[MAIPC] [Aliens-L] Fwd: Wash post op ed - extinction as part of evolution? - apologia

[Marc Imlay]

Opinions <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions> 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2017/11/27/dont-worry-about-climate-change-it-will-all-be-fine-if-you-can-just-wait-a-few-million-years/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na&utm_term=.c3dc04266fd1

 

Don’t worry about climate change — it will all be fine if you can just wait a few million years!

By  <https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/tom-toles/> Tom Toles November 27 


(Tom Toles)

The Post published what could be described as  <https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-endangered-species-extinction-is-part-of-evolution/2017/11/21/57fc5658-cdb4-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?utm_term=.37296f22c583> a pro-extinction article recently, in what I presume was an attempt to shed light on . . . actually, I’m not sure what it was intended to shed light on. The premise was: Don’t worry about mass extinctions, because eventually new species will replace extinct ones. I would say this article is an example of a new species of specious. It is an argument that serves to hasten the mass destruction of the Earth’s environment and concoct yet another reason not to worry about it.

The argument seems to be an offshoot subspecies of the “climate changes all the time” strategy, which itself is a direct descendant of all the other climate obfuscation efforts. And the reassurance it offers is just as misleading and dangerous. “Earth’s long-term recovery is guaranteed by history (though the process will be slow).” Ah, yes, though the process will be “slow.” What a fathomless breadth of eons that little word is asked to camouflage. We may lose our species, and all the rich, vibrant ecosystems we treasure, but in some vast distant future, further away by far than all of human history, there will be something else to replace them. Comforted yet?

And of course the article trots out the usual suspect of an obscure species to dismiss and dispose of to start the ball rolling. Rio Pescado stubfoot toads will do. “They will go extinct one day, and the world will be none the poorer for it. Eventually, they will be replaced by a dozen or a hundred new species that evolve later.” Yes, yes, “eventually.” And how casually we are instructed not to miss the funny-named toad. “The world will be none the poorer.” I beg to differ.

 

Yes, we would in fact be poorer by some measure to have another species deducted from our current wealth and variety of life. And we will be cataclysmically impoverished if this attitude is extended toward species in general. Each has a value, but taken together, all create webs of mutual sustenance and irreplaceable value — unless you consider “replaceable” to mean sometime after all of our descendants are likely gone and unable to continue the process of heedless extermination themselves.

So let the destruction of climate proceed apace, we are counseled. The concern about species destruction is hereby swept away, as so many other concerns have been. Species? We’ll be well rid of them! Healthy ecosystems? Bah, humbug! As long as people get fed, that’s all that matters. And what if, while we are grabbing that bite, the collapse of climate and ecosystems turns around to bite us? Um …

For those of you who may not be so cavalier about a short-sighted, self-serving rampage of destruction and extinction,  <https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/9/14186328/risks-climate-change-graph> here’s some information that actually is of some value and use.

 

Wisdom is just one more thing we are toying with letting go extinct.  57 Comments

 

 



moore_te

6 days ago

Yes, let evolution take its course! But first, take away engines (motors) and fire arms. Level the playing field.
The main problem with his argument is that it fails to take into account the impact of technology. Yes, evolution did produce our brains. However, we are something totally new on the planet. There is nothing like us in the deep historical record of evolution. So his hypothetical projection is totally without any basis in reality. Maybe if we had other populated planets to compare, some in which intelligence emerged earlier than us, we could project what is going to happen to the earth if we don't rein in the impact of the human species. But we don't.
Hard to understand how a professor of biology at GWU could be so clueless, although in his picture he looks too young to know anything. If he doesn't have tenure yet they might want to think about that...

 

 

 

From: aliens-l-request at list.auckland.ac.nz [mailto:aliens-l-request at list.auckland.ac.nz] On Behalf Of peter jenkins
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 10:17 AM
To: IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group <aliens-l at list.auckland.ac.nz>; IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group -ISSG <issgmemberslist at list.auckland.ac.nz>
Subject: [Aliens-L] Fwd: Wash post op ed - extinction as part of evolution? - apologia

 

FYI, the author posted a long apology on Facebook yesterday.  Now we all can critique that too ! :).  His original piece was the center, above-the-fold feature of the Sunday Washington Post's Outlook (sort of "week in review") section last week.  It would seem his apology should get equal treatment.

- Peter Jenkins, Center for Invasive Species Prevention

 

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=192519431307067 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_permalink.php-3Fstory-5Ffbid-3D192519431307067-26amp-3Bid-3D100016470340033-26amp-3Bpnref-3Dstory&d=DwQGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=mUCaNISld4RroI1pIVZQMseWe9YCitkkqjufzin64iY&m=FtWX5I9ibPgRobZjH883gf-27upBkfn2oTG7hU4HnYc&s=8WaHjNDSSDb6yhnJX3tWTPLLxTiw-7EFs9bb07R17JY&e=> &id=100016470340033&pnref=story 

 

 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_people_Alex-2DPyron_100016470340033-3Fhc-5Fref-3DARTFtj0mQ8ABpRFVGsze6v3rkKyRnN6twY-2D384Cso64bssPEldvI5QkzUFBVUjwTbD4-26amp-3Bfref-3Dnf&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=mUCaNISld4RroI1pIVZQMseWe9YCitkkqjufzin64iY&m=FtWX5I9ibPgRobZjH883gf-27upBkfn2oTG7hU4HnYc&s=1i5qa_81xH8PyQrkXjCkShF6LSfQJxeMSjhHgQsrZio&e=> Alex Pyron

 

Biodiversity Conservation is Urgent and Important, Now and for the Future

In a recent OpEd (22 Nov 2017) in the Washington Post, I attempted to lay out an overview of the 5 mass extinctions in relation to the present-day Sixth Extinction, and relate the lessons from the past to a vision of the future of conservation and a recovery from the anthropogenic degradation of Earth. In the brief space of 1,900 words, I failed to make my views sufficiently clear and coherent, and succumbed to a temptation to sensationalize parts of my argument. Furthermore, I made the mistake of not showing the piece to my colleagues at GWU first; their dismay mirrored that of many in the broader community. As I’ve explained to their satisfaction, and now I wish to explain to the field at large, my views and opinions were not accurately captured by the piece, and I hope the record can now be corrected. In particular, the headlines inserted for the piece for publication said "We don't need to save endangered species," and that "we should only worry about preserving biodiversity when it helps us." I did not write these words, I do not believe these things, and I do not support them.

