 Consider a concrete debate between traditional conservation biologists and the “new conservationists.” Recently, some conservation biologists have argued that we should make half of the Earth’s surface into interconnected protected areas, which they claim would conserve about 85% of our remaining biodiversity (Noss et. al. 2012; Wuerthener et. al. 2015; Wilson 2016). Currently, only about 15% of the Earth’s terrestrial areas and about 3% of its oceans are protected. If we consider a variety of studies as to what percentage of terrestrial regions should be protected to conserve biodiversity, the median percentage is slightly below 50% (Noss et al. 2012, 2). The “Half-Earth” plan offers three claims: (a) habitat loss and degradation are crucially important causes of biodiversity loss, (b) current protected areas are insufficient for preventing further loss of biodiversity, and (c) it is morally wrong for our species to cause species’ extinction (Wilson 2016). Critics argue that “Half-Earth” has several flaws Büscher et. al. 2017). First, it ignores the most serious problems threatening biodiversity – resource extraction and consumption. Second, if authorities created strict protected areas (IUCN Category I or II), then it would have considerable negative effects on indigenous people and communities. Third, it is likely that control over these reserves will not be given to the indigenous people and communities effected, which will only exacerbate their poverty and vulnerability. Fourth, when local people are stakeholders in conservation programs, both biological conservation and socioeconomic outcomes are benefited. Fifth, “Half-Earth” offers no plan for biodiversity conservation for the other half. They suggest that we focus on the main drivers of biodiversity, which requires rethinking free markets and economic valuation and moving towards regulation, redistribution, and viewing natural resources and ecosystems as global public goods. Additionally, they suggest our conservation plans should explicitly address economic inequality (Mikkelson et. al. 2007; Holland et al. 2009; Hicks et al., 2016). It is both harmful for humans and leads to biodiversity loss itself. In favor of Half-Earth, its defenders have argued in return that though Half-Earth is necessary but insufficient for conserving all of Earth’s biodiversity. They also agree that we should reject neoliberal economics. However, we should not prioritize equality for humans over non-human species’ equality; “This will require setting aside sufficient habitat for other species while living justly and prudently on the remainder” (Cafaro et. al. 2017, 400). The Half-Earth proposal is very controversial, but it is also emblematic of the debates within conservation biology. 