🚀 go-pugleaf

  Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of
  _______________________________________________________________
                             Species,
                             _______ 
    by Paul and Anne Ehrlich. Mike Vandeman, September 17, 1995

     I am adding this book to my list of Required Reading for the
Entire Planet, right after "The Ecological Effects of Roads" (Reed
"Diamondback" Noss) and Confessions of an Eco-Warrior (Dave
                        _____________________________      
Foreman) and beside Saving Nature's Legacy (Reed Noss and Allen
                    ______________________                     
Cooperrider) and Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management (Norman
                 ___________________________________        
Myers).

     I cannot think of any book that is as important and as
                                                     ___   
enjoyable to read as this one. It covers the entire field of
biodiversity, and yet is concise, lucid, interesting, witty,
enjoyable, and easy to read. All technical concepts are explained
simply and clearly, as they are presented -- no glossary needed!
The authors are able to make any species seem interesting,
attractive, and valuable -- exactly what is needed in a book aimed
at persuading humanity that other species are valuable and should
be protected.

     They explain what species are, and how they evolve and become
extinct. They describe in detail why we should care about other
species (examples: compassion, aesthetic values, fascination,
ethics) and how they benefit us, both directly (medical benefits,
food sources, biological control) and indirectly ("ecosystem
services": food chains, nutrient cycles, energy, waste recycling,
pest and disease control, pollination, and creation and maintenance
of the atmosphere, climate, fresh water supply, and soil). They are
very persuasive!

     Next, they describe exactly how we are endangering species
(directly: overexploitation, both now and in our prehistoric past,
for food, the wildlife trade, fur, other products, and via predator
control; indirectly: paving and urbanization, agriculture, habitat
degradation and fragmentation, flooding, draining, spraying
pesticides, polluting, logging, mining, transplanting species, and
recreation).

     And finally, they recount several interesting examples of the
politics of extinction (e.g. the snail darter, whaling, the
wildlife trade, and the destruction of tropical rainforests) and
evaluate some tactics (zoos, captive breeding, reserves, and
rehabilitation) and long-range strategies (population control,
redirecting the growth economy, and sharing the wealth with the
poor, who hold much of the world's biodiversity in their hands).

     Some suggestions, which also apply to every other author I
have read on biodiversity, including Stephen J. Gould, E. O.
Wilson, and Reed Noss:
     No one adequately explains how biodiversity originates, and
                                                 __________     
consequently, how it should be measured and preserved. Don't new
genes originate by chemical- or radiation-induced "accidents"? In
other words, genetic change originates as a single mutation in a
single individual! Such changes are usually detrimental, but some
of them turn out to be beneficial, and give the organism and its
offspring a survival advantage.

     The reason this is important is that it implies that
biodiversity can reside in individuals! The Ehrlichs imply that
                        ______________                         
biodiversity resides in species, and that, therefore, if the
species survives, we haven't lost anything important. What if one
individual happens to contain a unique, new gene that will allow
                                        ___                     
the species to survive global warming? In that case, the loss of a
single individual can be devastating. This also refutes those who
say that the loss of one or more individuals isn't important, such

as the park ranger who told me recently that the killing, by a
mountain biker, of one of the largest Alameda Whipsnakes ever found
"wasn't significant".

     Does this mean that we should never kill anything? No, facts
do not imply actions; actions (what to do about a given fact)
                                       __                    
always require an ethical judgment. But it does suggest that
killing (directly or indirectly) should never be taken lightly, and
_______                          _____________________________     
that killing for frivolous reasons (e.g. killing birds in order to
             _____________________                                
decorate ladies' hats with feathers) will probably be condemned by
anyone familiar with the biodiversity crisis. Eliminating just the
frivolous abuses of wildlife would still provide them a significant
benefit to, since such abuses are ubiquitous. For example, my park
district is planning to complete a road around one of its lakes,
simply so that hikers and bikers won't be bored by having to return
                                          _____                    
by the same route! The keeping of pets and the wearing furs are
other obvious abuses that most of us have at one time considered
acceptable.

     The Ehrlichs are particularly vehement in condemning another
such frivolous abuse -- off-road vehicles: "When it comes to pure
recreational destructiveness, however, off-road vehicles (ORVs) far
surpass powerboats. ... It is a rare environment indeed where a
vehicle can be taken off-road without damage. ... Standard ORVs
with their knobby tires are almost ideal devices for smashing plant
life and destroying soil. Even driven with extreme care, a dirt
bike will degrade about an acre of land in a twenty-mile drive. ...
Not only do the ORVs exterminate animals by exterminating plants,
they attack them directly as well. Individual animals on the
surface and in shallow burrows ... are crushed. ... One great
problem with ORVs is that they supply easy access to wilderness
areas for unsupervised people who have ... no conception of the
damage they are doing." (pp.169-171) (Although mountain bikes had
not been invented, or were hardly known, when this was written, it
is obvious that the same applies to them.)

     At one point, the authors implied that loss of species can be
mitigated by a concurrent creation of new species: "Throughout most
of Earth's history, the faucet has been running species in a little
faster on the average than they have been going down the drain. As
a result, the number of living species has generally increased over
the ages. ... Even if speciation was not being inhibited by the
same processes that cause extinction and was proceeding at normal
rates, it could not compensate for the extinctions projected for
                    __________                                  
the next few decades rapidly enough to be meaningful to humanity."
(pp.26-27) [emphasis added] I think there are two fallacies here:
first, the number of species is not a good measure of diversity; a
new species of butterfly doesn't add as much diversity as a species
that represents a completely new phylum. Stephen J. Gould, in
Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History,
___________________________________________________________ 
described how in the great Cambrian extinction event most types of
arthropods went extinct, leaving only the four body types we still
have today.

     Plants are frequently ignored or undervalued. Actually, the
"plant" (photosynthesizing) kingdom preceded and probably gave rise
to the "animal" kingdom, and contains far more biodiversity.
                                      _____________________ 
Similarly, among plants there is far more diversity (different
                                          _________           
lifestyles) in the ocean plants than in land plants, which are
derived from them. There may be more species of insects, but not
                                     _______                    
more diversity. The first time I began seriously studying botany,
     _________                                                   
reading E. J. H. Corner's The Life of Plants, I was shocked at how
                          __________________                      
long he took to get to land plants: I was almost halfway through
the book before we got out of the ocean!



     Second, I don't think most people would be happy losing the
species we currently have, even if they are replaced by new ones.
We don't want to lose what we have now! At the very least, we don't
want to contribute to any extinctions.

     I think there is a lot of confusion about facts and behaviour.
Many people seem to compromise in their pursuit of the truth, for
fear of appearing too "radical". This is particularly unfortunate
when that person is a scientist: we desperately need scientists,
because of their consummate skill in determining facts. Facts
provide our surest, most solid foundation for action. It is
                                                      _____
detrimental, and completely unnecessary, to compromise on matters
_________________________________________________________________
of fact. And it is refreshing and inspiring to see scientists (such
________                                                           
as Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, who study the negative effects
of road building on the environment) who fearlessly seek and
publicise the truth in spite of pressure to be silent. (Most
transportation researchers receive money from highway interests,
and consequently don't study the negative aspects of road
construction.)