I attempted to integrate multiple fields and viewpoints from evolution, ecology, and conservation, some of which I have the expertise to discuss in depth, and others of which I do not. Therefore, I cavalierly glossed over several complex issues in a way that did not represent them accurately or enhance a robust, consequential debate. Regardless of particular arguments I made regarding when and where biodiversity conservation is necessary or appropriate, I fully support both legislative and scientific efforts for conservation and preservation of biodiversity. I have researched the effects of climate change and extinction risk on reptiles and amphibians for over a decade. I am saddened by the fragmentation of habitat and the decline of the planet's amazing biodiversity at the numerous field sites I have visited. In no way do I condone extinction, or the exploitation of the natural environment, for short-term gain. Researchers engaged in biodiversity conservation have been some of my closest friends and colleagues, and their reaction to the piece and the perceived insult and attack on their work saddens me immensely.

What I intended to express and to bring to the public consciousness, is a merging of the timescales: getting people to think from the distant past into the vague future at the geological scale of evolutionary time, and across the ecological time that affects us as humans. There will likely come a day when there are no longer humans on earth, during this decline the remaining biodiversity will likely blossom again as it has done repeatedly through time. Then, there will likely be a Seventh Extinction, an Eighth, a Ninth. This is a powerful perspective, and one that contextualizes the drastic need for short-term conservation efforts, so that humanity does not go extinct as a result of our short-sighted exploitation of the biosphere.

The other point I tried to lay bare is the inevitability of more anthropogenic extinctions; many, many more species will go extinct soon, despite our best efforts, and this is an eventuality with which we have to deal. Our impacts in the short term are vast and negative. Therefore, in the face of inexorable extinction from a combination of factors including habitat loss and existentially threatening climate change, both of which we are causing, it is imperative that we engage in conservation to create a biodiverse, stable world, for ourselves and for future generations. The conclusion that I attempted to draw from this is that from the coming billions of people soon to be added, more habitat conversion, more ecological impact, more global change, more extinction will take place. This is whole-scale unstoppable although we may be able to make some impacts. I don't want species to go extinct, nobody does, but many will. So, how are we to deal with this?

I tried to conclude by illustrating the pressing need to focus on what we can control: emissions, pollution, renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, etc.. Initiatives like the ESA, CBD, and CITES have made great strides to protect imperiled biodiversity worldwide. Numerous areas of the world provide hopeful models for future ecological stability and sustainability, such as Costa Rica, running on ~100% renewable energy. Much of Europe, the United States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, or Japan, with high environmental security (relatively speaking) and standards of living, represent a vision for the future for both humanity and biodiversity. Achieving these standards won’t be easy, and will require great financial and logistical commitments and technological innovation, as our lifestyles in the developed world represent huge amounts of resource consumption. Darker implications of things such as conservation triage, development vs. protection, and the "acceptability" of extinction are omnipresent and endemic to the world we live in, and will continue to be hotly debated.

My own view, embraced wholeheartedly and backed up by my lifetime's scientific work, is that there is a clear and pressing need for the comprehensive conservation of biodiversity. The process of extinction may be amoral (at least, extinctions not caused by humans), but I didn't intend to state that we had no moral obligation to our environment. Biodiversity conservation is needed so that the greatest possible amount of the biosphere is preserved intact through the Sixth Extinction, for two reasons. First is to support a burgeoning global population of humans over the next few centuries, while technologies for sustainability and renewable energy are enhanced, and ecologically stable co-existence is brought to the fore. Every human being deserves a safe, stable, secure, and happy life. Second is to promote the inevitable long-term recovery from the Sixth Extinction that will occur over millions of years in the future, either in the presence of a sustainable human population, or in the eventuality that humanity goes extinct.

My intent was to add shape and perspective from a long-term evolutionary viewpoint to the discussions on effective conservation actions and priorities for public policy, not to undermine them. I humbly ask that my intentions be judged by pointing to my scientific research, steeped in biodiversity discovery and analysis, with many publications on direct conservation topics and many more to come on the global threats affecting reptiles and amphibians. Many readers found a nihilistic viewpoint in my piece, but I deeply believe in and promote a philosophy of global compassion for the biosphere and humanity, that holds hope for prosperity and diversity in the future, transcending the inevitable degradation that our short-term impacts are causing. Ultimately, life will continue on in some way, with or without us. Life itself is unlikely to end in the Sixth Extinction. We can work now to ensure the best possible outcome of this tenuous and unstable passage. As I stated at the end: The Tree of Life will continue branching without us, even if we prune it back. The question is: how will we live in the meantime?

 

 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maipc.org/pipermail/maipc-maipc.org/attachments/20171203/b78a25b3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 281969 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.maipc.org/pipermail/maipc-maipc.org/attachments/20171203/b78a25b3/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1432 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.maipc.org/pipermail/maipc-maipc.org/attachments/20171203/b78a25b3/attachment-0003.jpg>