Content uploaded by Richard James Ladle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard James Ladle
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environment and Society: Advances in Research 1 (2010): 96–115 © Berghahn Books
doi:10.3167/ares.2010.010105
nnn
Origins, Uses, and Transformation
of Extinction Rhetoric
Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
n ABSTRACT: e concept of extinction is at the heart of the modern conservation move-
ment, and massive resources have been spent on developing models and frameworks
for quantifying and codifying a phenomenon that has been described by American
researcher and naturalist Edward O. Wilson as an obscure and local biological process.
Scientists, environmentalists, and politicians have repeatedly used extinction rhetoric as
a core justication for a global conservation agenda that seeks to inuence a wide range
of human activities despite the inherent diculty and uncertainty involved in estimating
current and future rates of extinction, or even in verifying the demise of a particular spe-
cies. In this article we trace the historical origins of the extinction concept and discuss its
power to inuence policies, agendas, and behaviors. We argue that conservation needs
to develop a more culturally meaningful rhetoric of extinction that aligns scientic evi-
dence, cultural frames, institutional frameworks, and organizational interests.
n KEYWORDS: climate change, conservation, crisis, extinction, frames, Red Lists, rhetoric
e death of a species is a more remarkable event than the end of an imperial dynasty. (Orton
1869: 540)
Extinction is typically viewed by contemporary conservation scientists as the logical endpoint of
the process of population decline, that is, the point on the graph where the population size curve
meets the x-axis and terminates abruptly and nally (Ladle and Jepson 2008). e operational
denition given by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is that a species
should be considered extinct “when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has
died” (IUCN 2001: 14). is denition reveals one of the main stumbling blocks for eld-based
measurements of extinction: the diculty of ascertaining the continued existence of a species
that is certainly exceedingly rare and may also inhabit an isolated area that is dicult to survey
eectively. e nal death of a species, beyond the gaze of the scientists and conservationists,
led Edward O. Wilson (1992: 255) to conclude that extinction is “the most obscure and local of
all biological processes.”
e IUCN guidelines state that a species can be declared extinct only aer exhaustive surveys
fail to produce any observations within a time period and geographical range that are appropri-
ate to its life cycle and life form—an unfeasible task for most species (Roberts 2006). Butchart
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 97
and his colleagues have recently reinstated the defunct category of ‘possibly extinct’ to apply to
those species that are, “on the balance of evidence, likely to be extinct, but for which there is
a small chance that they may be extant and thus should not be listed as Extinct until adequate
surveys have failed to nd the species and local or unconrmed reports have been discounted”
(Butchart, Statterseld, and Brooks 2006: 9). Interestingly, this necessary ‘gray area’ has not pre-
vented many species from being prematurely labeled as extinct, allowing them to be ‘rediscov-
ered’ and, in the process, generating many positive headlines (Ladle et al. 2009).
e above denitions of extinction are concerned with species that are known to science,
have been collected and processed, and exist as physical specimens in the world’s biological col-
lections. However, there may be anywhere from 1 to 100 million species for which science has
no ocial records at the present time (Lomolino 2004). Extinctions of these ‘yet to be discov-
ered’ species have been of great importance in the construction of the ‘extinction crisis’, and they
are claimed to outnumber documented extinctions many times over (Whittaker et al. 2005).
Such ‘unseen’ or postulated extinctions are highly dependent on estimates of global species rich-
ness and are the source of most of the headline-grabbing gures that periodically appear in
the media. Moreover, the majority of such extinctions are in poorly described taxa (groups of
organisms) and ecosystems, such as arthropods in tropical forests.
Despite the inherent uncertainty associated with identifying, measuring, and forecasting
extinctions (Ladle 2009), the concept of extinction is a prominent element of issues relating
to the environment. It has been instrumental in the production of international conservation
agreements and associated programs and, for more than a century, has been deployed to attract
attention and motivate individual and collective actions that constrain our attitudes and behav-
iors toward the non-human world.
Extinction is the focal point of a vast scientic literature, concentrating mainly on the devel-
opment of techniques to measure and forecast extinction rates (reviewed in Lawton and May
1995; see also Ladle 2009). ese techniques are based on insights from diverse elds, including
paleontology (Jablonski 2001; McKinney 1997), genetics (Keller and Waller 2002), island bio-
geography (Channell and Lomolino 2000), behavior (Courchamp et al. 1999), and taxonomy
(Nee and May 1997). e wide variety of ways in which extinction can be dened, classied,
and measured has (perhaps unsurprisingly) led to increasing levels of misrepresentation of this
concept in the public domain (Ladle et al. 2005). In an attempt to clarify the diverse meanings of
the term ‘extinction’ and to explain its power to inuence institutional and individual behaviors,
Ladle and Jepson (2008) presented a new typology of extinction concepts associated with dif-
ferent degrees of scientic certainty concerning the disappearance of a species and the potential
for its re-emergence at some point in time. ey briey discussed the social inuence and power
of these dierent extinction ‘types’ in dierent settings and, in so doing, drew attention to the
multiple and changing usages of the term.
In this article we present an extended review and discussion about the origins and agency of
the term ‘extinction’ and examine its historical and contemporary impact in conservation dis-
course, policy, and management. To provide greater analytical traction, we draw on the concept
of the ‘frame’ (Goman 1974), which suggests that people make sense of and act within a com-
plex world by gathering together an assemblage of ideas, objects, and practices in frames (i.e.,
mental models/schemas). e concept has been extended by new social movement theorists
(e.g., Benford and Snow 2000) and is gaining popularity in science technology studies (e.g., Cal-
lon 1998), policy studies (e.g., Triandafyllidou and Fotiou 1998), including conservation (e.g.,
Lorimer 2006), and environmental communication (e.g., Davis 1995). Frames are essentially
stories constructed from concepts, metaphors, beliefs, and images interacting with the everyday
practices and technologies through which we live our lives. While each person constructs his
98 n Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
or her own frame and is able to switch between multiple frames, frame construction is largely a
social and cultural process. Frames develop over time and can be understood as the sedimented
histories of particular ways of understanding and engaging with the world. When frames include
collective actions that attract widespread consent, they become institutionalized, guiding poli-
cies and scientic, management, and cultural practices (Tarrow 1992).
e premise we explore in this article is that extinction—as a term, concept, fact, and pos-
sibility—organizes and assembles frames that incorporate individual and collective anxieties
relating to loss, decline, crisis, and so forth. ese frames help to explain and give meaning
to events in the non-human world and motivate and legitimate ideas for collective action. At
the same time, they enable conservation/environment issues to bridge and ow into numerous
other frames. Further, we suggest that the rhetorical power and cultural agency of extinction
enroll actors not directly concerned with avoiding species extinction, consciously or otherwise,
into pronouncements and interventions in the environment/conservation issue frame. ese
processes serve to transform extinction from a key idea element within wider frames to a dis-
tinct issue frame that has come to have an immense inuence on social decision making.
In considering these ideas, this article is organized into three sections. e rst section pres-
ents a brief review of the origins and historical context of the extinction concept. e second
section focuses on the power of this concept to transform intentional collective or individual
actions (sensu Engeström 2006; Eskola 1999) and examines the interplay between the domains
of scientic practice, the media, and conservation policy and governance institutions. In the
concluding section, we take stock of the inuence of extinction on decision-making frames
and explore areas of further investigation that would extend our understanding of the cultural,
social, and political dimensions of this concept.
e Origins of the Extinction Concept
e history of the concept of species extinction has two separate components. e rst involves
the realization during the nineteenth century that it is possible for a species to cease to exist. e
second entails the recognition that the decline and eventual disappearance of a species can be
directly or indirectly attributable to human impacts on the environment (Lowe 1983). Neither
of these processes occurred rapidly or completely, and it was probably not until the rst decades
of the twentieth century that a scientic consensus emerged on the role of humans in extinc-
tion, following the high-prole disappearance of several formerly abundant and highly visible
species, such as the passenger pigeon.
e slow emergence of a concept of extinction is unsurprising, given the almost complete
lack of biogeographical knowledge and the strict biblical interpretations that dominated West-
ern thinking in the natural sciences until the middle of the nineteenth century. Perhaps the
best candidate for the rst documented extinction is a plant referred to as ‘silphium’ by Pliny
the Elder in 77, who commented that its resin was a valuable and eective remedy against
illnesses ranging from fevers, coughs, and warts, not to mention its role as a useful contracep-
tive (Parejko 2003). Pliny goes on to describe a drastic decline in silphium availability and that,
within his own lifetime, the plant had not been seen in its native habitat for many years, the last
known stalk, valued at its weight in gold, having been sent to the emperor Nero (ibid.). However,
it was not until detailed analysis of the fossil remains of species such as the mammoth in the
late eighteenth century that extinction emerged as a socially important theme with potential
theological implications. e central gure in establishing extinction as an undeniable fact was
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), a professor of animal anatomy at the French National Museum
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 99
of Natural History in Paris. Cuvier’s careful reconstructions of fossil elephants led him to con-
clude that (1) they were very dierent from any living species; (2) given their size and dramatic
appearance, it was very unlikely that they still existed; and (3) the probable cause of extinction
was some form of periodic catastrophe (Rudwick 1997).
