Then you would be lumping inappropriately. I am not saying we should not try, just saying that we are pretty darn naive if we think we can do much of a good job with our absence of knowledge. How can you value something for which you don't know its role????
IN fact, such situations of valuing will inevitably lead to such economic approaches as contingent valuation. In esence, most folks won't value a garden slug very high. How do you value it? What does its actual role amount to in $$? While one might think something is important, another might think that same thing/role is unimportant. We can't even agree on simple things such as what species is in our hand...how can we possibly gain consensus with our meager understanding of of ecological webs to possibly get there. So much life history information is lacking on so many species, it is virtually impossible to do much more than guess at a value considering this currently lacking understanding. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:47 PM, William Silvert <[email protected]> wrote: > I owe Wayne an apology for being sloppy in my post. I did not mean that > Wayne endorsed the view "we should not play god and thus all species are > equally worthy of protection," but I carelessly lumped him in with the > people who do believe so. I would also lump Malcolm in with those who feel > that we should not try to classify species by their value in some sense, but > I think that failing to do so, even if we do so badly, can be disastrous. If > we ecologists do not try to defend some of the most important species, and > instead either defend all of them or none, then by default salvation will be > offered only to those with charisma. > > I am not sure whether Matheus got my sense, but when I wrote that "maggots > are among the most important detritivores on earth" I meant that we should > respect the importance of the house fly even though we all find it a > terrible pest. By the way, they also have medical applications, but as I > understand it the military physician who first used maggots to clean wounds > was severely punished. > > Bill Silvert > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: domingo, 22 de Novembro de 2009 18:33 > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Insignificant species? > > >> If I said anything that left the impression that "we should not play god >> and thus all species are equally worthy of protection," I significantly >> erred. I meant for my statement to be taken only literally, and in the sense >> of ecosystem studies, not sentimentalistic obsession with "ecofaddism." >> However, I can certainly understand how Silvert might interpret it that way, >> given that we are awash in environmentalist-driven dogma. I meant to say >> that it has been my observation that many ecological studies tend to ignore >> non-charismatic species, and such omissions can throw out the baby with the >> bathwater. So, Bill, put it the way you interpreted it, I don't buy it >> either. >> >> WT >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Silvert" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:18 AM >> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Insignificant species? >> >> >>> I don't buy this part of Wayne's post, which repeats a widely held view. >>> Usually we hear the argument that we should not play god and thus all >>> species are equally worthy of protection. > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Fall Teaching Schedule: Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm Office Hourse- TBA 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
