carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/24/86)
>>The worst thing that can happen -- will happen [in the 1980s] -- is >>not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or >>conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these >>catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few >>generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take >>millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species >>diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly >>our descendants are least likely to forgive us. --Edward O. Wilson, >>*Harvard Magazine*, Jan.-Feb. 1980 > >Tosh: the other disasters he mentions are worse, and less rever- >sible. 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.) One has to admire Jan's chutzpah in implying that the distinguished population biologist and behavioral ecologist Edward Wilson doesn't understand the facts about genetic diversity. But of course it's entirely possible that Jan has a better understanding of this subject. So please give us a lecture on this subject, Jan, and explain where Wilson goes wrong. Explain what genetic diversity is, how it is quantified and measured, and the nature of the present threat, if any. It shouldn't take you very long. If time permits I will post some passages from Wilson that support and amplify the passage I quoted. Richard Carnes
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/29/86)
/* Written 6:04 pm Sep 28, 1986 by nrh@inmet.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* Written 8:21 pm Sep 23, 1986 by carnes@gargoyle.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >>>The worst thing that can happen -- will happen [in the 1980s] -- is >>>not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or >>>conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these >>>catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few >>>generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take >>>millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species >>>diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly >>>our descendants are least likely to forgive us. --Edward O. Wilson, >>>*Harvard Magazine*, Jan.-Feb. 1980 >> >>Tosh: the other disasters he mentions are worse, and less rever- >>sible. 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.) And now, Richard, it is time for you to go back to the books and consider a thing or two about what the word "scientific" means. 1. The word "scientific" does not mean "argued from authority", or "supported by a journal chosen by Richard Carnes" 2. The word "scientific" has to do with they way hypotheses are tested. Not with who argues them nor, except tangentially, where they are written up. I wouldn't be so harsh on you, but 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"!). However, the proper answer to arguments from authority is not simply: "but that's an argument from authority!" but includes:, "oh? and why does HE say it". Wilson may feel, or even be able to show (scientifically) that genetic diversity is in peril if nothing changes. Jan, you will note, did *NOT* argue that nothing should change, but rather that the danger may be avoided or the damage repaired via certain means -- means that your quote from Wilson does not attack. >One has to admire Jan's chutzpah in implying that the distinguished >population biologist and behavioral ecologist Edward Wilson doesn't >understand the facts about genetic diversity. But I admire yours more! You have not answered Jan at all, and you've attempted to brand him as unscientific, all the while arguing from authority rather than firm grounds. I particularly like your idea of "scientific" as something that goes on in journals. Does this mean the Targ-Puthoff work on remote viewing is "scientific"? It did appear in "Nature"! No -- science has to do with subtler questions than mere appearance in a journal. Just for example: it is not scientific to talk about proving the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent God -- because there'd be no way to prevent such a being from interfering with the experiment itself. On the other hand, there are many learned journals of theology and philosophy: does that make their content scientific? >But of course it's >entirely possible that Jan has a better understanding of this >subject. Not difficult, at least in this one case, for Jan to have a better understanding of it than YOURS: you misunderstood his point and quoted an answer to the wrong question. You're in no shape to argue that Jan's understanding is flawed! >So please give us a lecture on this subject, Jan, and >explain where Wilson goes wrong. Explain what genetic diversity is, >how it is quantified and measured, and the nature of the present >threat, if any. It shouldn't take you very long. Tsk! When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law, and when neither one is on your side, pound the table! Since you understand argumentation so well, Mr Carnes, and since you feel it proper to assign topics, here's a lecture topic for you: Why the argument from authority is specious, and why one should never quote an authority in answer to the WRONG QUESTION. >If time permits I will post some passages from Wilson that support >and amplify the passage I quoted. But none, I trust, that actually attack Jan's proposal. (Of course if there are some, I'd be eager to see them, they'd be important and they would likely shed light on other answers to the problem). /* End of text from inmet:talk.pol.misc */
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/29/86)
