Biodiversity: Founded on the fallacy of composition

Vincent J. Curtis

3 Jan 23

RE: Fight for biodiversity continues despite the threat of Bill 23.  Op-ed by Sophie Wilkinson and Marie Covert.  Wilkinson holds a doctorate in ecohydrology specializing in wetlands and ecology.  She is also an active member of Conservation Matters.  Covert is a volunteer for Conservation Matters.

The entire biodiversity argument is founded upon the fallacy of composition, the belief that’s what true of a part is true of the whole, or that what true of the whole is true of all the parts.  The biodiversity crowd dismisses with contempt a field of wheat as a “monoculture.”  I guess the same is true of a suburb, but the world won’t come to end because of one more of either; nor, though more biodiverse, is it better that wheat be grown on alternate suburban front lawns instead of all grass.

The screaming tone and apocalyptic warnings of the authors is an attempt to substitute fear for reason.  The biodiversity crowd is rationally incoherent, and the authors cannot explain what “biodiversity” means, or its scientific measurement.  The world isn’t going to come to an end because a Conservative government allows development of a small portion of land set aside by a Liberal government as “greenspace.”

The biodiversity crowd is just another component of the anti-human left.  The biodiversity they are hostile to is that of the human herd; they think the world would be a better place with far fewer humans on it.

-30-