What's the theory behind preserving endangered species?

[Colibri]

Here’s a review articleon the role of natural products in drug development over the past 30 years.

From the data presented, the utility of natural products as sources of novel structures, but not necessarily the final drug entity, is still alive and well. Thus, in the area of cancer, over the time frame from around the 1940s to date, of the 175 small molecules, 131, or 74.8%, are other than “S” (synthetic), with 85, or 48.6%, actually being either natural products or directly derived therefrom. In other areas, the influence of natural product structures is quite marked, with, as expected from prior information, the anti-infective area being dependent on natural products and their structures. Although combinatorial chemistry techniques have succeeded as methods of optimizing structures and have been used very successfully in the optimization of many recently approved agents, we are able to identify only one de novo combinatorial compound approved as a drug in this 30-year time frame.

[Colibri]

Conservationists are acutely aware that there are insufficient funds available to save every threatened species let alone threatened subspecies. (I should mention that the most important international list of threatened species, the Red List of the International Union for the Conservation of nature, only considers full species, not subspecies. Threatened subspecies are mostly determined at the national level.)

There are various protocols that have been developed for the prioritization of species for conservation. One is Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE) species.

Every species is given a score according to the amount of unique evolutionary history it represents, and its conservation status. These scores are used to identify EDGE species.

Some species are more distinct than others because they represent a larger amount of unique evolution. Species like the aardvark have few close relatives and have been evolving independently for many millions of years. Others like the domestic dog originated only recently and have many close relatives. Species uniqueness’ can be measured as an ‘Evolutionary Distinctiveness’ (ED) score, using a phylogeny, or evolutionary tree.

[Sailboat]

@Habeed

So, ok. Most endangered species that I actually hear about in the news seem to have 2 things in common :

a. They are a variant on base species that is still quite prevalent. The “spotted” owl. A particular tree frog.
b. The species is an “inferior” variant, possessing traits that make it suboptimal for the modern world. For example, the “Scottish” wild cat is extremely similar visually to and can interbreed with house cats, yet likes to hide instead of harassing humans for food. The dodo bird couldn’t fly. The passenger pigeon was in some way dependent on being in gigantic flocks, which is why after human hunters killed a portion of them, the rest all died.

So you hear all the time how development gets held up in the USA because of some rare species present on the land. This is an abysmal policy, I think.

1.  A species should only be on the preservation list if the species is actually unique, *without* having absurdly common members of a closely related species.  Something like the Scottish wild cat isn't even a species because it can interbreed.  I'd say this means elephants should be preserved (there aren't very many gigantic land animals similar to elephants) but the spotted owl shouldn't and tree frogs shouldn't, etc.  
2.  The argument that some rare cure to a disease is hiding in an endangered species is basically bullshit.  It actually is true that certain drugs have been derived from rare plants and animals, but if you want to find a drug without terrible side effects, you cannot search blindly.  You need to study to actual biochemical pathways and design a molecule that binds strongly to a key enzyme, not guess in the dark by trying billions of compounds until you get lucky.  This method is obsolete and will never find anything that isn't a suboptimal solution with side effects.  Also, modern drug research does not have to try substances from rare plants, it can systematically create variants using chemical synthesis or synthetic DNA and test each one.  
3.  If the federal government does decide that a piece of land can't be developed on, it should make a decision.  Not "delay" things for decades, wasting time and slowing down progress.  Yes or no, not "the next hearing is scheduled for next year"

What the hell is so important about development? A few people get the money for destroying something that is the common heritage of all life on earth, then piss away that money on what, sportscars and plastic surgery?

Here’s one for you:

1. A developer should only be allowed to move his or her project forward if the result is actually unique, without having absurdly common examples of closely related development. Something like housing or retail isn’t even a development because we already have that. I’d say this means the Smithsonian should be preserved but most money-making businesses shouldn’t, etc.

   2. The argument that some value will accrue to me from your plans to develop land is basically bullshit. Repeated studies have shown that when localities offer tax incentives to businesses, the resulting “increased tax base” hardly ever pays off because the businesses relocate when the tax incentive expires – and pay little or nothing before that.

[Colibri]

Here’s a summary of the book Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity, which is an excellent reference on the topic. Of course, the utility argument is only one of the reasons to conserve biodiversity.

[foolsguinea]

A specific example about saving subspecies: Ancient Romans used a non-cultivatable plant–sort of like a fennel, I think–to make a contraceptive. Since it would not be cultivated, production couldn’t scale up, and it eventually became extinct. Relatives of the plant continued to be used, but were apparently not the same quality?

We could end up in a similar boat today with wild blueberries (similarly non-cultivatable) or any number of fish species. Quality of produce goes down when the quality stuff is all fished out. That has direct effects on quality of life.

[Colibri]

@foolsguinea

A specific example about saving subspecies: Ancient Romans used a non-cultivatable plant–sort of like a fennel, I think–to make a contraceptive. Since it would not be cultivated, production couldn’t scale up, and it eventually became extinct. Relatives of the plant continued to be used, but were apparently not the same quality?

We could end up in a similar boat today with wild blueberries (similarly non-cultivatable) or any number of fish species. Quality of produce goes down when the quality stuff is all fished out. That has direct effects on quality of life.

One of the reasons to conserve biodiversity is that wild strains or relatives of domesticated plants and animals can contribute important genes that have been bred out of the domesticated varieties.

[Trinopus]

Not for anything would I doubt your word – but why, I wonder, would blueberries by non-cultivatable? In the wild, they grow in wonderful gnarly thickets: why couldn’t a similar thicket be gotten started on a farm? I don’t get it.

(Now I’m tempted to try!)