You can justify a lot with this kind of argument. Why practice medicine, we are all going to die anyway? All we are really trying to do is make life better for more people for longer.
The effort to do this has of course led to some anomalous practices. Legislation designed to protect every single species on earth has created many enemies of conservation, without doing much good. In a totally rational world issues of conservation and extinction could be worked on by committees of ecologists, politicians, NGOs and so on, with predictable results -- save the great whales and polar bears, let some nematodes and cave-dweling fish go. That won't happen. About 4 years ago I wrote a paper (http://bill.silvert.org/pdf/Biodiversity.pdf) about the politics of biodiversity conservation in which I argued the importance of informing the public that "the lowly earthworm has as much importance (actually more) as beautiful egrets and cuddly pandas." The paper was never published -- it was rejected as unscientific -- and I think that scientists are unwilling to venture into the realm of making political choices about the fate of species. However I think we need to find a middle ground between the idealistic belief that we need to conserve everything and provide absolute protection for the environment, and the cynical fatalism of Dylan Ahearn. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dylan Ahearn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:29 AM Subject: Re: gas shmass > And on another note - and I am sure this has been addressed on this > message > board before - so what if the climate changes? It has happened before, it > will happen again. A great extinction will occur; it has happened before, > it will happen again. Really it is the old geologist paradigm. We are a > brief chapter in this earth's history (at this rate very brief). In the > end > we will not have mattered and really how many species we have taken down > with us will not have mattered. The root of the conservation argument has > a > idealogical (religious?) basis. And that is that there is value in what > is > presently here on earth. So much value that we bemoan each extinction (a > VERY common event through time) and each spoiled view (again, ephemeral > with > or without us). And why is this value attached? Because we put it there > as > INDIVIDUALS, not even as a species. Joe-blow doesn't care about the > fairie > shrimp, I do (who is right and why?). In the end it is selfish, we > appreciate biologic diversity because we will thrive in those > environments, > we appreciate good views because they make us smile. First and foremost, > the native american looked 7 generations ahead so that their descendents > would thrive, not so that the resources they used would remian > unspoiled. The earth and life upon it do not care about this > self-reflecting > species. We would be pompous to think that we could destroy all life on > Earth. We could take out 90% (maybe) and then 500 million years later > your > back in action. Imagine the views then, breath taking I am sure.
