alternatehistory.com

Reading an article posted by our own loveable monkey-phile Mojojojo about the decline of gibbons in mainland Asia (as documented by the ancient Chinese) I was struck with a thought that had occurred to me many times when considering species that went extinct in the modern era; is there a way we can have conservation and biodiversity to be seen as important, and worthwhile, concepts at an earlier stage in our history?

It's been discussed before (most specifically with regards to the thylacine) but usually the response is that, so long as a species (such as the thylacine) is getting in the way (whether the threat is perceived or real) of human development, we will wipe it out, but I know that there were avid zoologists, botanists, geneticists (post-Darwin) and others who might have different things to say on the matter.

Speaking of the thylacine; we understand that part of the reason for the extinction on the mainland was the introduction of the dingo, which, as an apex predator, simply out-competed the thylacine and drove them into smaller and smaller niche territories until there were none left. But on the island of Tasmania, their last fortress if you will, it can be said that their decline was rapidly brought on by sheep farmers who blamed (in most cases, wrongly so) the thylacine for killing their herds.

Now, is there a way earlier governments might, for example, set aside more land earlier for the preservation of exotic species and a region's biodiversity? And enforce it? It doesn't necessarily have to be western cultures, either.
Top