The conservation of our environment has been a long standing debate between two extremes. On the one hand, some may argue for biodiversity, claiming that it has value for science amongst other things, on the other hand, there are those who may argue that putting a limit on the utilization of resources of this earth is like saying that we are not good enough for nature. Were we put on this earth to work with nature or were we put here to make nature work for us? There is no right answer. Choosing one or the other would be equal to putting a lesser value on either the humans, or our environment.
             Conservationists argue that modern technological societies create disturbances in the environment leading to fragmentation of natural vegetation and the elevation of the risks of extinction. We must however realize that biodiversity is not merely saving wild life and creating protected areas, it is the protection of our own lives, the food we eat, the air we breath; biodiversity, as some would put it, is the very essence of our livelihood. If man does not want to preserve nature solely for the preservation of the environment, he should protect nature on the grounds that he is protecting himself. For example, opposing the mining of uranium, as nuclear fuel is hazardous to human life, opposing destruction of forests, burning of fossil fuel, as they add to pollutants in the air-air that we breath. We should realize that our participation is crucial for the preservation of our own lives. If invasions on nature is continued, then we stand to lose crucial life support systems!
             through the loss of important habitats.
             This is not to say that nature exists on its own and it should be left unexplored. Nature and humans coexist. The idea is that we should treat all of life as a whole system, not dividing its individuals or elements. Human living environment is a vital component of the broader environment.
             ...