From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.sci Subject: Costs of extinction Message-ID: <1166@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: 29 Sep 86 19:48:22 GMT References: <26500079@inmet> <26500106@inmet> Karl Heuer and Jan weep crocodile tears over past and future extinctions.... 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? 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." 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 irreproducible numbers of natural experiments, selected because they WORK. We need these solutions, because we can use them 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 process 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 useful 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. We need these evolved solutions, because we can use them in new ways in the near future. 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 organisms that we can recreate them from their sequences and cultures of related organisms. Maybe we could even start preserving organisms in liquid nitrogen, so that their chromosomes stay intact, in hope that future technology will allow recovery of that information. Perhaps then we could better afford to allow extinctions. 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. > 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. 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. 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. -- "To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true." Bertrand Russell in "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Article 1446 of net.sci: From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.sci Subject: Re: Population control & Freedom Message-ID: <1167@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: 30 Sep 86 14:56:30 GMT References: <564@gargoyle.UUCP> <26500108@inmet> In article <26500108@inmet> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >>Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating > >>*artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding. > >>[janw] > > > >Utter nonsense. Jan, please provide one shred of scientific support > >for your claims. (This means: document your statements by > >references to a scientific author or journal with authority to speak > >in this area, e.g., E.O. Wilson. Quotes from *National Review*, > >*Time*, or *Gung-Ho For Freedom* do not count.) [Richard Carnes] > > ... you have argued from authority and then > attempted to bolster this conduct by ducking the issue of whether > Jan was right or not and requiring Jan to give "scientific" support > (where you incorrectly define the term "scientific"!). If you and Jan weren't so abysmally ignorant of biology, you wouldn't bother defending Jan's nonsensical position with a (perhaps technically valid) charge of argument from authority. And I do think it funny that you are criticizing Richard for offering Jan a relaxed standard of proof, to give him the benefit of the doubt. The kind of genetic diversity that we are destroying now (through extinction) cannot be "increased very fast" by any of the methods Jan lists, nor any methods I know of. Here's why. Cross breeding: Very simply, cross breeding reassorts genes; it doesn't produce any new ones. The benefits of cross breeding are only possible if you have genetic diversity of parent stocks. Here Jan has put the cart in front of the horse. Artificial habitats: No habitat creates genetic diversity: a habitat can only select among diversity from parent stock or mutation. While we might be able to speed mutation and selection rates artificially, it's not likely either that the results will be qualitatively comparable to those of millions of years of natural evolution, or that the process can be speeded enough to be economically feasible. Genetic engineering: We're not there yet, and it's not clear that we'll be there in the next 100 years. What's "there"? Being able to redesign the development of an organism. Being able to create a suite of adaptations that work together to fit an organism into a special habitat. 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 never be studied because the organisms died out first. > When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. Is the above satisfactory? -- "To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true." Bertrand Russell in "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Article 50 of sci.misc: From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re: costs of extinction Message-ID: <1222@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: 3 Nov 86 20:15:46 GMT References: <121200006@inmet> In article <121200006@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >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. "People always HAVE eaten people; people always WILL eat people. You can't change human nature!" (From "The Reluctant Cannibal" on the Flanders and Swann album "At The Drop Of A Hat".) Our civilization does not depend upon the extermination of species. Extinctions tend to be accidental byproducts of our development. We would not have had to give up our civilization to save any of the species that have gone extinct on this continent, or all of them. Yes, there would have been and will be economic costs for protecting species and their habitats. But there are also benefits and profits to be made. > >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%. First, this is not happening. Second, it is not really practical yet for anything much besides a few kinds of organisms that we have worked with extensively: such as mammals, birds, and plants. Third, the most divergent organisms (which probably are the most interesting) are also the most difficult to preserve, precisely because they need different methods of culture. Fourth, we can only preserve this way what we can discover in time to preserve: estimates of discovered species range from 5 to 50%. I side with the lower figure, because I know firsthand how poorly the smaller organisms are known. > Setting aside natural