Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <1189@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 13:54:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1189
Posted: Fri Oct 10 13:54:21 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 05:35:39 EDT
References: <164@grc97.UUCP> <117400119@inmet>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 134

In article <117400119@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> >> [Jan's argument...] was that subtracting thousands out of many millions
> >> [of species] does not reduce genetic diversity  much.  It  was  also  that 
> >> artificial methods can preserve genetic diversity, without hindering
> >> technical progress or  population  growth. It also was that other
> >> artificial methods can actually increase genetic diversity, and do it fast.
> 
> >All three sentences are seriously in error. [My argument.]
> 
> >Subtracting thousands of species PER YEAR from millions DOES reduce genetic
> >diversity by a great deal, because the losses are cumulative.  
> 
> That entirely depends on the number of years  through  which  one
> projects  the  process - i.e., on one's ability to foresee the
> future. To claim a large cumulative effect is to claim powers  of
> long-term prediction. They need to be demonstrated first.

The period of prediction for the destruction of tropical rainforests is from
thirty to fifty years.  That's estimating at current rates of destruction;
the rate may increase significantly as third-world populations increase.
And there won't be a temporary reprieve through discovery of new deposits:
we can see all that there is.

I note also that you've excised my second sentence about the loss of genetic
diversity by the elimination of populations within species.  Diversity can be
lost even when a species isn't threatened with extinction.

> >Artificial methods cannot preserve significant genetic diversity yet, as I
> >have explaind in related articles in the past few days.
> 
> *Yet* is an important word here. The context of my statement  was
> the future. So, Mike is attacking a strawman.

Oh, so you have powers of long term prediction?  They need to be demonstrated
first.  (And that assumes I buy Jan's "future context", which certainly
isn't present in the passage he cited.)

I'm not attacking a strawman: I'm attacking your wild claims.  Put up some
justification for them, or shut up.

> *Significant* is another important  word.   If  a  thousand  lost
> species  a  year  is  "significant"  (see Mike's statement above) -
> wouldn't he agree that preservation of a thousand species a year
> (e.g.  in seeds) is "significant"? Or would he argue it's impos-
> sible? (The articles he mentioned haven't reached this site yet).

Go ahead and try to preserve the (probably several thousand) species that will
be lost this year.  How do you want to preserve the beetles?  What about the
undiscovered microrhyzial fungi that are required for the successful growth
of the seeds you saved?  What about the myriad undiscovered species: how
will you know to preserve them?

Is your idea of "significant" to save seeds of 1000 species a year of
non-endangered plants?

My meaning of significant here is qualitative: directed towards the problem.
Preservation of too little or the wrong things is not significant because
it doesn't make a dent in the problem.

> >Artifical methods cannot increase genetic diversity in  a  manner
> >comparable  to the results of evolution, as I have also explained
> >in related articles in the past week or two.
> 
> I'll look out for them - *but* if Mike means "cannot" for all  future  -
> then he has a very heavy burden of proof.
>
> If he only claims they can't do it as *yet*, then this is *another*
> strawman.

These have been mailed to Jan.

"Cannot for all future"?  And you have the NERVE to accuse me of straw men?
Jan seems to think that by calling something a strawman (however improperly)
he can dismiss it.

We can't increase genetic diversity (as explained above) YET, and are not
likely to be able to do so in the near future (when we will be readily able
to utilize the diversity that is being destroyed right now.

> >> Ecological diversity is not necessarily reduced by
> >> civilization. Artificial habitats are habitats too,
> 
> >Ecological diversity is much the same as species diversity.  
> >Artifical habitats do nothing (in less than thousands  of  years)
> >to increase overall species diversity on the globe.
> 
> Why in "less than  thousands"?  Civilization  *has*  existed  for
> thousands  of years. It may exist for more thousands. *Yet another*
> strawman.

Fine.  Name some new non-domesticated species that have evolved in artificial
habitats.  If our grandchildren have to wait thousands of years for new
species to replace the ones exterminated by their grandparents, they might be
resentful.

> "Overall global species diversity" is not all that matters.
> Diversity  of an ecological community may increase when
> new species are introduced to it by civilization.

Overall global species diversity is much more important than the diversity
of the individual ecological communities in the following way: we can easily
monkey with individual ecological communities to try to increas or decrease
their diversity BUT the only way we can really affect global diversity is to
decrease it.

And the fact is that diversity of ecological communities generally decreases
when introduced species become established.  Look at the extinctions due to
the introduction of rats, mongoose, and various plant species around the world.

> Artificial habitats create  hitherto  impossible  communities  of
> coexisting  species  - new ecologies; new populations with new
> evolutionary trends; new strains and varieties.

This is such a broad and overall incorrect generalization that I'm appalled.

Artificial habitats sometimes create previously impossible communities:
usually only when exotic species are introduced.  For example, artificial
reefs have the same species as comparable surrounding communities.  Buildings
may have cliff-type communities, and yards may have disturbed-type communities
(which is why cities have pigeons, and suburbs have raccoons and oppossums
throughout most of the US.)

I can't think of any "new" ecologies.  Artificial habitats generally
represent depauperate ecologies (cropland for example.)  The component
species generally fit into the exact same functional positions that they do in
natural ecologies.

Artifical habitats certainly do create new populations that could have new
evolutionary trends, but only if they were maintained long enough.
New strains and varieties are not genetically very different though.
We should not trade species for strains and varieties.
-- 

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