Dealing with the last question first, yes, trade in animal products will still be a major challenge because it is unlikely that China, Japan or the US (the biggest consumers of wildlife products) are going to change their ways, notwithstanding PETA; besides, human society will continue to use resources and the current developmental model, which frees more and more people from food production, will continue to generate a workforce that needs employment, whether in manufacturing gee-gaws or else in making war on each other. As long as resources are being used, conservation will be necessary, because many systems are already at the limit of their 'carrying capacity'; as long as education is compartmentalized, there will be a face off between engineers applying their learning and ecologists applying their learning, both striving for the betterment of mankind. Worst, of course, is the inexplicable choice of economists as decision makers. The attempts to convert ecosystem services into economic terms so that such persons could understand them was a ludicrous case of the tail trying to wag the dog. The obvious thing should have been to educate these people in ecological concepts, but no, that was not done.

So, to my mind, unless there is a major shift of emphasis from economic terms to a broader basket of terms of reference, the challenges will remain the same. It is still the greediest who receive the greatest reward in society, the biggest exploiters who receive the reverence of the majority of humanity. I do not see that changing until the existing economic systems undergo a radical change, and I don't see the Bank of International Settlements letting that happen anytime soon....so the fabled 86 families who own half the global wealth at present will continue to run things and we lesser mortals will continue to run.. and fight... and die..

Although Peter is pessimistic about the future and the low capacity of the human species evolve, I am unfortunately all agree with him. Future issues will probably be the same, but with pressure on species and ecosystems increasingly strong.

As Peter points out, environmental education should be an important tool to change the mentality. The role of association should also be increasingly important.

We can consider the conservation biology as a response to the recent wave of global environmental change that threatens to eliminate a huge portion of the world's biological diversity, creating protected areas, endangered species listing, managing programs breeding and reintroduction ... But there is a crisis discipline "like cancer" said Arne Naess (since 1989), an instrument made necessary in an emergency situation. More ecologists believe that conservation biology, "must move from being recorded disasters science a science of action ... ". It is a synthetic discipline that applies the principles of ecology, biogeography, genetics of populations, anthropology, economics, sociology, etc.., The maintenance of biological diversity the entire planet (Barbault, 1997). I think it is this teaching that can address aspects of environmental ethics. This philosophical approach has been widely criticized and caricatured by some, yet it is not a specific doctrine, but a "platform of reflection" on which all the thinkers of the ecology may be based. The recent development of knowledge of the functioning of ecosystems, particularly the many interrelations between the various elements that compose them. "It raises awareness of the profound ignorance about human relationships formed within the biosphere, and therefore the effects of disturbances that human activities can introduce" (Naess, 1973). The central issue is that of a change in our perception that will determine the priorities and actions to implement: when perception of biodiversity by the public is often limited to a few iconic species of fauna and flora, it is crucial to restore the biodiversity in terms of its ubiquity as the foundation of life and its many interactions with human societies (Chevassus-au-Louis et al., 2009). Environmental ethics is given a new object, the natural world is worthy of moral consideration for himself, that is to say, regardless of any coefficient value for human existence. The environment must be considered for its intrinsic values ​​and rights holder causing a number of moral and legal obligations. While the classical view raises the satisfaction of human needs as a goal (human-centered) and assigns the rest of the living status of "resource" deep ecology re-entered the human purposes in a broader perspective, the of living in order to take into account the needs of the entire biosphere, including humans because co-operates with other species for millions of years.