reserves also helps, as well as collect- > ing live, breeding creatures in artificial conditions. The first is the most important. It is vastly more cost effective than the second, and preserves more than just the species we know: it preserves entire ecosystems, ready for study, complete with coevolved interactions. The second is being done to some extent. It's fairly expensive. I know the actual cost per species of American plants is about $5000 in the independant program run by Dr Thibidoux. When I talked to him last week, he told me that he was collecting and cultivating about 150 endangered species per year, which he says is just barely keeping up with "progress". The aspect you'd like, Jan, is that his funding is mostly private: he tries to find 150 individuals per year who are willing to contribute $5000 or more to save a species. While Dr. Thibidoux's program is admirable, he loudly proclaims that it is still triage. He collects small populations of about 50, and says that should represent 95% of the genetic variability of the species. I don't believe the figure is that good on the average, let alone for specific cases. He admits that he is unable to collect and culture any associated organisms: he says that his only hope for them is sloppy [his word, meaning non-sterile] culture techniques. > 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. I approve of this sentiment. I think we can save most of them if we set up enough preserves and guard them effectively. Will that affect growth? It need not in the near future (30 years, my speculation.) > 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. This approach has some other faults. First is the free market short- sightedness. Hardly any money is invested in anything which is expected to take ten years or more to increase in value. Most American R+D is heavily subsidized by government through tax breaks. Second, is the problem of gaps. People will only select that which is MOST profitable in the nearest future. Groups where profit can't be predicted will be ignored. The problem is that the free market consumes resources, it doesn't protect them. The vast majority of protected parks, preserves, and forests in the world are there because the free market was inhibited (usually by governments, sometimes by private vestiges of governments such as feudal lands.) > >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. Thank you. > >We need these solutions, because we can use them NOW. > > Not *all* of them - there's just too many to study right now. As many as we can possibly preserve: because we don't know WHICH we will want to study. > >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. If a library has too many books for you to read in your lifetime, does that justify burning a percentage of them? Say then you find a reference you need to track down, and you've burnt the book? > >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. Again, we can't know which fraction ahead of time. > >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. I agree. But you probably won't like the solution, which is government supported preserves. You can't depend on privately owned preserves, because you must have public accountability. For example, Dr Thibidoux tried to collect some seeds from the last colony of one Hawaiian plant. The landowner closed off his land and bulldozed it. All legal: it's his property, etc. > ... for any species, numbers and diversity > give it stability against disasters - such as epidemics. For a > civilized, world-community species, this is especially important. You need to read about Koch's (pronounced "Coke's") postulates about the transmission of disease, Jan. Numbers do not protect against very many kinds of disasters, and certainly not against epidemics. Indeed, numbers generally make it easier for epidemics to spread. Try to name one disaster that increased human numbers would alleviate. Increasing human population does not increase human diversity. It might actually decrease it as small populations are destroyed (such as various tribes in Africa, South America, and the Pacific basin), except that humans are already incredibly homogenous. > 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. It depends. If the rest of the world had only 1% of its population also, perhaps the effort that goes into military spending might have gone into the space program or other scientific efforts. But of course, it depends whether landing on trhe moon this century is an important goal. How do you measure its importance? Are we in some sort of a race? If so, is it against other people? I think scientific discovery is very important: sooner or later. The moon will be there a thousand years from now, but our population growth is forcing issues NOW. We HAVE to learn certain things NOW because we have painted ourselves into a corner with our population. That's why I feel our numbers are a handicap: they restrict our choices. As our numbers increase, our choices will dwindle. > But the level itself depends on numbers, too. The more people, > the more (potentially) discoveries, inventions, points of view > etc. The people don't have to coexist simultaneously. If it takes X man years to progress so much in the sciences, arts, etc., then it doesn't matter whether it's in one generation or ten: the progress will occur. And I'm not even taking into account diseconomies of scale. But the numbers do affect extinctions, pollution, wars, etc. in non-linear ways. > >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. Discovery doesn't create resources. They've been there all along. Discovery is just when we start using them. And not all resources cost the same: there are increasing marginal costs (in efficiency, in quality, in cost, etc.). You're just playing a pyramid game, and future generations will be the losers on a resource-exhausted earth. > 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. Numbers determine demand, which is an important factor in how much production occurs. The greater the demand, the higher the prices, and the greater the marginal costs of producing those last units. Not just marginal costs in dollars, but also in pollution, despoilation, and extinction. > >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. Expanding population is destroying the rainforests indirectly by demand for wood and beef, and directly by increased local populations which are desperate to grow food and harvest fuel. