Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!cartan!rathmann
From: rathmann@brahms.berkeley.EDU (Michael Ellis such as he is)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: costs of extinction
Message-ID: <166@cartanBerkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 31-Oct-86 08:23:35 EST
Article-I.D.: cartanBe.166
Posted: Fri Oct 31 08:23:35 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Nov-86 03:24:05 EST
References: <121200006@inmet> <121200008@inmet>
Sender: daemon@cartanBerkeley.EDU
Reply-To: rathmann@brahms.berkeley.EDU (Really Michael Ellis)
Organization: 2-3:30PM, tuesdays and thursdays
Lines: 40

>>> > Janw >> Mike H

>>> Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating
>>> *artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding.

[much omitted]

    The entire "genetic diversity" issue has missed a major point:
    futuristic, engineered, ersatz genetic diversity, interesting
    though it may ultimately be, is simply no replacement for the
    actual history of this planet as encoded in the existing species
    and in the interdepencies still present in the ecosystems
    remaining today. 

>> Being able to design enzymes to perform important biochemical
>> functions.  There are several million different sets of solutions
>> to these problems, different in ways we're only beginning to
>> understand. But they are being destroyed before we have the tools
>> and knowledge to understand how they work: from that standpoint
>> alone, extinctions will retard or prevent whole fields of genetic
>> engineering from developing. Many biochemical phenomena will nev-
>> er be studied because the organisms died out first.

> There are far more species and variations than can be studied in a
> foreseeable future. Those that exist but are not studied might as
> well not exist as far as the information in them is concerned.

    I don't believe that. And I doubt that Mike believes that.
    It's clear to me that EVERY species and ecosystem is intrinsically
    interesting and of scientific value; consequently, provided we can
    avoid planetary nuclear or environmental catastrophe, "in
    the foreseeable future" science will attempt to understand EVERY
    form of life.

> However, it *is* desirable to save as many as possible. There's no
> disagreement on this.

    No disagreement here.

-michael