By 1859, the year Darwin published his seminal work, extinction was already widely accepted
among the academic community, although great doubts still remained about what could have
driven enormous animals such as dinosaurs and mastodons out of existence. ese doubts
extended to more contemporary examples of extinction where, in hindsight, human involve-
ment seems obvious and decisive. A good example is the Great Auk (Pinguinus impennis), a
large and impressive seabird that was hunted into extinction by European sherman. According
to nineteenth-century accounts, the last specimens were collected by a party of Icelanders in
1844 (Bengtson 1984). Although in hindsight overhunting was clearly to blame for the demise
of the Great Auk, contemporary writers had great diculty accepting the pivotal role of human
action. As James Orton (1869: 540) expressed it: “e upheaval or subsidence of strata, the
encroachments of other animals, and climatal revolutions—by which of these great causes of
extinction now slowly but incessantly at work in the organic world, the Great Auk departed this
life, we cannot say.”
is reluctance to attribute human causes to the contemporary extinction of species lasted
into the twentieth century, with many (but by no means all) commentators being reluctant to
point the nger of blame at fellow humans for playing an important role in extinctions. e rea-
sons behind the decline of the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)—a heavily hunted spe-
cies that has become iconic to the modern conservation movement—were also actively debated
in the scientic literature of the time. In a publication of the American Ornithologists’ Union,
G. C. Tremaine Ward (1901: 191) stated: “I am not aware of any satisfactory explanation of the
phenomena [i.e., the decline of the passenger pigeon]. It is not improbable, some epidemic
disease, spreading more rapidly on account of the immense number of individuals, nearly exter-
minated the species.”
As with the acceptance of the fact of extinction, the scientic community slowly coalesced
around the idea that this new wave of extinctions was most likely being driven by human action,
oen through direct persecution. is new understanding mobilized the formation of inuen-
tial societies, notably the Boone and Crockett Club in New York, founded in 1887 by eodore
Roosevelt, and the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire in London,
originally founded in 1903 in Africa by British naturalists and American statesmen. ese orga-
nizations and others like them promoted the social value that the “human conquest of nature
carries with it a moral responsibility to ensure the survival of threatened life forms” (Whittaker
et al. 2005: 4) and were a driving force behind the creation of wildlife sanctuaries and refuges
in North America and colonial territories (Jepson and Whittaker 2002). is social value, along
with the reality of extinctions, aligned with and was informed by nineteenth-century Western
humanitarian preoccupations relating to cruelty to domestic animals (omas 1984) and their
extension to practices of “bird slaughter for millinery ornament” (Doughty 1975: 103), market
hunting (e.g., for bison tongues), and recreational hunting (Trefethen 1961).
ese social trends of the late nineteenth century coincided with the rise of the print media,
and newspaper reportage of such events constructed the concepts of human-induced extinc-
tion and associated moral responsibilities in the minds of European and East Coast American
readerships. In conjunction with the debates surrounding the publication of Darwin’s Origin
of Species, they transformed Western framings of nature by downplaying the organizing role of
religious ideas and introducing new scientic notions. Furthermore, the awful loss of life during
World War I promoted associations in the public mind between the senseless killing of humans
100 n Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
and that of wildlife, further enhancing the legitimacy of collective action to govern the processes
leading to extinction (Jepson and Whittaker 2002). us, by 1931, the inuential American
biweekly magazine, Science News-Letter (now Science News) was prompted to write the follow-
ing with respect to the rapid demise of the thylacine (ylacinus cynocephalus), also known as
the Tasmanian tiger: “Australia, which has had a development more or less analogous to that of
the American West, is now passing through a phase also experienced in America—the realiza-
tion that reckless slaughter is threatening extermination of many of its unique animal species.”1
e article goes on to report how the government of Tasmania had recently taken steps to pre-
serve the remaining thylacines by banning the exportation of pelts.2 e last known thylacine
died in Tasmania’s Hobart Zoo on 7 September 1936 (Bulte et al. 2003).
Such high-prole extinctions and the fear that colonial expansion into Africa would result
in the decimation and extinction of large mammal populations did much to galvanize the
nascent global conservation movement. One notable result was the 1933 Convention Relative
to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in eir Natural State, which was signed in London
and became known as the London Convention. is treaty, which established a set of African
parks and wildlife sanctuaries (Hingston 1931; Jepson and Whittaker 2001), convinced Harold
Coolidge, a leading conservationist of the time, that extinctions could no longer be treated as
singular and unfortunate events. Coolidge mobilized the funds to commission the rst two
global reviews of extinction (Allen 1942; Greenway [1958] 1967), which played a signicant
role in promoting the view of individual extinctions and declines as indicators of a much larger
pattern of global extermination.
A more catastrophic view of nature’s trajectory came to the fore in the 1970s in the context
of Malthusian worries over the population bomb (Ehrlich 1971), anxieties due to the oil cri-
sis, and dire forecasts about the fate of tropical forests (see, e.g., Myers 1979). Arguably, it was
during this period that the term ‘crisis’ became attached to the extinction concept and began
to be used more systematically and strategically as an advocacy device by both scientists and
conservationists—a trend that reected the extent to which the concept had become embedded
within Western societies.
e Transformative Power of the Extinction Concept
ose who believe that the rate [of extinction] is several times higher than normal oen
talk of a biodiversity or extinction “crisis.” Crisis talk has tremendous rhetorical value in the
political terrain of the North. (Sarkar 2005: 6)
Due to a combination of inherent scientic uncertainties and deeply held but frequently undis-
closed beliefs about the intrinsic value of other species, extinction rhetoric occupies a unique
space in contemporary science discourse where estimates and forecasts of species loss can vary
dramatically in magnitude and certainty, depending upon the intended audience and the com-
munication media. Following Sarkar (2005), here we dene the extinction crisis as the belief that
the current rate of extinction is several times higher than the normal background rate (from the
geological past). It is dicult to pinpoint the beginnings of the crisis framing of extinction, but
some members of the scientic community were certainly making claims of this nature by the late
1960s and early 1970s. For example, Iltis (1970) quotes S. Dillon Ripley of the Smithsonian Insti-
tute as saying that the majority of the world’s animal species will be extinct by the year 2000.
One of the rst and most widely disseminated estimates of the current rate of global extinc-
tion was produced by Norman Myers (1979) in his inuential book, e Sinking Ark: A New
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 101
Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species. In this book, Myers made the claim that, on aver-
age, 40,000 species per year would become extinct over the course of twenty-ve years (ibid.: 5).
Although this gure was clearly a rst-cut estimate based on circular reasoning and very little
hard information, it has frequently been quoted by environmental organizations, politicians, and
other interested groups. Myers’s claim has also been used as an illustration of misrepresentation
and scaremongering and was a key example in Lomborg’s (2001) e Skeptical Environmental-
ist, a highly publicized critique of the global environmental movement. Recently, Myers (2001)
admitted that the estimate of 40,000 extinctions per year was “preliminary and exploratory, and
advanced primarily to get the issue of extinction onto scientic and political agendas.” In this
respect, he certainly achieved his aim, as testied by the publication of Global 2000 Report to the
President of the United States, in which it was estimated that 500,000 to 2,000,000 species could
become extinct between the years 1980 and 2000 (Barney 1980).
During the 1990s, the notion of an extinction crisis was extended and given added gravity
by dubbing it the ‘sixth extinction’ event (Leakey and Lewin 1995). is frame amplication
constructs extinction as a major present-day phenomenon—one that has not happened for 45
million years and one that, in contrast to the last ve extinction events, which were caused
by physical changes, has been caused by anthropogenic inuences (Eldredge 2001). e sixth
extinction rhetoric has been widely deployed by leading scientists and is popular with the media.