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Article 148 of sci.misc: From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re: Conservation and Profits, to mrh Message-ID: <1363@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: 19 Jan 87 20:10:00 GMT References: <121200012@inmet> Important thing first. I wrote: The second [preservation of endangered species by cultivation] is being done to some extent. It's fairly expensive. I know the actual cost per species of American plants is about $5000 in the independant program run by Dr Thibidoux. When I talked to him [recently], he told me that he was collecting and cultivating about 150 endangered species per year, which he says is just barely keeping up with "progress". The aspect you'd like, Jan, is that his funding is mostly private: he tries to find 150 individuals per year who are willing to contribute $5000 or more to save a species. While Dr. Thibidoux's program is admirable, he loudly proclaims that it is still triage. He collects small populations of about 50, and says that should represent 95% of the genetic variability of the species. I don't believe the figure is that good on the average, let alone for specific cases. He admits that he is unable to collect and culture any associated organisms: he says that his only hope for them is sloppy [his word, meaning non-sterile] culture techniques. > Please publish his address. [JanW] Dr. Francis R. Thibodeau Director of Science, The Center for Plant Conservation at The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University The Arborway Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 And now back to our usual discussions.... In article <121200012@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Our civilization does not depend upon the extermination of > >species. Extinctions tend to be accidental byproducts of our > >development. > > They are side effects. We do not depend on them. We do depend on > the processes of which they are side effects. Except when they are necessary side effects, we can try to eliminate [most of] them. > >We would not have had to give up our civilization to save any of > >the species that have gone extinct on this continent, or all of > >them. Yes, there would have been and will be economic costs for > >protecting species and their habitats. But there are also bene- > >fits and profits to be made. > > Very true, and at the center of the problem. As soon as the bene- > fits are sufficiently internalized, the desirable change will oc- > cur. A transformation like this will take time and thought - > meanwhile, habitats will continue to be destroyed by people whose > vital interests depend on it. We have to accept this unpleasant > fact calmly and minimize the losses; treating any further loss as > intolerable prevents clear thinking on the subject (I am not > imputing to you this hysterical position; but it exists). Internalization of benefits merely makes a situation economically stable. It's foolish to let a one-shot opportunity to be forever lost because it isn't "internalized" yet. That sort of lack of foresight is typical of business, but fortunately governments can have a longer-term point of view. Much of the destruction can hardly be characterized as "vital interests", unless you think rich plantation owners will starve unless they cut down rainforest to grow hamburger meat. I'm not saying "stop all cutting": I'm saying "leave representative ecosystems, err by making them too large rather than too small." I don't think the mistake made in the Mississippi basin should be made in the Amazon basin. Imagine if there were some sizable national parks along the Mississippi and the great plains, preserving undisturbed forests and prairie that now exist nowhere? What would the cost have been? A miniscule reduction in production. > World economy is fragile; we need fast growth to generate the > surplus needed to solve any problems, including environmental > ones. World economy is fragile: we need OPTIONS to deal with future problems. Throwing away genetic resources that let us develop new and improved crops and processes can only make our position more precarious. Fast growth is no solution: if anything it is inefficient and risky. We have the surplus today to solve current problems: but today and in the future, there will be a political blockage of solutions. Fast growth won't solve that. I'm not ruling out fast growth though. The question is how much growth to allow, not it's rate. Fast or slow, should growth taper off only because all resources are consumed? Or should some resources be conserved? > What about insects? I am asking you as an expert. I was under the > impression that they keep quite well while desiccated or frozen. > Small size should help, too... I also thought amphibians and fish > could be frozen. Anyway, the few "kinds" you mention are > enough, so far, to achieve the kind of numbers I was speaking of. > Meanwhile further research will almost certainly refine methods > of preservation for more species. Remember what you said above > about profits to be made? Once artificial species preservation > becomes an expanding business, technological improvements will > follow fast. DNA within organisms seems to keep quite well when frozen in liquid nitrogen. But extremely few organisms can be successfully frozen, thawed, and live to reproduce: most of the ones I can name are specially adapted to a life style where this occurs naturally. Eventually, it might be possible to revive other organisms, or reconstitute them from DNA, but not likely in the next few decades. Artificial species preservation ought not to become a business because it would