GP / Blog / Environment

Issue forecast

Biodiversity and extinction: is it worth saving species, and on what grounds

Around a million species are now at risk of extinction, the largest count in human history. The interesting GP question is not whether this is happening. It is whether we should save them because we need them, or because they matter in themselves.

Theme · EnvironmentLast set at A-Level · 2022 (whether there is any point in trying to prevent the natural extinction of species)Foresight, not a prediction

In short

A biodiversity question rewards a student who can argue why species matter, not just that they are dying. Argue whether we should save them for our own survival (the instrumental case) or because they have worth regardless of their use to us (the intrinsic case). Both can be true; the strong essay decides which should lead and defends it.

Why this could come up now

This is a quieter slot in the bank, which is exactly why it is worth preparing. It surfaced in 2022 on whether there is any point in preventing the natural extinction of species, a stem that goes straight to grounds and value rather than to facts about decline. It is the kind of reflective question that rewards a candidate who has thought about it in advance.

The real-world pressure behind it is severe. Scientists describe a sixth mass extinction underway, with around a million species at risk and extinction running far above the natural background rate, while a global biodiversity framework now commits states to protecting nearly a third of the planet by 2030.

Framed honestly: this is foresight, not a forecast of wording. Biodiversity is an infrequent visitor rather than a sure thing, but its rarity is the point. If it comes, most candidates will reach for sad facts about pandas and stall, and a student who can argue intrinsic against instrumental value will stand out.

201020142017202020222025

set at A-Level most recent appearance. An infrequent, reflective slot. Rarely set, which is precisely why it rewards the student who prepared it.

What an essay on this would test

These questions test whether you can argue about value, not just recite loss. Anyone can list extinct species; the examiner wants the harder move, a defended reason why extinction matters at all. The strongest scripts pick a ground, our own survival or the worth of the species itself, and argue from it rather than vaguely mourning.

They also test honesty about hard cases. If you argue species matter only because they are useful to us, you must face the species that are not, the obscure beetle, the unloved fungus. If you argue all life has intrinsic worth, you must face the cost of protecting it. The calibration is the essay.

Operative angles

natural extinction: the stem may distinguish extinction we cause from extinction that would happen anyway, which changes the duty
any point: a value question in disguise, asking on what grounds prevention is worth the cost
intrinsic versus instrumental: worth in itself versus worth because useful, the axis the whole argument turns on

How to answer it: two ways in

Two distinct, defensible routes through the question. A strong script commits to one and uses the other as the concession it answers, rather than sitting on the fence.

Grounds: instrumental

We save species because we cannot survive without them

The strongest case for protecting biodiversity is self-interest: human life depends on the ecosystems species sustain, so saving them is not sentiment but survival.

Pollinators, soil organisms and marine life underpin the food, water and air that human economies assume for free.
A collapsing web of life removes services, from crop pollination to medicine, that no technology cheaply replaces.
Framed as survival rather than sentiment, conservation becomes a hard-headed insurance policy that even a sceptic can accept.

Worked exampleThe IPBES Global Assessment found around one million species at risk of extinction and warned that the decline threatens the ecosystem services, food, water and disease regulation among them, on which human societies depend (IPBES Global Assessment, as of 2026-06).

Grounds: intrinsic

Species have worth regardless of their use to us

Resting conservation purely on usefulness is both shaky and self-defeating, because a creature has worth in its own right, and a world that protects only what serves us will let the rest die with a clear conscience.

If value is only usefulness, the unhelpful species, the obscure insect, the inconvenient predator, have no claim, which most people sense is wrong.
Treating nature as a stock of resources is the very mindset that drove the losses; the same logic cannot be the cure.
A purely instrumental case collapses the moment a species is shown to be useless or costly to us, leaving conservation with no defence.

Worked exampleThe Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework's headline '30 by 30' target, to protect 30 percent of the world's land and seas by 2030, commits states to conserving habitats well beyond those of direct economic use, an implicit acknowledgement that nature is worth protecting for more than its yield (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, as of 2026-06).

The fuel: stats, facts and examples

~1 million

species at risk of extinction, more than ever before in human history

Source: IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity · as of 2026-06

30%

of the world's land and seas to be protected by 2030 under the global biodiversity framework's headline target

Source: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework · as of 2026-06

Tens to hundreds

of times the natural background rate at which species are now estimated to be going extinct

Source: IPBES / extinction-rate research consensus · as of 2026-06

Facts worth deploying

Scientists increasingly describe the current loss as a sixth mass extinction, the first driven by a single species, which raises the question of duty as well as cause.Source: IPBES / scientific consensus, as of 2026-06

The instrumental and intrinsic cases are not exclusive: most conservation argues both at once, that nature is useful and that it matters in itself, so a strong essay decides which ground should lead rather than picking only one.Source: ETG analytical framing, as of 2026-06

Singapore's own approach is largely instrumental, framing nature through liveability, greenery and ecosystem services rather than intrinsic worth, which makes it a useful local test of where the value really sits.Source: Singapore Green Plan framing, as of 2026-06

FAQ

Is the intrinsic-value argument too philosophical for GP?

No, it is exactly the kind of reflective reasoning GP rewards, provided you ground it. Argue intrinsic worth, then test it against a hard case, the species that costs us more than it gives, and show why the claim still holds. Philosophy becomes an argument when it survives a counter-example, not when it floats free of one.

Do I need lots of species statistics?

A few, well sourced, do more than a list. The million-at-risk figure and the 30-by-30 target are enough to establish the scale; the essay then lives in the value question, not the body count. Resist the urge to turn an argument about worth into a catalogue of decline.

Can I argue both grounds at once?

You can hold both, but decide which leads. Saying species matter for our survival and in themselves is honest, but a top answer ranks them and defends the order, usually conceding the instrumental case as the easier sell while arguing the intrinsic one is the deeper truth. The ranking is the argument.