🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <121200006@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> >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.

"People always HAVE eaten people; people always WILL eat people.  You can't
change human nature!"  (From "The Reluctant Cannibal" on the Flanders and
Swann album "At The Drop Of A Hat".)

Our civilization does not depend upon the extermination of species.
Extinctions tend to be accidental byproducts of our development.  We would
not have had to give up our civilization to save any of the species that
have gone extinct on this continent, or all of them.  Yes, there would have
been and will be economic costs for protecting species and their habitats.
But there are also benefits and profits to be made.

> >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%.

First, this is not happening.  Second, it is not really practical yet
for anything much besides a few kinds of organisms that we have worked
with extensively: such as mammals, birds, and plants.  Third, the most
divergent organisms (which probably are the most interesting) are also
the most difficult to preserve, precisely because they need different
methods of culture.  Fourth, we can only preserve this way what we can
discover in time to preserve: estimates of discovered species range from
5 to 50%.  I side with the lower figure, because I know firsthand how
poorly the smaller organisms are known.

> Setting aside natural reserves also helps, as  well  as  collect-
> ing live, breeding creatures in artificial conditions. 

The first is the most important.  It is vastly more cost effective than
the second, and preserves more than just the species we know: it preserves
entire ecosystems, ready for study, complete with coevolved interactions.

The second is being done to some extent.  It's fairly expensive.
I know the actual cost per species of American plants is about $5000
in the independant program run by Dr Thibidoux.  When I talked to him last
week, he told me that he was collecting and cultivating about 150 endangered
species per year, which he says is just barely keeping up with "progress".
The aspect you'd like, Jan, is that his funding is mostly private: he tries
to find 150 individuals per year who are willing to contribute $5000 or more
to save a species.

While Dr. Thibidoux's program is admirable, he loudly proclaims that it is
still triage.  He collects small populations of about 50, and says that
should represent 95% of the genetic variability of the species.  I don't
believe the figure is that good on the average, let alone for specific
cases.  He admits that he is unable to collect and culture any associated
organisms: he says that his only hope for them is sloppy [his word, meaning
non-sterile] culture techniques.

> 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.

I approve of this sentiment.  I think we can save most of them if we set
up enough preserves and guard them effectively.  Will that affect growth?
It need not in the near future (30 years, my speculation.)

> 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.

This approach has some other faults.  First is the free market short-
sightedness.  Hardly any money is invested in anything which is
expected to take ten years or more to increase in value.  Most American
R+D is heavily subsidized by government through tax breaks.  Second, is
the problem of gaps.  People will only select that which is MOST
profitable in the nearest future.  Groups where profit can't be predicted
will be ignored.

The problem is that the free market consumes resources, it doesn't protect
them.  The vast majority of protected parks, preserves, and forests in the
world are there because the free market was inhibited (usually by governments,
sometimes by private vestiges of governments such as feudal lands.)

> >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.

Thank you.

> >We need these solutions, because we can use them NOW.  
> 
> Not *all* of them - there's just too many to study right now.

As many as we can possibly preserve: because we don't know WHICH we will
want to study.

> >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.

If a library has too many books for you to read in your lifetime, does
that justify burning a percentage of them?  Say then you find a reference
you need to track down, and you've burnt the book?

> >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.

Again, we can't know which fraction ahead of time.

> >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.

I agree.  But you probably won't like the solution, which is government
supported preserves.  You can't depend on privately owned preserves,
because you must have public accountability.  For example, Dr Thibidoux
tried to collect some seeds from the last colony of one Hawaiian plant.
The landowner closed off his land and bulldozed it.  All legal: it's
his property, etc.

> ... for any  species,  numbers  and  diversity
> give  it  stability against disasters - such as epidemics.  For a
> civilized, world-community species, this is especially important.

You need to read about Koch's (pronounced "Coke's") postulates about
the transmission of disease, Jan.

Numbers do not protect against very many kinds of disasters, and certainly
not against epidemics.  Indeed, numbers generally make it easier for
epidemics to spread.  Try to name one disaster that increased human
numbers would alleviate.

Increasing human population does not increase human diversity.  It might
actually decrease it as small populations are destroyed (such as various
tribes in Africa, South America, and the Pacific basin), except that humans
are already incredibly homogenous.

> 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.

It depends.  If the rest of the world had only 1% of its population also,
perhaps the effort that goes into military spending might have gone into
the space program or other scientific efforts.  But of course, it depends
whether landing on trhe moon this century is an important goal.  How do you
measure its importance?  Are we in some sort of a race?  If so, is it
against other people?

I think scientific discovery is very important: sooner or later.  The moon
will be there a thousand years from now, but our population growth is
forcing issues NOW.  We HAVE to learn certain things NOW because we have
painted ourselves into a corner with our population.  That's why I feel
our numbers are a handicap: they restrict our choices.  As our numbers
increase, our choices will dwindle.

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

The people don't have to coexist simultaneously.  If it takes X man years
to progress so much in the sciences, arts, etc., then it doesn't matter
whether it's in one generation or ten: the progress will occur.  And I'm
not even taking into account diseconomies of scale.  But the numbers do
affect extinctions, pollution, wars, etc. in non-linear ways.

> >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.

Discovery doesn't create resources.  They've been there all along.
Discovery is just when we start using them.  And not all resources cost
the same: there are increasing marginal costs (in efficiency, in quality,
in cost, etc.).  You're just playing a pyramid game, and future generations
will be the losers on a resource-exhausted earth.

> 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.

Numbers determine demand, which is an important factor in how much
production occurs.  The greater the demand, the higher the prices, and
the greater the marginal costs of producing those last units.  Not just
marginal costs in dollars, but also in pollution, despoilation, and
extinction.

> >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.

Expanding population is destroying the rainforests indirectly by demand
for wood and beef, and directly by increased local populations which are
desperate to grow food and harvest fuel.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh