David Baker wrote, "I don't think we have the responsibility to maintain the planet at some arbitrary steady state to prevent the loss of any current species." That's agreeable, but I’ve never heard anyone argue for "some arbitrary steady state." In fact, I haven’t seen anyone prescribe a particular size of steady state economy, arbitrary or non-arbitrary.
What is more applicable at this point in history is a process called “muddling toward” in political science. In this case the polity muddles toward a roughly optimal, but not precisely specified, steady state. The muddling is done by a complex of citizens, policy makers, civil servants, etc. The muddling is manifest in consumer decisions, investments, voting, policy-making, public program development, etc. Their preferences are "averaged out" in a steady state economy that is larger than some prefer and smaller than others prefer. Muddling toward a broad policy goal works to the extent that a sufficient proportion of citizens, politicians, etc. are educated and concerned with the well-being of society. In this case, they would be well aware of the tradeoff between economic growth and crucial long-term goals such as environmental protection, economic sustainability, and national security. With regard to this particular listserve thread on species conservation, the polity must be aware of the fundamental conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation. That conflict then becomes part of their decision-making framework going forward. Ecologists who see the need for a steady state economy at a non-arbitrary level, for the sake of biodiveristy conservation and a long list of other goals, are encouraged to join the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy: http://steadystate.org/CASSEMembership.html . Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy ________________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [[email protected]] On Behalf Of David C Baker [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:31 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Insignificant species? I am not sure that Dr. Patton's statement was near perfection. I would agree that we are being stupid if we don't acknowledge our role in at least the loss of some species, but long before we changed the planet for the worse, species were being lost as a result of changes in the conditions they had evolved to exist in. Even if we can reduce the effects of our species on this planet, I don't know how conditions might change in the future that may result in the loss of other species, particularly plants that can't actively outrun spreading glaciers or rising oceans. We should acknoledge that we have some responsibility, but I don't think we have the responsibility to maintain the planet at some arbitrary steady state to prevent the loss of any current species. David Baker, Botanist Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest Tiller, OR 97484 541-825-3149
