The correct option is (c).
Explanation
Arguments for the conservation of biodiversity are generally classified into three categories: narrowly utilitarian, broadly utilitarian, and ethical. These categories distinguish between direct economic benefits, indirect ecosystem services, and moral obligations.
Statement-wise Analysis:
- Statement 1 is Matched Correctly: The narrowly utilitarian argument focuses on obvious, direct economic benefits that humans derive from nature. This includes tangible goods such as food (cereals, pulses, fruits), firewood, fibre, construction material, industrial products (tannins, lubricants, dyes), and products of medicinal importance (pharmaceuticals).
- Statement 2 is Matched Incorrectly: The broadly utilitarian argument emphasizes the essential ecosystem services that nature provides, which cannot easily be quantified in monetary terms. Examples include the production of oxygen (e.g., by the Amazon rainforest), pollination of crops by bees and birds, and aesthetic pleasures like walking through thick woods. Biopiracy and patenting relate to the legal and commercial exploitation of bio-resources (often linked to narrowly utilitarian aspects) and are not examples of broadly utilitarian ecosystem services.
- Statement 3 is Matched Incorrectly: The ethical argument is based on the philosophical premise that every species has an intrinsic value, regardless of its economic utility to humans. It emphasizes a moral duty to care for the well-being of other species and to pass on the biological legacy to future generations. Pricing ecosystem services is an economic valuation method (often used to quantify broadly utilitarian benefits) and is distinct from the ethical perspective, which argues that nature is valuable irrespective of price.
Key Takeaway:
Narrowly utilitarian conservation focuses on direct economic goods (food, medicine); broadly utilitarian focuses on ecosystem services (oxygen, pollination); and ethical arguments focus on the intrinsic value of species and moral duty.