> = [carnes@gargoyle.UUCP ] This goes under a wrong title: the problem is unrelated to population control. >>The worst thing that can happen -- will happen [in the 1980s] -- is >>not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or >>conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these >>catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few >>generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take >>millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species >>diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly >>our descendants are least likely to forgive us. --Edward O. Wilson, >>*Harvard Magazine*, Jan.-Feb. 1980 >>Tosh: the other disasters he mentions are worse, and less rever- >>sible. Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating >>*artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding. >Utter nonsense. Jan, please provide one shred of scientific support >for your claims. Scientific ? Neither my statements nor Wilson's were *scientific*. He speaks, e.g., of reversibility of global totalitarianism - this is not only outside *his* science, but *any* science. He also speaks of a future "millions of years" ahead - a future, mind you, with a human factor in it. No one can scientifically know it. My assertions I'll discuss below. >(This means: document your statements by references to a scien- >tific author or journal with authority to speak in this area, >e.g., E.O. Wilson. As I've shown above, no one has a scientific authority to speak "in this area". But I can justify my statements without stooping to an argument from authority. >Quotes from *National Review*, *Time*, or *Gung-Ho For Freedom* >do not count.) Er... of these three, I actually quoted one. Is the above a sample of the scientific integrity you are after? And from that one magazine, I quoted one of your "authorities": Paul Ehrlich. Surely, that is kosher! >So please give us a lecture on this subject, Jan, and >explain where Wilson goes wrong. A short one, O.K. ? His passage was a short one, too. First, a global totalitarian conquest is very likely to be ir- reversible, except through total extinction of humanity, for rea- sons I can give separately. If so, it cannot be repaired "within a few generations". Wilson goes wrong here. Secondly, this, or the other disasters he lists, would probably disable all possibilities of preventing or alleviating the ecological disaster. A world in a state of economic collapse or war desolation couldn't afford conservationism. Since these prob- lems include his one (but not the other way) - they are worse and less reversible. Once again, Wilson is wrong. Thirdly, he obviously excludes future human activity from his prognosis. Otherwise, he wouldn't speak of millions of years - we are not *that* predictable. But this activity can create species and varieties, as well as destroy them. New organisms are already being produced commercially. Omitting this factor was wrong. When I said our activity *can* rapidly increase genetic diversi- ty, - I was speaking of *future* technology. However, there ap- pears to be nothing (as long as progress continues) to prevent it happening. If you think it *cannot*, please say why. >If time permits I will post some passages from Wilson that support >and amplify the passage I quoted. You might want to check, though, if Wilson's predictions of species depletion for the 80's are coming true. The decade is 67% over... He said *will happen*. Did he quantify that? Jan Wasilewsky
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/30/86)
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
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/30/86)
In article <26500114@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > First, a global totalitarian conquest is very likely to be ir- > reversible, except through total extinction of humanity, for rea- > sons I can give separately. If so, it cannot be repaired "within > a few generations". Wilson goes wrong here. Reversability is not the sole possible criterion of "worse". Still, I think it funny that here you want to predict that global totalitarianism would be effectively permanenty, and a couple of paragraphs later you write "we are not *that* predictable." Trying to have your cake and eat it too, Jan? You'll probably have a difficult time convincing us that politics would become much less evanescent under a world totalitarian state. But the fact is that loss of species diversity is NOT an evanescent problem, as the fossil record shows. It takes a LONG time to restore species diversity after a major extinction. > Secondly, this, or the other disasters he lists, would probably > disable all possibilities of preventing or alleviating the > ecological disaster. A world in a state of economic collapse or > war desolation couldn't afford conservationism. Since these prob- > lems include his one (but not the other way) - they are worse > and less reversible. Once again, Wilson is wrong. A world in a state of economic collapse war desolation couldn't afford to exploit the remote and difficult to transport resources of the tropical rain forests. It is population, wealth, demand, and technology that apply pressure on the least economic resources, such as the rain forests. These would be relieved by numerous kinds of disaster. > Thirdly, he obviously excludes future human activity from his > prognosis. Otherwise, he wouldn't speak of millions of years - we > are not *that* predictable. But this activity can create species > and varieties, as well as destroy them. New organisms are already > being produced commercially. Omitting this factor was wrong. The new varieties being produced are extremely close to the old: most changes are genetically insignificant. Producing a really different organism might prove to be extremely difficult in the long run. > When I said our activity *can* rapidly increase genetic diversi- > ty, - I was speaking of *future* technology. However, there ap- > pears to be nothing (as long as progress continues) to prevent it > happening. If you think it *cannot*, please say why. See my other two recent postings in net.sci. > You might want to check, though, if Wilson's predictions of > species depletion for the 80's