Hi. Just an observation - the whole blog post (which I found very interesting) is pitched in terms of what biodiversity can do for us. I wondered whether people working on biodiversity had any commitment to the idea that biodiversity was good for its own sake, quite apart from its benefits for humanity?
If the diversity of nature does have value in itself (or if those talking about biodiversity haven't settled this question - maybe even deliberately avoided it?) does not talking about this undercut the "moral authority" of those advocating biodiversity "as a vehicle to deliver public services"?
Don't get me wrong, I can see the strategic appeal of showing what biodiversity can do for humanity. I just worry about the long term consequences of framing the issue in these terms, or about cases where humanity's interests, and those of non-human nature, diverge.