My friend Alex Pyron, a former doper, is the Robert F. Griggs Associate Professor of Biology at the George Washington University. He published an OpEdin today’s Washington Post suggesting that, on a geological time scale (my words), extinction is inevitable and natural, and that we shouldn’t concern ourselves unnecessarily with conserving species that are of no direct benefit to us. Essentially, the piece is an attempt to point out the battle line drawn between science and sentiment (also my words) in conservation efforts.
Personally, I believe he got his facts right, but I’m not wholeheartedly behind his “therefore.” I feel like he misses the emotional connection between us and the environment as a vital stopgap to a total "Brazil"ian hellscape. In other words, like a judge who says she needs her emotions in order to discover justice, I believe that choosing to ignore the intangibles here is a surefire recipe for unforeseen consequences.
I agree that there is an artificial and selfserving distinction between Humans and Nature: we are part of nature, and our technology, like the beaver’s and the bees’, is therefore, ultimately, also a part of nature. But does that mean that we should ignore the consequences of our technologies and practices on other species and systems? Yes, extinction is the engine of evolution. But it is also a bellwether of environmental alteration.
Is it sentimental of me to view the situation from a human scale? Is a planetary perspective more scientific? After considering the position Alex takes in this piece, what is the best way forward; for us and the planet we live on?
We aren’t knowledgeable enough to determine which species we can safely do without, let alone which ones may become beneficial to us in the future.
Even if were had the knowledge to accurately pick out which species were totally useless to us, we don’t know how such a removal will effect those species we do value, either directly or indirectly.
Your friend talks about some species that we disposed of without doing any harm to us or the ecosystem, but without knowing what would have happened if they hadn’t been tossed out the window, he can’t say for certain that the path we took was the right one-his is the convenient guess.
I’m generally in agreement, and many moons ago wrote something along those lines as an assignment in HS. The devil, though, is in the details and we often don’t know which species are beneficial to us. On one level, we have the “majestic species” that most of us treasure (elephants, eagles, even wolves). And on other level we have our food sources. On yet another level, there are millions of species that we know little about and that are threatened with extinction. What makes us so certain they can all just be ignored and that won’t affect us in some significant way? Yes, our environment is ever changing, but rapid, massive change can have unpredictable results, and we should have some humility about taking that gamble.
But the author of the article kind of lost me at this part:
Wow, the answer is “moderation”. Who would have guessed? And I hate “McMansions” as much as the next guy, but it’s unclear to me that that is anything more than just a matter of personal taste. What is that, compared to industrialized farming and massive urban centers? Looks like a cheap shot at those folks whose taste we frown upon.
Thank you for that. I have an artist sensibility toward nature and biology. I am not nearly intellectual enough to understand all of this, but I do know about intangibles and the world we live in. When Audobon painted the last Carolina parrots I am sure it did it for the beauty of the bird. That’s my point for the ’ beauty of the thing’ should be reason enough to preserve it. IMO.
Brings to mind a National Geographic article where some scientists said they could target a specific species of mosquitoes with genetic engineering or something to kill them and stop the spread of certain diseases. They were hesitant to do so because of unforeseen consequences such as on birds that eat them or possibly having a different species assume the role of spreading this particular disease. Humans are not that great at seeing the big picture in terms of niche roles particular animals play, and as of today once an animal is gone that’s it, I’d prefer it if we attempted to keep animals from going extinct, if possible.
Even assuming the frame that benefit to humans is the only thing that matters, we do not know enough about ecosystems to forecast with accuracy which species could become extinct without affecting us, especially since our ecosystems are themselves undergoing systemic changes. In most cases, we’ll get it right. But the consequences of getting it wrong can be quite significant. There have been instances in which a species plays a role in the environment that was completely unexpected until discovered.
I interpret it as a general euphemism for ostentation and conspicuous consumption that has an unnecessarily wasteful environmental footprint. Some people with large families need large houses, of course, but no one needs a house in which a large proportion of floor space is devoted to wasteful ostentation. Some people like lots of land, and for them, there’s lots of natural rural land around that can be treated in an environmentally respectful way instead of a high-priced acre of artificially manicured sprayed-and-scrubbed suburbia.
Same idea with cars, and with boats. When I was a boater, I had a modest-sized cruising sailboat. Some of my friends had bigger ones. We didn’t much care for motorboats, but what we really had disdain for were the multi-story cruising apartment buildings that guzzled diesel fuel and belched fumes with reckless abandon, and which were usually occupied by a single small family with perhaps a guest or two. One such monstrosity I recall was about a 60-footer and was occupied by a young couple with one child. A boat like that might have three separate staterooms, and be powered by something like a 1200-horsepower diesel, working hard throughout a protracted cruise.
The argument that it’s OK to have these things if you can afford them disregards the fact that we all have to live on the same small planet in which many of our activities are simply not sustainable. Perhaps not a great many people own apartment-building style motor yachts, but what about their McMansions, their cars, and their general lifestyles?
Totally not my style. But note that I don’t begrudge those whose style it is.
Whoahhhhh! Is that kosher, without attribution?
Yes, that particular argument is bunk, as is the other one I brought up. But the author makes other arguments as well, and not all of them are specious. I see nothing wrong with defining value in terms of “value to humans”. I’m not even sure how one would define “value” without reference to humans. Everything just is, and at some point it won’t be. In the meantime, we’re here.
There are a handful of examples conservation-induced extinction, which is when efforts to save one species leads to the extinction of another (usually an ectoparasite of the species that is sought to be conserved), so in sense people have already made choices about which species to conserve and which species not to conserve.