Anthropologists are seldom present in international fora where some of the main themes of the discipline are discussed. Can there be an anthropology without anthropologists and at what cost? The concept of biodiversity is used as an example in order to help identify why the situation arises and the contribution anthropology could bring to current debates about biodiversity conservation and the role of indigenous knowledge. Based on the theoretical advances of the discipline and on contemporary thinking regarding indigenous knowledge and the relationship between Humans and Nature, this article challenges several tenets of the current international discourse and reformulates the debates that concern anthropology but to which too few anthropologists are invited to contribute. Can indigenous knowledge be taken out of the system in which it is rooted for the sake of its protection? Are indigenous practices inherently geared to the conservation of the resource? Are taboos informal systems of resource conservation? What is the legitimacy of representatives of indigenous peoples that participate in international policy-making? Answers to such questions need be based on an examination of socio-cultural mechanisms in which knowledge and practices are embedded. A focus on processes rather than on an object isolated from its context shows how illusory and meaningless are currents attempts to freeze and reformat indigenous knowledge in order to save it for biodiversity. It would be even more dangerous to try and change practices and “mentalities.” The conclusion insists on the methodological fundamentals that too often are set aside in surveys carried out in the name of anthropology.