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