We suggest that in this guise the concept of extinction is constitutive of processes to adopt the
term ‘anthropocene’ for the current geological epoch.3
Scientic Practice
e rst systematic scientic account of extinction was made by Walter Rothschild, a scion of
the Rothschild family who was a zoologist, as well as a banker and politician. His paper pre-
sented at the 4th International Ornithological Congress (Rothschild 1905) and his subsequent
book (Rothschild 1907) compiled accounts of extinct species that had appeared in lists of the
faunas of regions and islands since 1580. e book can be understood as part of the broader
scientic eort to document forms of life, but Rothschild’s treatment of the causes of extinction
and his unequivocal statement—“the melancholy fact … that man and his satellite dogs, cats,
rats and pigs are the worst and indeed only important agents of destruction of the native avifau-
nas wherever they go”—helped establish the idea in scientic circles that human expansion into
new territories needed governing. Interestingly, there are three features of Rothschild’s account
that have virtually disappeared from contemporary scientic discourse on extinction.
e rst is the use of the present continuous tense of the verb ‘to vanish’. is was prominent
in the title of early reviews of extinct and nearly extinct birds and mammals (e.g., Allen 1942;
Greenway [1958] 1967; Harper 1945), but seems to have fallen out of vogue in the 1960s and
1970s, with the notable exception of Tim Halliday’s (1978) book Vanishing Birds. e replace-
ment of ‘vanishing’ with the terms ‘threatened’, ‘endangered’, and ‘vulnerable’ represents a shi
in the logic of extinction rhetoric, a move toward representing extinction as a risk that could be
managed through the proper execution of governance technologies and techniques.
e second change in authoritative accounts of extinction—nowadays framed as the assess-
ment of threatened species—is the absence of anecdotal accounts provided by non-expert
travelers and residents of the regions. Rothschild regularly quoted from letters that provide
descriptions of eld observations. Indeed, Greenway ([1958] 1967) included a list of ‘hypo-
thetical’ extinct species known only from eyewitness accounts. However, over time, such local
ecological knowledge has gradually been replaced by evidence published in scientic papers
and reports or collated through networks of experts developed and managed by conservation
102 n Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
institutions. is increasing ‘scientication’ of extinction risk accounts has presumably served
to strengthen the authority of extinction-related information in ocial policy circles.
Finally, contemporary accounts of threatened species rarely mention the possibility that
extinction might be the result of natural phenomena. By contrast, Rothschild (1907) talked
about natural cataclysms and devastated populations losing their vitality when discussing the
demise of the New Zealand moa, a large ightless bird, whose extinction coincided with the
arrival of humans on the islands. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the widespread transformations
in ecosystems since Rothschild’s day, contemporary extinction discourse focuses almost exclu-
sively on the anthropogenic causes of extinction, thereby emphasizing the need for governance
of human behaviors and societal systems.
A more distinct science of conservation started to take shape in the late 1970s and early 1980s
when conservation biology was recognized as a sub-discipline ‘worthy’ of academic study in its
own right, with university courses, textbooks, and peer-reviewed journals. e rst international
conference dedicated to conservation biology took place as recently as 1978 at the University of
California, San Diego. However, the study of conservation biology noticeably accelerated with
the founding of the US-based Society for Conservation Biology in 1986 and the publication of
the rst edition of its inuential journal, Conservation Biology, in 1987. Founded and supported
by some of the ‘giants’ of modern conservation and ecology—Edward O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr,
Michael Soulé, Paul R. Ehrlich—the society has led the development of conservation science
into the twenty-rst century and has been instrumental in both legitimizing conservation as
an academic discipline and providing the hard data and strong concepts that underlie modern
conservation practice. From its beginnings, conservation biology was framed as a crisis disci-
pline. Indeed, Soulé (1985) went so far as to state that this characteristic primarily distinguishes
conservation biology from related disciplines.
One of the major components of this crisis was the belief, based on a variety of scientic evi-
dence, that the current rate of extinction was many times greater than normal background rates
(Sarkar 2005). Much of this evidence was strong, especially the rates of documented extinctions
on oceanic islands, and there was a justiable consensus among the scientic community about
the reality of unusually high extinction rates (Pimm 2002). e evidence came from two main
sources: (1) historically documented extinctions, and (2) models, simulations, and frameworks
that relate environmental change (e.g., habitat loss and transformation) to probabilities of the
extinction of individual species or to rates of extinction within specied areas and time frames
(Lawton and May 1995). It is this second source of evidence, especially with respect to estimates
and predictions of future global extinction rates, that has been the foundation for many of the
most high-prole claims of the extinction crisis and the sixth extinction event discussed above.
ere are many ways to forecast extinction (reviewed in Ladle 2009), but probably the most
widely used (and misused) method is based on the observation that the relationship between
the size of an oceanic island and the number of species it contains can be eectively captured by
a simple mathematical relationship, known as the species-area curve. Scientists have used this
relationship to calculate how many fewer species should be found in ecosystems such as tropical
forests aer large areas have been cleared. An example of this is Wilson’s (1992: 268) ‘conser-
vative’ prediction of approximately 27,000 species going extinct every year, based on the rate
of tropical deforestation. ere is nothing fundamentally wrong with such extrapolations, but
without an appreciation of the underlying assumptions, such crude statements may give a false
impression of certainty to non-scientists and—potentially more damaging to the conservation
movement—may also result in scientists being accused of hyperbole. In the case of the species-
area relationship, the key assumptions are that (1) the number of species and the proportion
of endemic species prior to habitat destruction are known; (2) the slope of the species-area
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 103
relationship has been correctly determined; (3) terrestrial islands such as fragments of rainforest
act like oceanic islands; (4) the number of species in the original habitat was already in equilib-
rium; and (5) when the area of the habitat is reduced, the species do not go extinct immediately
but are slowly lost due to a range of demographic, genetic, and environmental eects (Ladle
2009; Whittaker et al. 2005).
Of these assumptions, the estimated total number of species has the most scope for inuenc-
ing the gure for global extinctions (Whittaker et al. 2005). ere are anywhere between 1 and
100 million species that are yet to be formally described by science, many of which are repre-
sented by arthropods in tropical forests. Choosing a higher number gives a higher number of
total extinctions and thus a higher rate (Pimm 2002). It also means that when scientists speak
about extinction in terms of thousands or millions, they are mainly referring to species that are
yet to be discovered. From a rhetorical perspective, calculations such as Wilson’s gave the sci-
entic community shockingly high numbers that were guaranteed to attract the attention of the
world’s polities and strongly supported the narrative of environmental crisis.
is type of reasoning and extrapolation has been taken up enthusiastically by science-
based conservation non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the World Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF), and Conservation International (CI). Indeed, CI has arguably transformed
the Wilsonian extinction crisis into a modern multimedia interactive experience through its
constantly running ‘extinction clock’, which is introduced in the following way: “Every 20 min-
utes, one species is pushed to extinction as more than 1,200 acres of forest are destroyed. At the
same time, over 180,000 tons of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Protecting and
restoring forests is a key solution to climate change and is vital to the survival of all life on Earth.
Indeed, 2,000 species are at risk of disappearing forever each month.”4
CI’s extinction clock gives several interesting insights into the legitimization of extinction
rhetoric through scientic reasoning and the strategic alignment of extinction with the cur-
rently dominant frame of climate change in public discourse. First, it should be noted that
these extinctions are forecast on the impacts of habitat loss and climate change and assume that
global species richness is 4 to 6 million (i.e., 2 to 4 million more species than have currently
been documented). As a consequence, of the three species “pushed to extinction” every hour,
two are currently unknown to science. In addition, the uncertainties involved with extinction
estimates based on the reduction of a habitat’s area and, even more so, with predictions based
on climate change scenarios mean that any such estimates need to be treated with extreme cau-
tion (Ladle 2009; Whittaker et al. 2005). Second, the narrative strongly links extinction with
the discharge of carbon dioxide and deforestation—two themes with arguably more relevance
and traction in high-level policy circles. It is also interesting (and perhaps not coincidental)
that the annual predicted rate of extinction from CI’s clock is almost identical to Wilson’s
(1992) estimate of 27,000 species per year, based solely on habitat loss (but assuming a slightly
higher global species richness). Such congruence can reinforce the validity of the statistics in
the public consciousness. Finally, CI states that “[o]ur clock is based on the best science,”5 a
claim for scientic legitimacy that may not hold up to close scrutiny. Indeed, given the uncer-
tainties involved, the word ‘best’ probably has little meaning when applied to extinction fore-
casting (Ladle 2009).
