One of the most important facets of life itself is diversification. Biological variety helps to ensure that life can survive the countless problems that mother nature continually throws at it. In addition to this, life's diversity, aka biodiversity, serves a human, philosophical purpose: it shapes the formation of different socio-cultural systems. Thus, the modern issues related to biodiversity are subsequently, and simultaneously, issues of cultural diversity as well. 


Biodiversity initiates the manifestation of human cultural diversity in many ways. The primary aspect of biodiversity, which attributes to the most variation in human cultures, lies in the variation of habitats, environments, and ecosystems. The geography of Earth's surface, whether it be land, sea, or ice, has been the fundamental force driving human socio-cultural change. Mountain ranges and bodies of water, for example, can alienate population groups, causing drastic cultural differences in groups located in seemingly near-proximity. Additionally, the accessibility of geographical terrain is the primary influence on the accessible pathways of human travel. Mountain passes, river systems, and flat lands are all examples of places that lend to human movement. This movement causes the hybridization of human cultures, where social systems are  mixed together, typically creating an entirely new social entity.


One of the primary ways that we can analyze how biodiversity both positively and negatively impacts cultural diversity is by language. As outlined in Wade Davis's TED Talk titled, Dreams From Endangered Cultures, languages are being lost at an alarming rate. In a way, processes of technological revolution, including both industrialization and globalization, have detracted from biodiversity as a whole; geographical barriers are being broken down, subsequently resulting in the assimilation of cultures, subtracting from the totality of cultural diversity. Language has been a primary victim in all of this. 


However, despite the loss of languages overall, it is hard to argue that cultural subtraction is always bad. Consider this hypothetical thought experiment: 100 "cultures" exist. One of them is the Nazi culture. How many would honestly claim that, if the Nazi culture died out, that going down to 99 "cultures" is truly bad? Moreover, although the loss of language is a relevant tool to the study of the relationship between biodiversity and cultural diversity, it is not without its flaws. Although languages may be in a downward trend, culture hybridization does not always equate to a subtraction of cultural diversity. Though Culture A and Culture B might blend, and wind up speaking the language of Culture B in its entirety, that does not mean that this is a cultural loss. This mix might have created an entirely new culture, Culture C. Although language has been lost, cultural diversity could potentially increase.


Consequently, although the loss of biodiversity may cause a loss of cultural diversity, this claim can not be made into an absolute. There are potentialities for this positively-associated relationship to cause an increase in cultural diversity as well. Government systems should, in theory, be able to use political power to protect cultural diversity as needed, as long as it does not stunt the advancement of humanity. The problem lies in trusting politicians to use this power effectively; it is inevitable that human flaw will arise in govermental institutions that attempt to protect biodiversity and cultural diversity.