Biodiversity is far more complex than most people understand. The interdependencies that comprise our planet's ecology are inadequately understood.
Humans are just one of the 4.5m species on the planet. We are the species making up the most serious global plague the planet has ever seen.
Fortunately, some very able writers have been given the opportunity by forward-thinking magazines to communicate the essence of the debate about biodiversity. Foremost among these, in terms of reader impact, is the US magazine National Geographic. National Geographic transformed itself over the 1970s and early 1980s from a monthly collection of unconnected stories of amazing facts, engineering feats and strange peoples into a highly professional, campaigning journal of environmental awareness. The most obvious manifestation is their current series on environmental "hot-spots" but there is a strong and consistent evolutionary and ecological thread running through all their articles today. Sadly Australian Geographic hss not far advanced beyond where NG was twenty years ago.
Scientific American presented a feature on biodiversity in its November 2001 issue (this was the article that popularized the criticism of "vertebrate Chauvanism") and followed this up with an article in its January 2002 edition which addressed Bjorn Lomborg's misrepresentations of the state of planetary biodiversity.
The Scientific American article is the best accessible and up-to-date account of biodiversity I have come across.