     The confusion arises when we consider actions. Believing that
                                           _______                
facts imply that certain actions must be performed, some people
                         _______                               
compromise their statement of the facts. For example, perhaps no
one talks about the biodiversity contained in individuals, because
they fear the "implication" that we should never kill anything.
                                                      ________ 
Maybe no scientists have been willing to admit that some species
need to have habitat that is off-limits to humans, because it would
"imply" that they themselves would have to be excluded. Facts do
not "imply" ("entail") behaviour. We may know that a given
development will drive a species to extinction, but what we do
                                                            __
about that fact is still a moral decision. We may have to
compromise in what we do ("on the ground"), but there is no reason
to compromise in facing the truth -- particularly in a nation where
we cherish a right to freedom of speech. Scientists are usually
honest in their statement of their findings, but in their choice of
what to study, not always.
_____________             

     Although we need facts (e.g. knowledge of the genetic
similarities between us and other species can be a powerful
motivator toward empathizing with and caring for those species),
facts aren't enough. We aren't completely rational (else, for
example, no one would smoke). People who are profiting from a
situation are amazingly resistant to learning facts that might
persuade them to change. Thus, I think the authors are wrong in
saying that the most persuasive arguments for preserving
biodiversity are the selfish, logical arguments. We humans are
obviously not smart enough to always act in our own best interest.
The only way to leap from facts to action is through the
application of emotion: to take the position that killing and
endangering other species (especially for frivolous, trivial, or
unnecessary reasons) is just plain wrong.
                                   _____ 

     This is actually not such a big leap. We already consider
ourselves gifted in empathy. We invented the Golden Rule. Now all
we need to do is extend it to cover other species. If we simply try
to understand how they think and feel, and act accordingly (e.g.
afford them the same rights that we claim for ourselves, such as
the right to exist, to travel where we need to, to eat what we need
to, etc.), I think they will automatically be protected.
(Incidentally, I think this idea gives religious people a natural
way to join in the campaign to protect the Earth's biodiversity.)

     The legal status of wildlife is also affected by this notion
of rights. Our revered "democratic" form of government is based on
the consent of the governed. We pride ourselves on being a
government "of the people, by the people, for the people", where we

at least theoretically have the opportunity to vote on the laws
                                               ____            
that govern us. But we don't afford wildlife that same right.
Consequently, we have the spectacle of a federal judge in effect
sentencing a species (subspecies?) (the California Gnatcatcher) to
extinction, when by our own principles, our laws and judges don't
                                        _________________________
even have jurisdiction over wildlife! Next, we will be giving
_____________________________________                        
jaywalking tickets to rackoons! I think it is absurd for any humans
to claim a "legal" right to harm wildlife. Wildlife are above our
laws. The best that our laws can do is govern human interactions.

     It may seem fanciful to suggest that we can guess what other
species are thinking or feeling, but we actually have quite a lot
of genetic commonality, so it isn't really so far-fetched to think
that we might be able to have similar thoughts and feelings. For
example, my cat and I have developed a language that we both
understand: when he stands next to the door and stares at the
doorknob, I know that he wants to go outside. I always respond
quickly, to reinforce that "phrase". Similarly, I know that when I
approach an animal and it runs or flies away, it indicates that it
doesn't like having me around (on the other hand, if it did
nothing, I couldn't draw any conclusion, at least not without more
study). This is a good indication that, in order to preserve such a
species, we need to provide habitat that is off-limits to humans!

     In spite of all their excellent and very persuasive arguments
in favor of preserving other species, I think that the authors
missed one of the best reasons of all. All over the world, humans
are fighting. In every case, the motivations are selfish ones. One
country wants resources that another one has. Everyone wants to
live next to pristine wilderness untouched by other humans. Hikers
want to hike in peace, unbothered by mountain bikers, while the
mountain bikers want to bicycle in the very same places. I believe
                                                         _________
that the only way for humans to get along is for both sides to put
__________________________________________________________________
aside their selfish pursuits and join in giving aid to a third
______________________________________________________________
party. Native peoples cannot protect themselves from dominant, oil-
______                                                             
fueled cultures. Children cannot protect themselves from abusive
adults (e.g. smokers, which may be their own parents!). And on the
bottom of the totem pole (so to speak) are wildlife, who cannot
protect themselves from humans.

     How ironic it would be, if, in spite of all the abuse we have
given wildlife, they taught us how to live together in peace and
(sustainable, mutual) prosperity.