It would be wrong, however, to portray the scientic conservation community (academic,
NGO, and governmental) as united in its perspective on current rates of extinction or how
these should be communicated to the public. ere is an increasing realization among some
conservation scientists that (1) a serious lack of concordance exists between the robust language
of early conservation scientists (e.g., phrases such as the ‘sixth mass extinction’ and the ‘extinc-
tion crisis’) and the slow (in human terms) rate of documented species loss, and (2) the very
104 n Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
notion of an extinction crisis is becoming increasingly counterproductive. Reecting on the
successes and failures of conservation scientists in the global conservation movement, Redford
and Sanjayan (2003: 1473) express the following lament: “Our focus on crisis has hampered
conservation biology in achieving a scale of action required to match the world’s environmental
problems. Despite our best eorts to launch our cause into the mainstream culture, the world is
suering from crisis fatigue.”
ere are even some mainstream scientists who are challenging the consensus on the current
and future rates of extinction. Two highly respected tropical forest scientists, S. Joseph Wright
and Helene Muller-Landau, recently argued that current human demographic trends, including
slower population growth and the migration of rural populations into urban centers, strongly
suggest that tropical deforestation will slow, natural forest regeneration through secondary suc-
cession will accelerate, and that “the widely anticipated mass extinction of tropical forest species
will be avoided” (Wright and Muller-Landau 2006: 287). is rather politically naive prognosis
may be unlikely, especially given the spread of oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia, but it does
signal an unusual break in scientic ranks.
e Media
e global media has always been a valuable source of publicity and rhetoric for conservation.
is is beautifully illustrated by the publication of the special ‘shock issue’ of the Daily Mirror
tabloid newspaper that coincided with the creation of WWF in 1961. e front-page headline,
hovering over a photo of a black rhinoceros and its calf, boldly stated “DOOMED—to disap-
pear from the face of the earth due to Man’s FOLLY, GREED, NEGLECT.”6 is strategy reaped
rich dividends: the Daily Mirror appeal generated an unprecedented public response and was
able to raise the equivalent of about £2 million (Jepson and Ladle 2010). Shock stories such
as these can help keep an issue in the public consciousness, aid fund-raising, and potentially
inuence public opinion and policy. ey illustrate the ease with which the topic of extinction
can be aligned with the broadened moral and societal concerns that sell newspapers. Moreover,
increasing pressures on academics to garner attention for their work means that the media are
fed on a diet of publicity releases from university press oces or, not infrequently, directly from
the scientists involved.
e global news media has a strong agenda driven by economic imperatives that make it
ill-suited to communicate the intrinsically complex and uncertain science of extinction. Conse-
quently, when extinction science has appeared in the traditional print media, it has oen been
badly misrepresented. is is clearly illustrated by the coverage of a recent high-prole article
that appeared in the journal Nature concerning the possible impacts of climate change on global
biodiversity (omas et al. 2004). e results of the study suggested that, given a number of key
assumptions and under “mid-range” climate change scenarios, 15–37 percent of the 1,103 species
considered within the study would be “committed to extinction” by 2050 (ibid.: 145). e authors
described these percentages as being an estimate of “proportions of species committed to future
extinction as a consequence of climate change over the next 50 years, not the number of species
that will become extinct during this period.” Furthermore, they noted, “decades might elapse
between area reduction (from habitat loss) [through climate change] and extinction” (ibid.).
Aer this article was published, Ladle et al. (2004) reviewed 29 reports in the UK’s national
and local newspapers and found a systematic pattern of errors in 26 of them. e most sig-
nicant misrepresentation of the study’s ndings was the frequently repeated contention (in 21
reports) that over a million species would become extinct due to global warming by the year
2050, while two others went so far as to suggest that one-third of all the world’s species would
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 105
become extinct. Just two reports explained that only a few species would actually be extinct by
2050. Interestingly, the origin of the majority of the cruder generalizations and extrapolations
in the media can be traced back to the original press release from the lead author of the study,
which carried the headline “Climate Change reatens a Million Species with Extinction.” It
is here that the million species reference rst appears, along with the unattributed claim that a
quarter of land animals and plants may go extinct.
e power of such widespread media representations to inuence political debate soon
became clear as some senior politicians commented on the study, apparently using the errone-
ous newspaper reports as their source material (Ladle et al. 2004; Ladle et al. 2005). For example,
then EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström (2004) wrote in the Guardian news-
paper: “Many people had a lot to say about the recently published study that suggests global
warming could wipe out a third of the planet’s species by 2050.” e discussion of the subject in
the UK House of Commons was similarly inaccurate.7
e sensationalist coverage of the omas et al. (2004) article in the UK news media is perhaps
to be expected, given the short timescales and circulation-driven mentality of most newspapers.
It is also clearly characteristic of much science reporting in the media. What is perhaps more sur-
prising is that representatives of CI felt obliged to support such misrepresentation. Hannah and
Phillips (2004), writing in Nature, argued that sensationalism is acceptable if it brings an environ-
mental message (e.g., about the potential extinctions caused by climate change) to the attention
of the public and polity. Similar motivations are clearly responsible for the massively unrealistic
predictions for the imminent extinction of orangutans (Pongo spp.) used by Friends of the Earth
to discredit the oil palm industry,8 a strategy described as ‘blackwashing’ by Koh et al. (2010).
Scientists themselves are clearly important actors in the production of media-friendly stories
about imminent extinctions, as are the well-known and inuential journals that are willing to
publish the articles on which the stories are based. e kudos associated with being responsible
for research that gets extensive coverage in the global news media is clearly good for careers,
tenure applications, research funding opportunities, and probably citations as well (Ladle 2004).
At the time of writing, the article by omas et al. (2004) already had over 1,000 citations on
the Web of Knowledge.9 e benets also extend to the departments that host the scientists and,
ultimately, to the universities and research institutions where they work. e degree to which
such pressures inuence scientists’ decisions to write press releases or to conceive research proj-
ects that will attract media attention is unknown, but this is clearly a fertile area for future
research. Moreover, the perceived urgent need to mobilize conservation action may also draw
acknowledged leaders of cutting-edge science out of their areas of expertise and encourage them
to make poorly considered and inadequately researched statements about extinction, environ-
mental crisis, and conservation imperatives.
Conservation Policy and Governance Institutions
Tarrow (1992) argued that when frames include collective actions that attract broad consent,
they necessarily become institutionalized and thereby take a leading role in determining the
future trajectory of policies and of scientic, management, and cultural practices. e institu-
tionalization of extinction by the international conservation community began 50 years ago
when the IUCN rst attempted to codify dierent levels of extinction risk within their Red List
of reatened Species, published as the Red Data Book.10 e rst Red Data Book, a list of 135
endangered mammals, was published in 1960 (see Epstein 2006). By 2009, a total of 47,677 spe-
cies from all the major plant and animal groups had been assessed, including all known birds
and mammals (IUCN 2009). At rst, a rather subjective system founded on expert judgment
106 n Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
was used to categorize extinction risk, but this was replaced in 1994 by a much more quantita-
tive approach, developed by Mace and Lande (1991), that is based on population and life history
characteristics. At the heart of this system is a set of simple quantitative criteria—population
sizes, population decline rates, range areas, and range declines—that are used to allocate species
to one of several categories of extinction risk (e.g., endangered, critically endangered, extinct
in the wild, etc.). It should be noted that the Red List employs dierent methods of assessing
extinction risk, depending on the available data, and that some of the processes used to assess
species status (e.g., population viability analysis) are also extinction risk forecasting methods.
