Although I agree that the rationale for conserving biodiversity ultimately comes down to a value judgment and perhaps the services ecosystems provide to humans, I suspect there is at least one objective difference between natural extinctions/climate change and human-caused extinctions/climate change. The environmental effects of an asteroid hitting the earth at the end of the Cretaceous dissipated in a relatively short period of time (geologically speaking). It wasn't just the opening of niches that permitted the subsequent diversification following the mass extinction. The environment had to recover to some extent too, did it not?
Can we say the same for human-caused changes in the environment? Clearly, our negative impacts on the environment are driven by economic interests. Will those incentives disappear once we've caused lots of extinctions and dramatic climate change? You'll understand if I'm not too optimistic about that (especially if those with a sizeable economic stake in over-exploitation shrug their shoulders and say "extinctions happen", "climate changes"). Perhaps if these changes caused our own extinction. But to paraphrase William Faulkner, mankind will not only endure, he will prevail. Sometimes I wonder if that statement was meant to be rueful rather than optimistic. Short of causing our own demise, I think that the long-term prospects for the biosphere will depend on whether we have the will to limit our impact on the environment even after we've caused mass extinctions and climate change. Steve Brewer At 5:29 PM -0700 3/26/07, Dylan Ahearn wrote: >Try your no-car experiment with children or in a rural area. You will find >it a little harder. So I guess you will remain "not a hypocrite" until you >move or have kids. The point is, you do what you can within your limits. >And like others have mentioned, what we can do through lifestyle change is >only a drop in the bucket versus the major climate change driver: the >ever-growing global economy. > >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. > >On 3/25/07, adam herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I have been reading some excellent rants and diatribes about the issue of >> consumption, particularly North American and most particularly about >> gasoline vs. ethanol vs. biodiesel. I really would like to believe that >> most of the folks writing these are "practicing what they preach" and have >> sold their combustible engine vehicles in favour of a bicycle and/or > > public >> transportation however, having just graduated with an M.S. in Marine >> Biology >> I realize this is sadly not the case. I was labeled as a trouble-maker >> for >> making comments like "if you're a scientist and stay abreast of global >> warming trends AND still drive a gasoline vehicle you are a hypocrite." >> finger-pointing is a tough one as you are often branded as self-righteous >> but leading-by-example is a SLOW process, so the question I pose to this >> BLOG is how do you get colleagues to change without alienating them? like >> I >> said, many of the essays I read on this listserv resonate with me, but >> they >> are just words falling on an already preached to choir. I would like to >> add, that I have been happily without a vehicle for 1 year & 5 months and >> love it. there are just so many reasons beyond doing the right thing as >> to >> why walking, biking and/or taking the bus is enjoyable: you see more >> wildlife en route, you find great stuff along the side of the road, you >> have >> time to read (on the bus), you rarely have to wait for traffic, you get >> exercise and so don't have to go to the gym, etc. etc. make the >> commitment >> and feel the freedom. in situations where science has allied with >> industry >> to such a degree that scholastic acheivements are overshadowed by material >> possessions what can one do but be a trouble maker? your experiences and >> comments are appreciated. >> Adam Herbert >> -- Department of Biology PO Box 1848 University of Mississippi University, Mississippi 38677-1848 Brewer web page - http://home.olemiss.edu/~jbrewer/ FAX - 662-915-5144 Phone - 662-915-1077
