Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!rutgers!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re: costs of extinction Message-ID: <121200006@inmet> Date: Wed, 29-Oct-86 02:16:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.121200006 Posted: Wed Oct 29 02:16:00 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 30-Oct-86 23:29:26 EST Lines: 157 Nf-ID: #N:inmet:121200006:000:7359 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Oct 29 02:16:00 1986 [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