🚀 go-pugleaf

[From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)]
[Newsgroups: net.sci Subject: Costs of extinction]
[Date: 29 Sep 86 19:48:22 GMT]
[This article has reached me by e-mail, courtesy of the author]

>In article <26500106@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>> ... the mammoth's exit does sadden me somewhat...
>> But  it would be foolish to blame our ancestors - too much was at
>> stake for them with a giant store of protein like that, and an ex-
>> cellent  tool  material,  to boot. Had they been advanced enough,
>> they might have tamed the mammoth - and have meat and tusks in
>> abundance, plus a magnificent beast of burden.

>It's hard to blame pre-scientific, pre-world community peoples for their
>extermination of some species.  But what is our excuse?

Only that our civilisation works that way, and we can't do without
it. We ought to moderate this effect, within reason.

>Our descendents in the next 5 generations might well look back at us and say:
>"they threw away 95% of the world's genetic diversity, just before they
>got to the point where they could understand it well enough to record
>and utilize it."

It *would* be wasteful to let it go that far.  95%  sounds  aufully
high.   If  we collect, each year, the seeds, or eggs & sperm, or
frozen but revivable specimens, of  (e.g.)  as  many  species  or
varieties  as  become extinct that year - then that figure cannot
rise above 50%.

Setting aside natural reserves also helps, as  well  as  collect-
ing live, breeding creatures in artificial conditions.  We
can't save *all* species - even  if  we  go  extinct  immediately
(some  species are moribund without our help; also our extinction
would be a major ecological change that could trigger  a  lot  of
other extinctions). But we might be able to save *most* of  them,
without limiting our own growth.

Who will do the  preservation?  Both  non-profit  *and*  business
groups.   If  your  prognosis  is  true, and genetic diversity is
likely to be at a premium some generations from now -  collecting
genetic material should be a profitable investment. Some of it
*is* going on already.

>Genetic diversity represents the solutions to problems  faced  by
>each species.  Solutions arrived at over thousands to millions of
>years of evolution: working solutions selected from  irreproduci-
>ble numbers of natural experiments, selected because they WORK.

Eloquent and (I believe) true.

>We need these solutions, because we can use them NOW.  

Not *all* of them - there's just too many to study right now.

>Our agriculture benefits from genes for disease resistance,  from
>biological  control organisms, etc. Our pharmacology is largely a
>ripoff of naturally evolved biologically  active  compounds,  and
>that  is  still the largest source of new drugs. Many of our pro-
>cess industries (food, waste, and some materials)  are  based  on
>discovered organisms.

>But it's a well known fact that what we're using now is only  the
>tip  of the iceberg. Only a tiny fraction of the potentially use-
>ful organisms have been well studied, and none well  enough  that
>we can justify allowing its extinction on the grounds that it has
>nothing to offer.

That's the point: there are too many to study any time soon.

>We need these evolved solutions, because we can use them in new ways in
>the near future.  

Yes, but only a small fraction of them.

>Between recombinant DNA technology and sequencing technology,  we
>will  soon  be able to build a whole new biochemical (rather than
>or in addition to petrochemical) economy.  We  will  be  able  to
>identify  and  synthesize  enzymes  long before we can adequately
>design them: until then,  we  really  need  natural  enzymes  for
>models.

>Eventually, perhaps, we might be able to learn enough  about  or-
>ganisms  that  we can recreate them from their sequences and cul-
>tures of related organisms.  Maybe we could even start preserving
>organisms  in liquid nitrogen, so that their chromosomes stay in-
>tact, in hope that future technology will allow recovery of  that
>information. Perhaps then we could better afford to allow extinc-
>tions.

Seeds can be preserved right now. Many cold-blooded animals
can also be preserved frozen or dried, and then revive.

>Another question needs to be asked.  What are we really gaining from these
>extinctions?  If we're selling our genetic birthrights, we ought to get
>more than a mess of pottage for them.  But in the world's rainforests,
>where the major extinctions are taking place right now, all we are getting
>is a one-time harvest of timber (mostly for pulp) and non-sustainable
>systems of agriculture (either grazing or slash-and burn subsistance
>farming).  This at a time when there is a world glut of food: the products
>of the forests' destruction aren't really needed.

Yes, that sounds reasonable. At least a large part of  the  rain-
forests probably ought to be saved.

>> Will the universe as known 300 years
>> from now be at all like the universe we know? No, if past experi-
>> ence  is  any  guide. Let us therefore not plan that far at all -
>> but expand our  knowledge  and  our  resources  -  including  our
>> numbers.   And  then, using these assets, cross each bridge as we
>> come to it.  The future is *open*.

>Human numbers are only assets in competition between groups of humans.

No, of course that's not true. On the same lines, you could argue
that numbers are only assets in competition between sub-groups of
a group. First of all, for any  species,  numbers  and  diversity
give  it  stability against disasters - such as epidemics.  For a
civilized, world-community species, this is especially important.

In a civilized species, cooperation of its members is a source of
strength, and this is just as important in the conquest of nature
as in inter-group competition.  Surely, with 1%  of  its  popula-
tion,  the USA wouldn't have achieved a Moon landing in this cen-
tury...  On the same level of development, wealth and  power  are
proportional to numbers.

But the level itself depends on numbers, too.  The  more  people,
the  more  (potentially)  discoveries, inventions, points of view
etc.

>If you assume wealth per capita is the measure of quality of life, then
>increasing human numbers can only result in less wealth per capita because
>of the finite resources on earth and diseconomies of scale.

The opposite is true. Resources (counting each resource with  all
its possible substitutes) - resources are not finite. In general,
they  grow  more  abundant  and  less  expensive  all  the  time.
Resources  are discovered by people, and so are their uses and so
are the methods of their extraction. The more  people,  the  more
resources.

Diseconomies of scale have nothing to do with total numbers -
for  any given enterprise, the optimal numbers of humans can come
together. But economies of scale are limited by numbers:  an  un-
dertaking requiring 10 billion people would be impossible today.

>In addition, there is a direct conflict between expanding knowledge and
>expanding population when the result of the expanding population is to
>reduce the diversity of information represented in life.

Expanding population is not what is destroying  the  rainforests.
Most  of  the destruction is done by large-scale developers under
the control of governments.

		Jan Wasilewsky