In this sense, it may be better to consider Red Lists as a framework for standardizing and com-
municating extinction risk (Ladle 2009). e act of dening and categorizing extinction risk
has deeply aected what is measured, managed, discussed, and studied. In turn, this has fed
back into endangered species policy and has inuenced the degree to which it is meaningful to
specialists and non-specialists.
is correlation is illustrated by the now widespread use of the rates of transition between
IUCN categories as a means to forecast extinctions (Butchart et al. 2004). e key transition
for extinction forecasting is between ‘endangered’ (where a population has a ‘very high’ risk of
extinction in the wild) to ‘critically endangered’ (where the species is considered as having an
‘extremely high’ risk of extinction in the wild) (IUCN 2001). e criteria for inclusion in the
latter category include very small populations and geographic ranges and a strong trend toward
population decline. e category ‘critically endangered’ can thus be cautiously used as a sur-
rogate for ‘imminent extinction’. Brooke et al. (2008) tested this proposition by comparing the
historical transition of bird species into the critically endangered category with veried extinc-
tions at both a global level and within Australia. ey concluded that species were actually going
extinct at a rate that is 2 (Australia) to 10 (globally) times lower than predicted. e potential
cause of this discrepancy was identied as the eectiveness of the global conservation commu-
nity at rescuing bird species on the brink of extinction.
Red Lists are deployed and promoted as the global standard to (1) ensure consistency in
conservation investment across taxa and regions; (2) inform national legislation and implemen-
tation; (3) guide the management of natural resources at multiple scales, including the identi-
cation of sites for conservation action; and (4) monitor changes in global biodiversity and the
reasons for these changes (Rodrigues et al. 2006). Since 2004, Red Lists for birds (Butchart et
al. 2004) and amphibians (Butchart et al. 2005) have been further reied into a Red List Index.
e index is a quantication of the movement of sets of species (grouped taxonomically or
geographically) through categories of the Red List (Butchart, Akçakaya et al. 2006). In essence,
the indexing system conates the complex realities of extinction into a single trend line. Such
practices raise extinction (or extinction as an indicator of biodiversity) to a level of abstraction
where it can be correlated with index data on the economy, population, and other major areas of
policy concern. is helps maintain and elevate the international policy position of biodiversity
conservation and the organizations producing such data.
e reication of continuous biological characteristics into extinction risk categories also
provides an opportunity for manipulation to advance conservation aims. For example, the emi-
nent Canadian zoologist and sea turtle expert, Nicholas Mrosovsky (1997), accused the IUCN’s
Marine Turtle Specialist Group of upgrading the listing of the Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmo-
chelys imbricata) without making available the scientic evidence for this change in status,11
and then using it to inuence proposals for the sustainable use of the species. us, it is possible
that unconscious or conscious biases in the information accepted and used by specialist groups
might inuence the categorization of species and hence provide an unduly pessimistic progno-
sis of their future survival. is example also illustrates the perceived power of terms such as
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 107
‘endangered’ and ‘extinct’ to mobilize conservation action. More generally, it is clear that even
the application of quantitative criteria can be subject to values-based biases with the ultimate
aim of ensuring that a favored species maintains or achieves a label that reects the highest pos-
sible level of extinction risk.
e extinction narratives exemplied by the pronouncements of the international conserva-
tion community demonstrate how, within this group of actors, extinction has become “locked
within a more coolly constructed rationalistic argument” (Adams 2004: 25) that characterizes
discourse about biodiversity. Moreover, like the rather technocratic term ‘biodiversity’, extinc-
tion has been increasingly subsumed into the dominating policy narrative of climate change.
e shiing focus of the environmental polity has, inevitably, led to a certain amount of realign-
ment and transformation of earlier agendas as a way of both maintaining their public visibility
and accessing international funds focused on the ‘new’ threat of climate change. us, extinc-
tion narratives are increasingly being transformed and inserted into the climate change frame,
providing a bridge between the two dominating conservation agendas of the last 30 years.
e impacts of this process of alignment pervade much of the current NGO and academic
extinction rhetoric, such as CI’s previously mentioned extinction clock or the high-prole
omas et al. (2004) Nature article that included authors from the Royal Society for the Pro-
tection of Birds and CI. Another notable example among many is WWF’s 2009 campaign to
conserve the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), which clearly and eectively links traditional con-
servation themes of extinction to the threat of climate change: “e planet is rapidly moving
towards a tipping point with climate change impacts on polar bears. Unless immediate action
is taken by responsible governments, we may be relegating polar bears to extinction in the wild
within the lifetime of our children.”12
e above example indirectly illustrates one of the most interesting aspects of the insertion
of extinction narratives into the climate change frame—the current lack of a conspicuous and
unmistakable victim. Polar bears may or may not be threatened with extinction by anthropogenic
climate change in the next 80 or so years, but for the time being they are still very much extant.
Perhaps the best candidate, and a subject of some debate, is the Costa Rican golden toad (Bufo
periglenes). is striking amphibian, which was discovered in 1964, had a known range of only a
few square kilometers within the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve (Sarkar 1996). e toads were
always elusive but could be reliably surveyed for a few weeks in April when they emerged from the
dense undergrowth to mate in temporary pools. eir nal demise was rapid and unambiguous:
in 1987, more than 1,500 toads were observed, but in 1988 and 1989 only a single toad emerged
(Crump et al. 1992), and there has been no veried sighting since then (Sarkar 1996).
Catastrophic declines in amphibian populations have been observed around the world since
the 1970s, and the general consensus is that it is a global phenomenon with multiple local
causes, including shis in weather patterns (Alford and Richards 1999). So why did the golden
toad become synonymous with climate change–induced extinction? is is a dicult question
to answer, not least because there is a large degree of uncertainty in the science, which primarily
relies on correlational inferences. e two most high-prole hypotheses and the probable source
of the golden toad’s status as a poster child for casualties of global warming are both complex and
untestable. Pounds and Crump (1994) linked the toad’s probable extinction to the 1986–1987
El Niño that was responsible for very low rainfall during several critical life history stages. In a
far more ebullient and polemical article published in Nature in 2006, Pounds and his colleagues
propose that climate change–induced outbreaks of pathogenic fungus were responsible for the
extinction. e underlying message is hammered home in the nal line of the abstract: “With
climate change promoting infectious disease and eroding biodiversity, the urgency of reducing
greenhouse-gas concentrations is now undeniable” (Pounds et al. 2006: 161).
108 n Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
is direct tone and strong linkage between an extinction event and the general threat of cli-
mate change to the natural environment are echoed by widely used NGO narratives concerning
the probable extinction of the golden toad and another amphibian, the harlequin frog, which
disappeared from the Monteverde reserve at around the same time. On its Web site, WWF
puts it as follows: “e golden toad (Bufo periglenes) and the harlequin frog (Atelopus varius)
of Costa Rica have disappeared as a direct result of global warming.”13 CI also makes the link:
“For Ticos, as Costa Rican natives are known, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and stabiliz-
ing the climate is personally important, as the extinction of their emblematic golden toad (Bufo
periglenes) due to climate change and altered weather patterns is still fresh.”14
e convergence of scientic and NGO narratives is perhaps unsurprising, given the increas-
ingly close ties between NGO and university researchers, funding sources that have targeted
‘applied’ research on the biodiversity consequences of climate change, and the increasing num-
ber of multi-partner research projects that aim to generate regional or global-scale databases.
However, the willingness of major journals to publish articles with increasingly bombastic rhet-
oric in relation to extinction and climate change seems to be a relatively new trend. It carries
with it the threat of undermining the legitimacy and credibility of scientists while at the same
time playing into the hands of the powerful anti-environmentalist lobbyists, who are quick to
exploit perceived weaknesses in the underlying science (see Ladle et al. 2005).
Conclusions
Adams (2004: 25) wryly commented that WWF’s choice of the “cuddly” giant panda as an icon
perfectly captures the “slightly mawkish public sentimentality about extinction,” which he also
characterizes as having “both an anger and a desperation about it” (ibid.). It is certainly true that
extinction continues to have a special rhetorical power within natural resource policy, probably
because its focus on species simultaneously constructs nature as a domain in need of gover-
nance, provides specic targets (species and places), and allows for the compilation of statistics
that provide direction on how to become “the best possible governor” (Foucault 1991: 87).
However, the strong emotional response that can be provoked by the use of the term ‘extinc-
tion’ suggests that it should be used wisely by conservation advocates and scientists alike. In this
article, we suggest that because the term resonates with deeply held human fears (e.g., extinction
of a life, of a re and warmth, of hope), the extinction of species provides a powerful organizing
concept for frames relating to humanity’s relationship with nature. e rhetoric of extinction as
an expression of human failings (selshness, greed, ignorance) and of human potential (com-
passion, morality, planning) creates a powerful rallying force for conservation action. e scien-
tic act of systematically classifying extinction risks has resulted in a broadening of the frame so
that extinction now refers to anything from the local disappearance of a cultural-valued species
to the imagined extermination of masses of undiscovered species caused by global process of
deforestation. is breadth creates the possibility for extinction frames to travel and align with
a multitude of other frames—from deeply personal frames involving identity and place to big
issue policy frames such as climate change and ecosystem services. is widening of the frame
may, however, carry risks. Sarkar (2005) argues powerfully that the continued use of inated
rhetoric—some of which has been documented herein—is another way in which biodiversity
conservationists may lose public credibility.
Given these comments, we argue for more research on the cultural agency of the concept of
extinction. In particular, we suggest that it would be valuable to understand better where, when,
and how the concept of species extinction has the capacity to produce a phenomenon or modify a
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 109
state of aairs. On one level, this might involve, for example, surveys to test whether the concept of
extinction is universal. Our opportunistic and unsystematic surveys among rural people in parts of
Asia suggest that it is not. If this is the case, it could have important ramications for communica-
tion strategies aimed at building local legitimacy for conservation projects. On another level, stud-
ies of extinction that adopt, for instance, actor-network perspectives (Latour 2005) could reveal
important new insights on the assembly, persistence, and power of conservation institutions. We
favor the development of a more balanced, nuanced, and culturally meaningful rhetoric of extinc-
tion that accurately reects long-term temporal perspectives and the considerable uncertainties
involved in the act of declaring a species extinct. In a previous article (Ladle and Jepson 2008), we
have argued that one possible approach is to delineate carefully the dierent meanings of the term
‘extinction’, along with their varying powers and agency in society (see table 1).
e above typology of extinction recognizes that dierent meanings open up or enable entry
to dierent governance spaces. For example, in the case of global extinction rates, derived from
the species-area relationship in island biogeography (see table 1, Linnean extinctions), con-
servation scientists and NGOs have successfully used this meaning of extinction to attract the
attention of the inter-state polity. e startling gures generated in support of the notion of
a sixth mass extinction (see, e.g., Pimm and Brooks 1997; omas et al. 2004) bridge easily
with political and bureaucratic worries about economic and social instability and the proposed
macro-scale solutions, and they easily align with natural resource policy discourses favored by
intergovernmental agencies. By contrast, ‘ecological extinctions’ (see table 1) clearly align with
the interests of zoological gardens and seed banks because they provide an outlet and legitimiza-
tion for their operations. In turn, these facilities bring conservation and endangered and exotic
species into urban culture, creating links between cities and conservation sites around the world
and thus eectively globalizing conservation culture.
We would argue that public trust in the legitimacy of conservation action can be restored
and strengthened only through the development of a more culturally meaningful and sophis-
ticated rhetoric of extinction, one that aligns scientic evidence in the form of documented
and predicted extinctions with cultural frames, institutional frameworks, and organizational
interests. To achieve such alignment, conservation practitioners and advocates must develop a
more sophisticated understanding of the dierent meanings of extinction and the power that
each has to inuence individuals and societies. For example, the documented local extinction of
a previously abundant bird species may have little power to mobilize funds for an international
conservation NGO, but it may provide a focal point for the development of new community-led
conservation initiatives. Likewise, the latest projection of global extinctions based on tropical
deforestation may have some traction with environmental policy makers, but it may lead to apa-
thy and compassion fatigue if overused for conservation fund-raising in the developed world.
Finally, it should also be noted that extinction rhetoric has been strongly founded on the
use of the species as the key unit of classication and measurement. is is understandable,
given the widespread recognition of the term among the public, but it has perhaps limited the
discourse about the wider evolutionary signicance of extinction. Nee and May (1997) dem-
onstrate that approximately 80 percent of underlying evolutionary history would be preserved
even if 95 percent of species should be lost. Moreover, choosing the ‘survivors’ based on algo-
rithms that maximize the amount of evolutionary history preserved was only marginally better
than choosing the survivors at random. As yet, little progress has been made in translating such
scientic understandings into conservation policy and practices. However, there are signs that
conservation science is starting to take the preservation of evolutionary history more seriously
(e.g., Davies et al. 2008; Forest et al. 2007), a move that will undoubtedly provide a rhetorical
challenge and may call for a whole new vocabulary of extinction.
110 n Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
Table 1: Typology, denitions, and potential agency of the term ‘extinction’
Extinction Type Denition Potential Agency
Linnean extinction Extinctions of undiscovered species • Construct and make credible the notion
inferred from the species-area of a ‘sixth mass extinction event’.
relationship and estimates of species • e potential risks and opportunity
diversity for a given ecosystem or costs associated with such an event
region. e assumed losses of these make extinction relevant to a range of
inferred species are termed ‘centinelan international policy areas (e.g., agriculture,
extinctions’ by Wilson (1992). forestry, and health), thereby contributing
to the ‘mainstreaming’ of conservation/
biodiversity in international policy.
• Create a sense of urgency and crisis that
can be used to raise funds and legitimize
action.
Wallacean extinction Species that have not been documented • Inspire local action.
for many years, but for which extinction • Promote eld surveys and expeditions to
is uncertain because populations might remote areas.
survive in areas that have not been sur- • Attract funding to specic localities.
veyed within the potential distributional • Support NGO communication strategies
range. by providing a steady stream of ‘good
news’ stories.
Phoenix extinction Extinct in the wild, but genetic material • Mobilize support for innovative conserva-
is available in the form of stored material tion management strategies.
or a closely related conspecic or conge- • Create controversies by challenging
neric variety/breed/hybrid, allowing for fundamental precepts of the global
the possibility of a future reintroduction conservation movement concerning issues
of the same or a functionally equivalent of ecosystem composition, introduced
form. species, and adaptive management.
• Inspire innovative uses of technology.
• Extend the range of actors participating in
conservation (e.g., biotechnology
laboratories).
Ecological extinction Extinct in the wild but with extant • Support and legitimize the actions of
captive-bred population, or present in botanical gardens, gene banks, and
the wild but at such low densities that zoological parks.
it no longer interacts to a meaningful • Create momentum for habitat restoration
degree with other species in the com- and reintroductions.
munity (i.e., it is functionally extinct). • Eectively communicate the reality of
extinction to the urban citizenry.
Local extinction Extinct in the wild within a clearly • Mobilize local conservation action.
dened geographic area but with extant • Reinforce local cultural identities.
free-living populations outside that area. • Legitimize restoration and reintroduction
programs.
True extinction 1: Extinct since the birth of the interna- • Create a moral imperative for conservation.
Contemporary tional conservation movement (in the • Legitimize and publicize actions aimed at
extinction mid-nineteenth century). e last known specic drivers of extinction (e.g., climate
population has been monitored and change mitigation and the golden toad).
surveyed and is now considered globally • Mobilize action and support for
extinct in the wild. No captive-bred popu- global conservation initiatives.
lation or genetic material is available.
True extinction 2: Extinct prior to the birth of the inter- • Create a moral imperative for conservation.
Historical extinction national conservation movement. No • Legitimize the existence and actions
authenticated record of an extant popu- of the global conservation movement.
lation. No captive-bred population or • Create a ‘zero sum’ threshold for
viable genetic material available. conservation—embed the notion of the
nality of extinction.
Source: Modied from Ladle and Jepson (2008).
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 111
n RiChARD LADLE is a Brazilian-based conservationist and writer. He is a Visiting Professor at
the Federal University of Alagoas and a Senior Research Associate at the School of Geogra-
phy and the Environment, Oxford University, where he was formerly the Course Director
of the MSc degree program in Biodiversity, Conservation, and Management (2003–2009).
He has diverse and interdisciplinary research interests that span the public understanding
of science, extinction theory, conservation biogeography, and theoretical ecology. Recent
related publications include Conservation Biogeography (2011), with R. J. Whittaker; Con-
servation: A Beginner’s Guide (2010), with P. J. Jepson; and Critical Concepts in the Environ-
ment: Biodiversity and Conservation (2008).
PAuL JEPSOn is Course Director of Oxford University’s Master of Science Degree program
in Nature, Society, and Environmental Policy. He has consulted for a wide range of inter-
governmental and non-governmental organizations and was Indonesia Programme Coor-
dinator for BirdLife International (1991–1997). He leads an interdisciplinary Conservation
Governance Lab and the communication work package for an EUF7 eco-informatics project.
