Despite the apparent cynicism of my earlier post on this thread, I
would like to accept Wayne T's optimism that the public can be brought to an
understanding of biodiversity that is more sophisticated than a mere species
list. However, in one sense this is opening a Pandora's box. When people
realize that going beyond the mere list involves weighting the species by
various criteria, they will be curious about the criteria.
Is a hypothetical forest ecosystem with two tree species and one moss
species more diverse than a forest with one tree species and two moss
species? To a person going for a walk, or a logger, the former is certainly
more diverse. This leads naturally (even if erroneously) to the conclusion
that mosses don't matter as much as trees, and further, to the idea that it
really doesn't matter if some human activity leads to the extinction of
those little species that most people don't notice.
Saying that those seemingly insignificant species might hold the cure
for cancer, as has often been done, rings pretty hollow to most people, I
believe, because they realize that the overwhelming majority of species
DON'T hold the cure for cancer. People might accept that wiping out an
"insignificant" insect would matter if it happened to be the sole pollinator
of some species we really care about, but how likely is that in the
temperate zone?
Relying on those "charismatic megafaunae" to justify habitat
preservation may also run out of steam when the stakes are high. (Some
people want villagers in Africa to put up with prowling lions, but they
wouldn't want it in there back yard in New Jersey.) Should we work on a
diversity index that takes into account cuteness and nobleness?
Saying or implying that all species are sacred and must be preserved
is religion (or maybe a gut instinct for us nature lovers), but not
science. At least, I think it would be hard to justify scientifically.
Similarly, can we scientifically justify the (often implied) assumption that
high diversity is better than low diversity in a given ecosystem?
I may seem to be wandering off topic, but my point is this: educating
the public about diversity and other ecological matters is empowering them,
and they will use that power in the coming years to make decisions about
which ecosystems to preserve and which to allow to go to ruin. The leap of
faith is that an educated public will make wiser choices than a public that
merely listens to or ignores what the experts say. So maybe it's not
Pandora's box, after all.
Finally, here's some ponderable questions for all of us: Would you be
willing to die to prevent the tiger from going extinct? How about a
flightless bird on a tiny island? How about a mosquito? How about the
smallpox virus?
Martin M. Meiss
2010/12/14 Wayne Tyson <[email protected]>
> Euan and Ecolog:
>
> Uhhh, I dunno, but I suspect that "the public" resents exclusion and other
> forms of disrespect just as intensely as do scientists and other academics
> and "intellectuals."
>
> First, you have to open the door. The primary deficiency (oh, hell, there
> are so many "primary" deficiencies, that must be wrong) is the closed-door
> that separates the intellectual from the anti-intellectual.
> "Anti-intellectualism" certainly exists, along with a host of other
> expressions of fear, but as long as self-styled intellectuals, some of them
> scientists, even ecologists slam doors in the faces of "the public," it will
> not decline. Biodiversity might be a perfectly reasonable term for the
> phenomenon of complex species assemblages and ecosystems, but understanding
> the term might be less important than understanding their ups and downs and
> requirements and limitations. Translating that for "the public" might be
> more important than finding a new term. "The Public," given due respect,
> just might be capable of rising above or extending beyond, sound bytes and
> terminology. Vacuums tend to be filled eventually.
>
> The phenomena related to misunderstanding and confusion and resistance to
> understanding might benefit (or be screwed up) by a disciplined examination
> of the evidence. I doubt that extended hyperbole will have much effect.
>
> WT
>
> PS: The public's ignorance of biodiversity's real meaning might not be the
> first step toward understanding what life is all about; stimulating
> curiosity and responding to enquiry once it is sparked might be the bridge
> that would be crowded by the multitudes once they are beckoned by the
> gatekeepers. I remember my astonishment when the project manager of an
> ecosystem restoration project upon which I was working was astonished when I
> inadvertently "revealed" to her that chaparral was a term for a vegetation
> type, not a single species of plant. She and I both made leaps out of our
> respective ignorances that day, and I have since tried to be more
> considerate of the potential for even "clear" terminology to foster
> unwarranted conclusions. I have since learned and re-learned that
> terminology that conveys clarity to the "ins" may be quite inadequate with
> respect to the "outs." United in the quest toward greater and greater
> understanding, specialists and generalists may yet be able to compound their
> strengths rather than to diminish each other.
>
> As to a space-holder "definition" of bio-diversity (maybe the hyphen should
> be left in?) for "public" consumption, one might say that biodiversity, at
> root, means that life forms are almost uncountable and uncounted, and each
> is in a process of seeking good places and good associates, just as we
> humans form interdependencies and encounter limitations in the business of
> living, dying, and changing. However, I'm sure some will come up with much
> better responses to Ritchie's most reasonable request.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ritchie, Euan" <
> [email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:05 PM
>
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Defining biodiversity, and does the term capture the
> public's attention?
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have just returned from the Ecological Society of Australia meeting and
> among other issues, there was much discussion about the term biodiversity.
> Many people argue that this term is hard to define, and importantly, the
> public have no idea what it actually means and therefore they have less
> connection/concern to preserve/conserve species and habitats. I thought it
> would be interesting to hear how others define biodiversity, and if this
> term isn't helpful for conveying the importance of species diversity to the
> public, what term(s) should we use?
>
> Over to you,
>
> Euan
>
>
> Dr. Euan G. Ritchie, Lecturer in Ecology, School of Life and Environmental
> Sciences
> Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, 3125, Australia.
> Building T, Room T3.09.3
> Phone: 03 9251 7606 International: +61 3 9251 7606
> Mobile: 041 888 2992
> Fax: 03 9251 7626 International: +61 3 9251 7626
> Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Skype: euanritchie
> Website: http://www.deakin.edu.au/scitech/les/staff/ritchiee/
> Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code 00113B
>
> Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the
> named addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use, reproduction or
> storage of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this
> email in error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise
> the sender by return email or telephone.
> Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments are
> error or virus free.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3313 - Release Date: 12/13/10
> 07:35:00
>
