Assigning an economic value to species and ecosystems by using ecological economics does little for biodiversity or guaranteeing the protection of animals, but it allows for the direct comparison of animals with market goods and can lead to extinction of a species representing an “optimal” choice. This paper suggests an alternative framework that would require minimum protection of ecosystems and species diversity.

Society uses economics and market forces to allocate limited resources among an unlimited number of uses. Extending the notions of optimal price and optimal supply can work in some cases of human behavior, but in others it fails to capture the non-market attributes of consumption or production. For example, a cost-benefit analysis of wildlife and habitat could be made by assigning values to the existence of these animals and the environment, but ultimately this model fails due the potential for total collapse or extinction of an animal species.

The author concludes, “Continued human impact, species extinction, and biodiversity loss are likely under a market paradigm of choice and marginal change. At the extreme, the decision to irreversibly deplete or drive a species to extinction can be shown to be optimal behavior in a market.
The fallacies of imposing this market model on non-market goods and services include the assumption of perfect substitution, equating social welfare with price, and a failure to recognize complexity, interdependency, and uncertainty in most systems.”