His research focuses on long-term interests in protected areas, wildlife trade, conservation
history, media and technology, and the role, accountability, and legitimacy of conservation
NGOs. Recent publications include conceptual pieces on conservation actors and interdis-
ciplinary biogeography and a series on self-governance and bird keeping in Indonesia.
n nOTES
1. “Australia Arousd [sic] to Preserve Wildlife,” Science News-Letter, 16 May 1931, 307–308, here 307.
2. Ibid., 308.
3. Coined in 2000 by the atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen, the term ‘anthropocene’ is used by some
scientists to describe the current era in the earth’s history in which humans have had a major impact
on the earth’s ecosystems.
4. http://getinvolved.conservation.org/site/PageServer?pagename=stoptheclock (accessed 5 November
2009).
5. http://www.conservation.org/act/get_involved/Pages/stop-the-clock-methodology.aspx (accessed 5
November 2009).
6. http://www.panda.org/who_we_are/history/wwf_conservation_1961_2006 (accessed 4 November 2009).
7. Reported in Hansard, the printed transcripts of UK parliamentary debates, on 8 January 2004.
8. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/oil_for_ape_full.pdf (accessed 3 July 2010).
9. Despite the limitations and uncertainties associated with omas et al. (2004), this article has been
cited numerous times. See the Web of Knowledge’s ISI Web of Science site at http://wokinfo.com/
products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/ (accessed 24 June 2010).
10. http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed 18 January 2010).
11. Much of the ‘scientic evidence’ for Hawksbill sea turtles is actually derived from so-called gray lit-
erature (Mrosovsky and Godfrey 2008).
12. http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/nder/polarbear/rsm.html (accessed 20 January 2010).
13. http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/impacts (accessed 20 January 2010).
14. http://www.conservation.org/explore/north_america/costarica/Pages/costarica.aspx (accessed 20 Feb-
ruary 2010).
112 n Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
n REfEREnCES
Adams, William M. 2004. Against Extinction. London: Earthscan.
Alford, Ross A., and Steven J. Richards. 1999. “Global Amphibian Declines: A Problem in Applied Ecol-
o g y .” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 133–165.
Allen, Glover M. 1942. Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Western Hemisphere with the Marine Species
of All Oceans. Cambridge, MA: American Committee for International Wildlife Protection.
Barney, Gerald O., ed. 1980. Global 2000 Report to the President of the United States: e Summary
Report. New York: Elsevier.
Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview
and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 11–39.
Bengtson, Sven-Axel. 1984. “Breeding Ecology and Extinction of the Great Auk (Pinguinus Impennis):
Anecdotal Evidence and Conjectures.” e Auk 101 (1): 1–12.
Brooke, Michael, Stuart H. M. Butchart, Stephen T. Garnett, Gabriel M. Crowley, Natalia B. Mantilla-
Beniers, and Alison J. Statterseld. 2008. “Rates of Movement of reatened Bird Species between
IUCN Red List Categories and Toward Extinction.” Conservation Biology 22 (2): 417–427.
Bulte, Erwin H., Richard D. Horan, and Jason F. Shogren. 2003. “Is the Tasmanian Tiger Extinct? A
Biological-Economic Re-evaluation.” Ecological Economics 45: 271–279.
Butchart, Stuart H. M., Alison J. Statterseld, Jonathan E. M. Baillie, Leon A. Bennun, Simon N. Stewart,
H. Resit Akçakaya, Craig Hilton-Taylor, and Georgina M. Mace. 2005. “Using Red List Indices to
Measure Progress towards the 2010 Target and Beyond.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B 360 (1454): 255–268.
Butchart, Stuart H. M., Alison J. Statterseld, Leon A. Bennun, Sue M. Shutes, H. Resit Akçakaya,
Jonathan E. M. Baillie, Simon N. Stuart, Craig Hilton-Taylor, and Georgina M. Mace. 2004. “Measur-
ing Global Trends in the Status of Biodiversity: Red List Indices for Birds.” PLoS Biology 2 (12): e383.
Butchart, Stuart H. M., H. Resit Akçakaya, Elizabeth Kennedy, and Craig Hilton-Taylor. 2006. “Biodi-
versity Indicators Based on Trends in Conservation Status: Strengths of the IUCN Red List Index.”
Conservation Biology 20 (2): 579–581.
Butchart, Stuart H. M., Alison J. Statterseld, and omas M. Brooks. 2006. “Going or Gone: Dening
‘Possibly Extinct’ Species to give a Truer Picture of Recent Extinctions.” Bulletin of the British Orni-
thology Club 126A: 7–24.
Butchart, Stuart H. M., Matt Walpole, Ben Collen, Arco van Strien et al. 2010. “Global Biodiversity: Indi-
cators of Recent Declines.” Science 328 (5982): 1164–1168.
Callon, Michel. 1998. “An Essay on Framing and Overowing: Economic Externalities Revisited by Soci-
ology.” Pp. 244–269 in e Laws of the Markets, ed. M. Callon. Oxford: Blackwell.
Channell, Rob, and Mark V. Lomolino. 2000. “Dynamic Biogeography and Conservation of Endangered
Species.” Nature 403: 84–86.
Courchamp, Franck, Tim Clutton-Brock, and Bryan Grenfell. 1999. “Inverse Density Dependence and
the Allee Eect.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14 (10): 405–410.
Crump, Martha L., Frank R. Hensley, and Kenneth L. Clark. 1992. “Apparent Decline of the Golden
Toad: Underground or Extinct?” Copeia 2 (May): 413–420.
Davies, T. Jonathan, Susanne A. Fritz, Richard Grenyer, C. David L. Orme, Jon Bielby, Olaf R. P. Bininda-
Emonds, Marcel Cardillo, Kate E. Jones, John L. Gittleman, Georgina M. Mace, and Andrew Purvis.
2008. “Phylogenetic Trees and the Future of Mammalian Diversity.” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 105 (s1): 11556–11563.
Davis, Joel J. 1995. “e Eects of Message Framing on Response to Environmental Communications.”
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72 (2): 285–299.
Doughty, Robin W. 1975. Feather Fashions and Bird Preservation. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Ehrlich, Paul. 1971. e Population Bomb. New York: Buccaneer.
Eldredge, Niles. 2001. “e Sixth Extinction.” ActionBioScience.org. American Institute of Biological
Sciences. http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html (accessed 29 June 2010).
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 113
Engeström, Yrjö. 2006. “Development, Movement and Agency: Breaking Away into Mycorrhizae
Activities.” CHAT Technical Reports No. 01. Center for Activity eory and Developmental Work
Research, University of Helsinki. http://www.chat.kansai-u.ac.jp/publications/tr/v1_1.pdf.
Epstein, Charlotte. 2006. “e Making of Global Environmental Norms: Endangered Species Protec-
tion.” Global Environmental Politics 6 (2): 32–54.
Eskola, Antti. 1999. “Laws, Logics, and Human Activity.” Pp. 107–114 in Perspectives on Activity eory,
ed. Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R.-L. Punamäki. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forest, Félix, Richard Grenyer, Mathieu Rouget, T. Jonathan Davies, Richard M. Cowling, Daniel P.
Faith, Andrew Balmford, John C. Manning, erban Proche, Michelle van der Bank, Gail Reeves,
Terry A. J. Hedderson, and Vincent Savolainen. 2007. “Preserving the Evolutionary Potential of
Floras in Biodiversity Hotspots.” Nature 445: 757–760.
Foucault, Michel. 1991. “Governmentality.” Pp. 87–104 in e Foucault Eect: Studies in Governmental-
ity, ed. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper
& Row.
Greenway, James C. [1958] 1967. Extinct and Vanishing Birds of the World. New York: Dover
Publications.
Halliday, Tim R. 1978. Vanishing Birds: eir Natural History and Conservation. London: Sidgwick and
Jackson.
Hannah, Lee, and Brad Phillips. 2004. “Extinction-Risk Coverage Is Worth Inaccuracies.” Nature 430: 141.
Harper, Francis. 1945. Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Old World. New York: American Commit-
tee for International Wildlife Protection.
Hingston, Richard G. W. 1931. “Proposed British National Parks for Africa.” Geographical Journal 74:
401–428.
Iltis, Hugh H. 1970. “Man First? Man Last? e Paradox of Human Ecology.” BioScience 20: 820.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2001. Red List Categories and Criteria: Version
3.1. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
______. 2009. “e IUCN Red List of reatened Species. Version 2009.2.” http://www.iucnredlist.org
(accessed 20 January 2010).
Jablonski, David. 2001. “Lessons from the Past: Evolutionary Impacts of Mass Extinctions.” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98 (10): 5393–5398.
