Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!linus!raybed2!rayssd!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Conservation and Profits, to mrh Message-ID: <121200012@inmet> Date: Sun, 11-Jan-87 13:34:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.121200012 Posted: Sun Jan 11 13:34:00 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Jan-87 18:58:46 EST Lines: 161 Nf-ID: #N:inmet:121200012:000:7770 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Jan 11 13:34:00 1987 [mrh@cybvax0.UUCP ] This is a response to an old posting by Mike Huybensz which I conserved before taking a break. >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. >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). World economy is fragile; we need fast growth to generate the surplus needed to solve any problems, including environmental ones. >>>Our descendents in the next 5 generations might well look back at >>>us and say: "they threw away 95% of the world's genetic diversi- >>>ty, 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 awfully >> 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. 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. >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. This sounds to me as perhaps a qualitatively valid objection, but it is hard to quantify. They may be divergent in ways not re- lated to how well they freeze or survive captivity. Anyway, my point above holds here, too: once you start doing it on a large scale, you gain so much experience that hard cases become easy. If you don't start, everything stays difficult. >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. 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. 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). >>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! >>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. Please publish his address. >> 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. >> 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 >shortsightedness. Hardly any money is invested in anything >which is expected to take ten years or more to increase in value. This is kind of circular: the value itself is a function of predicted future value increase. The market discounts these predictions. So, 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. >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. [To be continued] Jan Wasilewsky