One controversial idea in vogue is that putting monetary values to ecosystems can be didactic because it puts nature in the language of decision-making. The rationale is that in this way it can be compared to other economic values, and being entirely valuated. Advocates of this approach argue that the monetary values of ecosystems are not their actual value, but just a fraction of it (the economic one). But ecosystems escape to the definition of economic good. What do you think about it?
Pedro L. Lomas: Dear Colleague environmental goods and services containing ecosystems have no real monetary value, and proceed to calculate them is pricing them and treat them as merchandise. Keep in mind that ecosystems are carriers and container elements, data and information known and undiscovered by science, which could be vital in the field of medicine, materials science and more. Putting a value on ecosystem suggests an irresponsible human behavior to the conservation and protection of nature, which ignores that in plants, a bird, in a geological layer can be hidden and to discover the future of humanity. Best Regards. Dr. de la Colina Rodríguez
Dear Armando, I agree with you, but many other experts think that putting a monetary value is a good way to promote conservation and sustainability. They often say that this is because money is the unique language understood by decision-makers, so that we need to translate natural values to monetary values to show the importance of nature to the decision-makers. I would like to know if decision-makers actually understand the message expressed in these terms or maybe this message has no sense.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Language