allow short-sighted business practices to determine which species are preserved: the remainder might become extinct. I can see it now: "We need to cut storage costs: throw out any species that haven't been asked for in the past 5 years. I don't know if these species are extant or in other collections, but we've got to cut costs!" Preservation of habitats prevents this sort of problem. > >Fourth, we can only preserve this way what we can discover in > >time to preserve: estimates of discovered species range from 5 to > >50%. I side with the lower figure, because I know firsthand how > >poorly the smaller organisms are known. > > This is a very strong objection. The question is - can we discover > them fast enough to keep up with the quotas. With more than a million > species already discovered (am I right?), we have some time. The species that we haven't discovered yet are the vast majority of the endangered ones because they live in the until-now undeveloped areas. Nor would it be easy to collect the organisms we know about now. I know firsthand that some organisms have eluded searchers for periods of as long as fifty years. > Your estimate suggests two more observations: one, it makes > the whole problem less urgent. Losing so many species a year out > of three million is one thing; out of thirty million, quite another. If you take the high estimate of species diversity, then you must also raise the estimated extinction rate. Neither number is well known, but choosing the high end of one range and the low end of another is not the way to measure a problem. > Secondly, if your objection works against *my* suggestion, it > works much more strongly against working to preserve (in their > natural habitats) individual endangered species (such as the > celebrated snail darter). Yet a lot of resouces have been sunk > in this insignificant line of activity. (I am not speaking of > preserving habitats generally rich in known and unknown species - > but of the one-species approach). The species that we know may well be indicators of a diversity that we have not yet recognized. You can't just assume that everything in the snail-darter's habitat is present elsewhere. That's not to say that we shouldn't use our resources wisely and get the biggest bang for each preserve. The money spent on the snail darter case could have gone far towards developing preserves around the world. But for that matter, the money that would have been spent building the dam could have gone a LOT further. The net benefits of the proposed dam were mostly pork-barrel. > >>Setting aside natural reserves also helps, as well as collect- > >>ing live, breeding creatures in artificial conditions. > > >The first is the most important. It is vastly more cost effective than > >the second, and preserves more than just the species we know: it preserves > >entire ecosystems, ready for study, complete with coevolved interactions. > > You are right! Thanks. I'm glad we're agreed on this. It's extremely important. > >> 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. > > >I approve of this sentiment. I think we can save most of them if we set > >up enough preserves and guard them effectively. Will that affect growth? > >It need not in the near future (30 years, my speculation.) > > And after that, the profits you spoke of in the beginning ought > to become either a fact, or at least a future to trade in. The profits from preserves will not always be directly attributable to the preserves. For example, third world nations have been complaining that they don't see any money from genetic material collected in their countries that is used to breed improved crop plants for developed nations. Likewise, material from preserves will be put to use in the future, but the preserves themselves will probably not profit from it. And it wouldn't help to finance preserves through usage fees of such material: that makes them vulnerable to usage fluctuations and inhibits R+D by increasing startup costs. > ... if someone collects seeds now, he may expect > them to be worth more in ten years, even if they will > only be of any *use* thirty or forty years hence - because > ten years from now that future will be ten years closer. I see. How many hula-hoops do you have stockpiled? Gambling on future value N years hence makes no sense when during that N years government action might keep values down, competition might reduce values, etc. Unless you negotiate exclusive rights, your investment is extremely risky. And nobody wants to see exclusive rights to genetic material that is available freely today. > >Most American R+D is heavily subsidized by government through tax > >breaks. > > R&D is different: if it does not pay off soon, it may pay off > later for *someone else* - not for those who did it. > Collecting seeds is more like collecting stamps, or paintings, > or oil fields. Long-term value increase is translated into > short-term value increase. So, it *is* done - and if enough > people hear of it and believe in it, it can become speculatively > self-reinforcing. Which is just fine. Preserving species is an infrastructural expense just like R+D. The value may not directly accrue to the preserver, but is well distributed over society as a whole. Consider the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. Heavily subsidized by government through tax breaks, they developed the bitmapped, mouse-driven user interface that is used on the Mackintosh, Sun, and many other machines. The benefit to the industry is immense, but direct return to Xerox is tiny by comparison. Likewise, preserving genetic resources in preserves will provide similar benefits to the growing biotechnology industry, as well as to traditional agriculture (which has yet to explore a fraction of the immense variety of plants that have crop potential.) -- "People always HAVE eaten people; people always WILL eat people. You can't change human nature!" (From "The Reluctant Cannibal" on the Flanders and Swann album "At The Drop Of A Hat".) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh