics, in return, we might get a good quality of life.

But it didn't happen yet because of either ignorance or someone is benefiting from this? And that's why I started with a question conservation of nature benefits whom?

[u/Nila_Script → u/Mvrbs]

Also speaking of thin funding restrictions, ipc started with same funding as football, and one used it wisely. I'm just pointing out it might be used more wisely.

And speaking of pandas, I didn't wanna say eliminate pandas. But I'm just asking whether humans are selfish enough to save something because it attracts tourists? I mean, if we remove humans from the equation, it would be extinct long back. And we are trying so hard to protect it because it is cute but not put 20% of that efforts to animals who don't serve to humans but serve a crucial part of nature. If it was miscommunicate, I'm so sorry.

[u/bushstone-curlew]

Inherent value of nature aside, we are a part of nature and rely on it to survive. ‘Nature’ as in wild natural places provides us with ecosystem services; it cleans the air, captures carbon, cycles water (how we get fresh water for drinking), we rely on thousands of different species of flora and fauna for food, medicine, labour, building materials, finite resources etc.

Feels like this a troll post, I’m not gonna lie, but I’m responding on the off chance it’s not.

[u/JoshEvolves → u/bushstone-curlew]

To add to this, no matter how it looks from your perspective, we are a part of nature not apart from nature!

[u/Mountain_Mirror_3642]

There's a lot of false equivalence here, but you're not entirely wrong and I get what you're saying. Traditionally, species that humans find cute, cuddly, or charismatic tend to be easier to raise money for. But it's in our own self interest for the survival of our own species to conserve all species and all habitat types. We cannot survive outside of nature, and we allow natural habitat to be destroyed at our own peril, no matter how big or small.

[u/ecologistguy]

Look, charasmatic fauna do bring in funds in a way other organisms do not, AND that funding raised for conserving those species is often put into conserving their habitats, which benefits all of those species you mention.

I conserve rattlesnakes. Nobody wants to fund that work. But if I couch my grant applications as conserving waterfowl, turkey, or any other popular animal that shares their habitat, the rattlesnakes reap the benefits.

Charasmatic fauna are "umbrella species" that help raise money for everything else.

[u/bobmac102]

To effectively conserve the vertebrates you mention entails protecting and restoring their habitat, which does necessitate the restoration of plants and invertebrates.

Ideally, charismatic fauna should be used in advocacy and grants to buoy those threatened but less charismatic.