are coming true. The decade is 67% > over... He said *will happen*. Did he quantify that? There is no shortage of examples of regions where rain forest deforestation has been nearly complete. Such as Haiti, Mexico, and a number of parts of Indonesia. Large scale habitat alteration beneath the force of expanding population is a historical commonplace: such as the complete eradication of the American tall and short grass prairies. There would be no significant cost to us if 10% of the prairies had been set aside as preserves. There would be no significant cost to the world at large to preserve enough rainforest to save most species from exinction. That's the most galling part of it all: the tiny cost of preserving genetic diversity in the rain forests. Compared to expenditures to prevent totalitarian conquest, energy exhaustion, etc., preservation of representative natural habitats requires only a very small opportunity cost. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (10/02/86)
>>>[janw] writes: >>>>Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating >>>>*artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding. In article <1167@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> >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. >In article <26500108@inmet> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> ... 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 Hubensz again: >If you and Jan weren't so abysmally ignorant of biology, you wouldn't bother >defending Jan's nonsensical position.. . Hubby, cut the cute petty comments, please; it's a real drag to wade through the "lower elementary level, "Gene and Bob are stupid but I'm so great I'll just answer them anyway". And, Mike conjectures: >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. Hmmm?. What is cross breeding, some kind of bizarre Christian ritual? I always thought it implied "diversity". For example, aren't apples and pears different species? But isn't there a third species that was developed from the cross breeding of certain families of apples and pairs?? And, what's the story on zebras and horses and their cross. One of the problems here is that "genes" will behave differently when "spliced". So an identical gene in one species may have a different "coded" effect in a another species simply because of the differences in ordering, junction and clock rates. Gene jumping and change in chromosome numbers also takes place, although not routinely. >Artificial habitats: No habitat creates genetic diversity: Said while reading his old net news articles to his two headed great grand children who were all basking in the warm glow from the walls of his underground home in the abandoned radium mine. Mike only speaks in the extreme? Easy big fellow, you do have a point, but there you go again landing on concrete. Try the pool? Keep raising your points, but let the reader have a little room to to get some footing and agree. -- General comments: There is no question that genes can be broken with sufficient energy (environmental change). Heat, cold, radiation, chemistry, can all effect mutation. Even interesting but bizarre mutation in "low quality" stuff can be salvaged with "good breeding" some of the time. What our fore bearers did in a few thousand years with cotton, maze, water buffalo, rice, dogs, etc. can be greatly accelerated and although much greater progress needs to be made I feel we can and will do it and within only two or three more thousand years. The real problem is not just survival, but survival as a viable progressive and forward thinking species. FLAME ON (with after burners): If NASA and and DoE didn't exist maybe some gutzie venture types would help us to build our fusion power generators and propulsion drives. Then we wouldn't have the stress of an over-populated two legged aquatic apes (here on old number three) and we would then have a real means and incentive to save and extend the gamut of species as far as the nearby stars. But, DoE's internal policy is NOT to consider any new concepts (since about '81) and NASA has no interest in fusion in spite of the fact that DoE is NOT looking at any fusion concept that could ever be harnessed to propel boost phase or deep space engines or even commercial electric power in the judgment of a number of power company engineers who have followed this technology. Government leadership lulls us with yesterday's successes, as it sits on the forward traveling wagon train of time facing the rear. Right now the problem is getting and keeping "Nuclear Death Wood" out of SDI, and once that's done maybe we can get back to progressing technology instead of regressing it. Otherwise, WE will continue to be on the list of endangered species. We go to Congress, and tell them what great things we're doing, and they (the Congress) say 'Here, here is some more money, go back and keep up the good work'. "And who's to say anything different, they (consulting scientist) took an oath when they received their government contract not to (spill the real truth) speak of these things; and those that do are witnesses impeached. ..Well, I (pause) that's all. (Lowell Wood, llnl, SDI Program -interview- NOVA) +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/02/86)