Jepson, Paul, and Richard J. Ladle. 2010. Conservation: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: One World.
Jepson, Paul, and Robert J. Whittaker. 2002. “Histories of Protected Areas: Internationalisation of Con-
servationist Values and eir Adoption in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia).” Environment and
History 8: 129–172.
Keller, Lukas F., and Donald M. Waller. 2002. “Inbreeding Eects in Wild Populations.” Trends in Ecology
and Evolution 17 (5): 230–241.
Koh, Lian P., Jaboury Ghazoul, Rhett A. Butler, William F. Laurance, Navjot S. Sodhi, Javier Mateo-Vega,
and Corey J. A. Bradshaw. 2010. “Wash and Spin Cycle reats to Tropical Diversity.” Biotropica 42
(1): 67–71.
Ladle, Richard J. 2004. “Ecological Science Reporting: Another Victim of Global Warming?” British Eco-
logical Society Bulletin 35 (4): 12–13.
______. 2009. “Forecasting Extinctions: Uncertainties and Limitations.” Diversity 1 (2): 133–150.
Ladle, Richard J., and Paul Jepson. 2008. “Towards a Biocultural eory of Avoided Extinction.” Conser-
vation Letters 1: 111–118.
Ladle, Richard J., Paul Jepson, Miguel B. Araújo, and Robert J. Whittaker. 2004. “Dangers of Crying Wolf
over Risk of Extinctions.” Nature 428: 799.
Ladle, Richard J., Paul Jepson, Steve Jennings, and Ana C. M. Malhado. 2009. “Caution with Claims at
a Species Has Been Rediscovered.” Nature 461: 723.
Ladle, Richard J., Paul Jepson, and Robert J. Whittaker. 2005. “Scientists and the Media: e Struggle for
Legitimacy in Climate Change and Conservation Science.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 30 (3):
231–240.
114 n Richard J. Ladle and Paul Jepson
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-eory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lawton, John H., and Robert M. May, eds. 1995. Extinction Rates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leakey, Richard, and Richard Lewin. 1995. e Sixth Extinction: Biodiversity and Its Survival. New York:
Dou bled ay.
Lomborg, Bjørn. 2001. e Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lomolino, Mark V. 2004. “Conservation Biogeography.” Pp. 293–296 in Frontiers of Biogeography: New
Directions in the Geography of Nature, ed. M. V. Lomolino and L. R. Heaney. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Lorimer, Jamie. 2006. “What about the Nematodes? Taxonomic Partialities in the Scope of UK Biodiver-
sity Conservation.” Social and Cultural Geography 7 (4): 539–558.
Lowe, Phillip D. 1983. “Values and Institutions in the History of British Nature Conservation.” Pp. 329–
352 in Conservation in Perspective, ed. A. Warren and F. B. Goldsmith. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Mace, Georgina M., and Russell Lande. 1991. “Assessing Extinction reats: Toward a Reevaluation of
IUCN reatened Species Categories.” Conservation Biology 5 (2): 148–157.
McKinney, Michael L. 1997. “Extinction Vulnerability and Selectivity: Combining Ecological and Paleonto-
logical Views.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 495–516.
Mrosovsky, Nicholas. 1997. “IUCN’s Credibility Critically Endangered.” Nature 389: 436.
Mrosovsky, Nicholas, and Matthew H. Godfrey. 2008. “e Path from Grey Literature to Red Lists.”
Endangered Species Research 6: 185–191.
Myers, Norman. 1979. e Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species. New York:
Permagon Press.
______. 2001. “On Bjorn Lomborg and Species Diversity.” Grist online magazine. http://www.grist.org/
article/specious/ (accessed 15 October 2009).
Nee, Sean, and Robert M. May. 1997. “Extinction and the Loss of Evolutionary History.” Science 278
(5338): 692–694.
Orton, James. 1869. “e Great Auk.” American Naturalist 3: 539–542.
Parejko, Ken. 2003. “Pliny the Elder’s Silphium: First Recorded Species Extinction.” Conservation Biology
17 (3): 925–927.
Pimm, Stuart L. 2002. “e Dodo Went Extinct (and Other Ecological Myths).” Annals of the Missouri
Botanical Gardens 89 (2): 190–198.
Pimm, Stuart L., and omas M. Brooks. 1997. “e Sixth Extinction: How Large, how Soon, and Where?”
Pp. 46–62 in Nature and Human Society: e Quest for a Sustainable World, ed. P. H. Raven. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academy Press.
Pounds, J. Alan, Martín R. Bustamante, Luis A. Coloma, Jamie A. Consuegra, Michael P. L. Fogden, Pru
N. Foster, Enrique La Marca, Karen L. Masters, Andrés Merino-Viteri, Robert Puschendorf, Santiago
R. Ron, G. Arturo Sánchez-Azofeifa, Christopher J. Still, and Bruce E. Young. 2006. “Widespread
Amphibian Extinctions from Epidemic Disease Driven by Global Warming.” Nature 439: 161–167.
Pounds, J. Alan, and Martha L. Crump. 1994. “Amphibian Declines and Climate Disturbance: e Case
of the Golden Toad and the Harlequin Frog.” Conservation Biology 8 (1): 72–85.
Redford, Kent, and M. A. Sanjayan. 2003. “Retiring Cassandra.” Conservation Biology 17 (6): 1473–1474.
Roberts, David L. 2006. “Extinct or Possibly Extinct?” Science 312: 997–998.
Rodrigues, Ana S. L., John D. Pilgrim, John F. Lamoreux, Michael Homann, and omas M. Brooks.
2006. “e Value of the IUCN Red List for Conservation.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21 (2):
71–76.
Rothschild, Walter. 1905. “On Extinct and Vanishing Birds.” Pp. 191–217 in Proceedings of the 4th Inter-
national Ornithological Conference. London: Dulau.
______. 1907. Extinct Birds: An Attempt to Unite in One Volume a Short Account of ose Birds Which
Have Become Extinct in Historical Times: at is, within the Last Six or Seven Hundred Years: To
Which Are Added a Few Which Still Exist, but Are on the Verge of Extinction. London: Hutchinson.
Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1997. Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, and Geological Catastrophes. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Origins, Uses, and Transformation of Extinction Rhetoric n 115
Sarkar, Sahotra. 1996. “Ecological eory and Anuran Declines.” BioScience 46: 199–207.
______. 2005. Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Soulé, Michael E. 1985. “What Is Conservation Biology?” BioScience 35: 727–734.
Tarrow, Sidney. 1992. “Mentalities, Political Cultures, and Collective Action Frames.” Pp. 174–202 in
Frontiers in Social Movement eory, ed. A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
omas, Chris D., Alison Cameron, Rhys E. Green, Michel Bakkenes, Linda J. Beaumont, Yvonne C.
Collingham, Barend F. N. Erasmus, Marinez Ferreira de Siqueira, Alan Grainger, Lee Hannah,
Lesley Hughes, Brian Huntley, Albert S. van Jaarsveld, Guy F. Midgley, Lera Miles, Miguel A.
Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, Oliver L. Phillips, and Stephen E. Williams. 2004. “Extinc-
tion Risk from Climate Change.” Nature 427: 145–148.
omas, Keith. 1984. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500–1800. London:
Penguin.
Trefethen, James B. 1961. Crusade for Wildlife: Highlights in Conservation Progress. Harrisburg, PA:
Stackpole.
Triandafyllidou, Anna, and Anastasios Fotiou. 1998. “Sustainability and Modernity in the European
Union: A Frame eory Approach to Policy-Making.” Sociological Research Online 3 (1). http://
www.socresonline.org.uk/3/1/2.html.
Wallström, Margot. 2004. “Disproving Darwin.” Guardian, 21 January. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/
2004/jan/21/environment.environment.
Ward, G. C. Tremaine. 1901. “e Passenger Pigeon.” e Auk 18 (2): 191–192.
Whittaker, Robert J., Miguel B. Araújo, Paul Jepson, Richard J. Ladle, James E. M. Watson, and Katherine
J. Willis. 2005. “Conservation Biogeography: Assessment and Prospect.” Diversity and Distributions
11 (1): 3–23.
Wilson, Edward O. 1992. e Diversity of Life. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Wright, S. Joseph, and Helene C. Muller-Landau. 2006. “e Future of Tropical Forest Species.” Biotropica
38 (3): 287–301.
