Dylan raises some very important issues about our commitment to =
conservation, and I think it merits further discussion on this list. I =
have a somewhat different angle on it though.
First of all, I do not think that for most of us the aversion to =
extinction is absolute. Some disease organisms are the target of =
extinction campaigns, and I have heard no voices raised against this. =
The same would probably apply to disease vectors such as malarial =
mosquitoes and the tse-tse fly. But as our ability to wipe out entire =
species increases, we need to be very careful about this. I am sure that =
most people would happily vote for the extinction of the common house =
fly, but from an ecological point of view this would be a serious error. =
Many loathsome creatures are very desirable in terms of ecosystem =
functioning.
But as Dylan points out, extinction is forever and there is always a =
risk involved in causing an irreversible change. That is why one of the =
arguments for conservation is that some obscure species may contain =
strainge substances that will cure cancer, etc. Whether our concern is =
that we might be worse off or that the ecosystem might suffer is not the =
main issue, we are simply afraid of taking unnecessary risks.
And of course there is the matter of charisma. Will the bamboo forests =
of China change drastically if the giant panda goes extinct? Most =
unlikely. But we don't want the world to be without these attractive =
creatures. Sure, that is a bit selfish, but what do we lose by keeping =
these fascinating species alive?
In the paper I referred to previously (see below) I argued that we =
cannot hope to save every species on earth, some are bound to go extinct =
through natural causes and through unavoidable human acts. We need to =
understand why we want to conserve things (including species) and based =
on this we need to set priorities. I think that this is the only way to =
develop a densible program for conservation.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Dylan Ahearn=20
To: William Silvert ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: gas shmass - Why do YOU conserve?
Bill,
Your succinct reply in the second sentence of your post:=20
"[Through conservation] All we are really trying to do is make life =
better for more people for longer."
was precisely in-line with my thesis. And that is that the underlying =
ethos of conservation is selfish. But I don't believe that many on this =
list serve would take such an anthropocentric stance. The justification =
that I have more frequently heard (and the one I keep telling myself) is =
that we conserve to sustain the health of the living organism that is =
ALL LIFE ON EARTH.=20
I believe your response may be the more 'natural' one. We do it for =
ourselves because that is our and every other living organisms genetic =
imperative - to multiply and sustain. This becomes exceedingly =
difficult for us to do in a crowded, degraded environment. =20
The other argument - we do it for the sake of all living organisms - =
is on its surface altruistic, and indeed uniquely human. But again =
posed with the question: why protect the Earth's living organism? I =
envision the response being either 1. So that all living creatures can =
coexist peacefully or 2. Because each living creature has value and =
there is a sanctity to existence. The first response, I believe, is at =
its root selfish. In the end, we really want all living creatures to =
coexist so that humans do not get wiped out. The second response is =
religious in nature. =20
The idea of extinction is appalling to us because of its finality. =
Our existence is all we have and precisely what we share with each =
living organism, to willfully take that away from another creature is =
inherently repulsive. But as I keep asking, Bill (and I may have =
learned this from my 2 year old, though I think I was never satisfied =
with the answers I ever received myself - and no doubt why I became a =
scientist) Why?=20
I believe the answer would go something like this: Willfully causing =
extinction is repulsive because we are all the same organism. We =
evolved from the same genetic material and we have differentiated into a =
complex and intricately woven mosaic of branches. To willfully cause an =
extinction is like cutting off your own arm, you will likely live but =
you will never be the same. This makes intuitive sense to me but within =
the context of all time seems less important. Unlike an actual severed =
arm, replaced with a scar, when a branch of the tree of life is broken =
off it is replaced by ever diverging and converging neighboring =
branches. And when we look at this tree through the lens of all time we =
see that its original roots have died but it still live on, we see =
branches constantly breaking off and constantly growing, we see us =
humans as one especially truculent branch banging into all the others =
and shaking the tree. But no matter how hard we shake it, it will keep =
growing. We are in the crown of this tree and the view is wonderful, =
from this vantage that is all we can see and the view is humbling, =
beautiful, and indeed sacred. Yet we are myopic and our view, though =
beautiful, is limited. The crown of the tree will always be there, with =
or without us. What value is its current form versus its previous or =
its future manifestations? The value we put upon it is ours to place.=20
Amen.
On 3/27/07, William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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=20
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=20
(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=20
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.=20
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=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> your
> back in action. Imagine the views then, breath taking I am sure.