>In article <26500114@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >> First, a global totalitarian conquest is very likely to be ir- >> reversible, except through total extinction of humanity, for rea- >> sons I can give separately. If so, it cannot be repaired "within >> a few generations". Wilson goes wrong here. > >Reversability is not the sole possible criterion of "worse". Still, >I think it funny that here you want to predict that global >totalitarianism would be effectively permanenty, and a couple of >paragraphs later you write "we are not *that* predictable." Trying >to have your cake and eat it too, Jan? [Mike Huybensz] At least Jan is consistent in his style of argument. Earlier he argued that demographic projections based on current theories are worthless or nearly worthless. Then he argued that we know for a fact (by demographic transition theory) that economic development will slow or stop population increase, so that a "Free Society" (which supposedly promotes economic development) will not have to have a population policy or worry about population at all. The lesson is clear: If a theory supports your side of the debate, base your argument on the theory. If the theory contradicts your arguments about the future, become a hard-headed empiricist and claim that the future is too uncertain to predict. Richard Carnes
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/05/86)
In article <267@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: > In article <1167@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >If you and Jan weren't so abysmally ignorant of biology, you wouldn't bother > >defending Jan's nonsensical position.. . > > Hubby, cut the cute petty comments, please; it's a real drag to wade > through the "lower elementary level, "Gene and Bob are stupid but I'm > so great I'll just answer them anyway". The comments are accurate: if you don't believe me, read up on the subject. Genetics and molecular biology are hard sciences, unlike the usual stomping grounds of Jan and nrh. Their statements about creating genetic diversity were comparable to claiming flies arise from dead horses by spontaneous generation. And for someone anxious to "raise the level" of argument, you do pretty poorly. "Hubby" indeed. > And, Mike conjectures: If you weren't also ignorant of biology, you'd know better, sweetie. I was a Plant Breeding major at Cornell. If you don't believe in my expertise, feel free to learn something to try to refute it. > >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. > > Hmmm?. What is cross breeding, some kind of bizarre Christian ritual? > I always thought it implied "diversity". For example, aren't apples > and pears different species? But isn't there a third species that was > developed from the cross breeding of certain families of apples and > pairs?? And, what's the story on zebras and horses and their cross. The answer lies in the paragraph you cited above. But I'll rephrase it very simply so that you can understand it: copies of genes come from the mommies and daddies. Hybridization is not a miracle: new genes are not spontaneously formed by hybridization. > >Artificial habitats: No habitat creates genetic diversity: > > Said while reading his old net news articles to his two headed > great grand children who were all basking in the warm glow from > the walls of his underground home in the abandoned radium mine. You're pathetic and dishonest, Paul. You had to break my sentence to make it look like I missed the obvious. The missing part after the colon is: "a habitat can only select among diversity from parent stock or mutation." > There is no question that genes can be broken with sufficient > energy (environmental change). Heat, cold, radiation, chemistry, > can all effect mutation. Even interesting but bizarre mutation > in "low quality" stuff can be salvaged with "good breeding" some > of the time. What our fore bearers did in a few thousand years > with cotton, maze, water buffalo, rice, dogs, etc. can be greatly > accelerated and although much greater progress needs to be made I > feel we can and will do it and within only two or three more > thousand years. The real problem is not just survival, but > survival as a viable progressive and forward thinking species. Oh wow, that's SO soul-stirring that I could puke. The question is: should we throw away genetic diversity that is the product of millions of years of evolution? You seem to be saying "yes, if it obstructs the progress of the race, and anyway we can probably make more later." Well "whoopie". You can take meaningless (or self-serving) phrases like "viable progressive and forward thinking" [sic] and stick them where the sun don't shine, for all the use they have in a rational argument. Nor do I consider it wise to throw away things on a vague likelihood (or even more unreliable, your feelings) that we'll be able to recreate them later. -- Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a case brimming with such poetical emotion?" Chancellor: "Distinctly." From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (10/10/86)
In article <1173@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >The question is: should we throw away genetic diversity that is the product >of millions of years of evolution? You seem to be saying "yes, if it obstructs >the progress of the race, and anyway we can probably make more later." The question is NOT: should we we throw away genetic diversity, the real question is WHAT can we do about limiting the damage. It is to late to stop the genocide on a world wide basis. The comment about the progress of the race referred to the problem of nuclear war. These weapons are not very "species" specific. My very temporary solution to the "what question" is to develop fusion for space power and propulsion and then lift the bulk of humanity off this planet's surface and deposit our butts on rocks where the total lack of life forms will spur us on to regard diversity as a precious heritage, and something to strive to develop and then transport throughout the universe. The problem with the approach is the people born and raised in life devoid environs usually grow up to be devoid of "human" qualities without the innumerable life forms to learn from during the pre-adult years. We do have such places, now, -- the mega city. Personally, I think the human population should be in balance with the populations of other species, not multiplied to the limit of solar energy or fusion energy support. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+