148 Human Impact on Biodiversity, Overview environment, the myth of the so-called ‘‘ecologically noble savage,’’ which amounts to little more than a ‘‘straw man’’ argument (Harkin and Lewis, 2007) Instead, it recognizes the fact that many indigenous societies were to some degree environmentally friendly and that some still are, even though others are not or were not These variants of the human impact on biodiversity have been documented in numerous cases by cultural and historical ecologists Revisionist advocates who attack indigenous societies as environmentally destructive have yet to realize, let alone adequately resolve, the basic contradiction in their argument – how indigenes can be so knowledgeable about their habitat and interact with and monitor it on a daily basis, yet be so ignorant of, or amenable to, such destructive practices A related fallacy is that all humans are environmentally destructive, the so-called ‘‘Homo devastans’’ or ‘‘humans as the exterminator species’’ view (Bale´e, 1998) Such simplistic either–or, all-or-nothing, always-or-never thinking is misleading at best, but it is a surprisingly common defect of advocates of this view Blaming all of humankind for a negative impact on biodiversity is simply scientifically inaccurate, sloppy scholarship, and professionally irresponsible, one of the problems with the idea of humans as the dominant animal It needs to be emphasized again that humanity is diverse and so is its impact on biodiversity – some societies decrease it, others sustain it, some enhance it, and others affect it in some combination of these directions A more careful, contextualized, and nuanced approach to such issues is sorely needed Diversity Principle In general, several authorities have observed independently that the greatest concentrations of biological diversity tend to coincide with those of cultural diversity, especially in tropical forest areas, and most of all in the so-called megadiversity countries of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Congo, Madagascar, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea The present author calls this general tendency toward a geographical coincidence of high cultural diversity and high biodiversity the diversity principle This coincidence has only begun to be recognized and explored, let alone explained However, wherever indigenous societies thrive, biodiversity is likely to so as well One thing is certain: in such megadiversity regions, threats to either cultural or biological diversity also threaten the other Ironically, many indigenous societies that have proven sustainable and adaptive for centuries or even millennia, as well as their environments, are being degraded and destroyed by industrial and other societies that have yet to stand the test of time and increasingly show clear symptoms of maladaptation The concerns for biodiversity conservation and human rights are interdependent Furthermore, the degradation and destruction of cultural diversity, like that of biodiversity, seriously endanger the future adaptability of H sapiens as well as biological evolution in general (Maffi, 2001; Maffi and Woodley, 2010) Conclusions Globally the net impact of the human species has decreased biodiversity However, not all humans are equal in their impact on biodiversity because of the tremendous diversity in humankind throughout its temporal and spatial distributions, including cultural diversity At the population level, clearly some societies may sustain or even enhance biodiversity In particular, many indigenous societies, especially those who retain some core traditions despite superficial changes, have special potential in their environmental knowledge, worldviews, values, and other attributes to contribute to developing systems for the sustainable use, management, and conservation of biodiversity The cumulative and collective impact of humans on biodiversity across the world is sufficient to make it imperative that anyone concerned with the biodiversity of any area must consider the possibilities of human influence Accordingly, research on cultural ecology and historical ecology is usually indispensable Current anthropogenic extinction rates are estimated at 1000 to 10,000 times higher than normal background rates Furthermore, these recent anthropogenic extinctions also involve plants, whereas prehistoric mass extinctions mainly affected animals This is an alarming fact, among other reasons, considering how fundamental plants are to other life as primary producers in capturing solar energy through photosynthesis Another distinction of the present extinction spasm is that an increasing proportion of humanity is becoming aware of what they are doing to nature and could change their behavior to reduce their negative impacts After all, destroying biodiversity and ecosystems is ultimately ecocidal for humanity since they are our life-support systems Biodiversity is unlikely to be adequately conserved only by preservationism – by isolating nature from human disturbance in a few areas of supposed wilderness Much more effort needs to be directed to adequately recognizing and better managing human impacts from the local to the global levels and over the long term One problem is that decisions and actions that seem reasonable in the short term may have negative consequences in the long term Thus, adequate environmental and resource management requires, among other things, much better informed politicians and policymakers at all levels from the local to the international who have the political will and morality to consider no less than the integral relationship between humanity and biodiversity for many generations to come Of course, so far such leadership is grossly inadequate, but not unprecedented For instance, the Iroquois in North America acted with the seventh generation into the future in mind Perhaps the Convention on Biological Diversity from the 1992 Rio Summit, Rio þ 10, the Earth Charter, and other initiatives are a hopeful change Biodiversity conservation also depends on a much more informed, concerned, and involved public that understands the nature and consequences of human impact on biodiversity Considering the gravity and urgency of this subject, environmental and biodiversity education must be advanced at all levels including in the mass media In the process, environmental ethics must be first and foremost One of the best places to begin is by exploring Aldo Leopold’s (1949) land ethic: ‘‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community It is wrong when it tends otherwise.’’ (However, today the term ‘‘resilience’’ is more appropriate than ‘‘stability.’’) Every individual decision potentially has some impact on biodiversity, however