mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/29/86)
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
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (10/01/86)
In article <1166@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >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. Yes, this is a very exciting possibility/probability. And it can best be done, as you indicate, by building on the base of natural-selection's millions of years of experimenting. The best reason for us to seek to preserve *at least* the genes, preferably *in addition* to conserving the areas in question, ie rainforests. >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. Good idea, if workable. Can you (or anyone else on this group) confirm the practicality of this preservation technique for later use, in terms of present technoloy? And for the sake of planning, how much material (ie, grams? milligrams?) is needed in each sample? I do *not* mean this question as an implicite criticism; I really want to know how practical this aspect of the idea is, how large the storage facility would have to be, how expensive. If it costs on the order of the Apollo program, but not on the order of Star Wars, I could see doing it. >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. No, increasing human numbers *rapidly* results in lower standard of living. Wealth as one's share of precious metals is less important. Advancing technology faster than the population allows for greater efficiencies, better healing techniques, improved communication, and ways of "in effect" increasing the available resourses. In the next century this can include asteroid mining for minerals, but food will have to be grown here mostly, so we'd better not double the population faster than we can manage the food supply for them. And we'd better not bankrupt ourselves before we get a space-going economy working, or we'll be much more limited for non-renewable resources. >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh - Phil Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/02/86)
In article <44@oliveb.UUCP> prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) writes: > >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. > > Good idea, if workable. Can you (or anyone else on this group) confirm the > practicality of this preservation technique for later use, in terms of > present technoloy? And for the sake of planning, how much material (ie, > grams? milligrams?) is needed in each sample? Quite a bit of research (and some applied technology) is based on frozen genetic material. Zoos are cooperating to build mammalian sperm banks for endangered species. Unfortunately, ova are a much more difficult proposition. I know one grad student at Harvard whose thesis research is using genetic character information (NOT distance information) to perform cladistic analysis on crickets. He freezes the entire crickets in liquid nitrogen. I've yet to see a proposal for large-scale preservation of biological diversity by freezing: probably because it just isn't as good as preserving natural habitats. In order to preserve something, you have to find it: how are you going to find the uncounted millions of undiscovered species lurking in biological niches that we haven't even looked at yet? Sure we can collect tree seeds: but what about the complex community that is associated with the tree? A community that includes bacteria, algae, microrhyzal fungi, insects, mites, mosses, lichens, nematodes, etc.? We don't know enough about even well-known temperate-zone trees to be sure of getting everything about whichever is the best known species. But if you preserve a section of woodland with those trees in it, the entire community is still there to be studied. If you'd like to understand the magnitude of the task, consider the amount of work currently going on for the preservation of germ plasm of the major world crops. There's no reason to consider our major crop species to be more genetically diverse than other non-economic species, yet current programs are maintaining thousands of strains per species at multiple sites to prevent loss due to accident. Total number of strains for the top ten crop species is probably over 100,000. > I do *not* mean this question as an implicite criticism; I really want to > know how practical this aspect of the idea is, how large the storage > facility would have to be, how expensive. If it costs on the order of the > Apollo program, but not on the order of Star Wars, I could see doing it. In summary, preservation with current technology is best done by preserving natural habitats: something that can be done at a much lower cost than Star Wars. Until we are confident that we have extracted all the biological information we can from an ecosystem, it does not make sense to allow that ecosystem to become eradicated. If destruction is inevitable, triage in the form of preserves is the best solution. In extremis, collection of frozen specimens is possible, but too much information is lost. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
ems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) (10/04/86)
The idea was put forth that we should cryo-preserve endangered species for future use. This prompted a question about costs and difficulties. The answer is that it is *VERY* cheap to store the samples. The cost mostly comes from the collection process. For example: In human reproductive centers it is common to store semen and sometimes even eggs and embryos. The size of a sample stored it typically about 1 cc. Several 1 cc vials are mounted on a strip. Many strips are bundled, then placed into a liquid nitrogen tank about 1 metre in diameter and one metre tall. The tank is, basically, a large 'Thermos' (tm) jar. (A Dewar Flask ...) Liquid N2 is added weekly or monthly depending on frequency of opening. It's cheap. Hundreds of samples can be stored in one tank. Several tanks can be tended by one technician. Total cost is measured in tens of thousands of dollars per year, not millions. For a full center storing hundreds of thousands of samples, you might get into the million dollar club, but you should be able to do it much cheaper ... The real cost is the expedition to (name of strange place) to collect, freeze, and transport the 20 - 2000 samples collected. -- E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (10/05/86)
In article <1170@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <44@oliveb.UUCP> prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) writes: >> Good idea, if workable. Can you (or anyone else on this group) confirm the >Quite a bit of research (and some applied technology) is based on frozen >genetic material. [... much good background material ...] >are maintaining thousands of strains per species at multiple sites to prevent >loss due to accident. Total number of strains for the top ten crop species >is probably over 100,000. >> I do *not* mean this question as an implicite criticism; I really want to >In summary, preservation with current technology is best done by preserving >natural habitats: something that can be done at a much lower cost than >Star Wars. Until we are confident that we have extracted all the biological >information we can from an ecosystem, it does not make sense to allow that >ecosystem to become eradicated. If destruction is inevitable, triage in >the form of preserves is the best solution. In extremis, collection of >frozen specimens is possible, but too much information is lost. >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh I agree. And thanks for the background information, I now know much more about this than before reading your reply. Next, what are the prospects for getting international cooperation of governments and corporations, etc? Particularly in Brazil, if I understand the arguments correctly. I assume that the need at this time is to: o Scientifically document the value of preserving genetic diversity in its original habitat, and get the message to appropriate individuals and groups. o Find ways to help accomplish in less destructive ways what individuals and groups want to gain from clearing the jungles. o Accelerate, in the meanwhile, efforts at preserving genetic material samples; prepare to be able to do the triage *if* it becomes necessary. Frankly, I don't know much about this, but it sounds important. I would like to see discussion (by people better informed than I) of what practical measures can be taken. - Phil prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) or: prs@oliveb.UUCP
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/07/86)
In article <69@oliveb.UUCP> prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) writes: > Next, what are the prospects for getting international cooperation > of governments and corporations, etc? Particularly in Brazil, if I understand > the arguments correctly. I assume that the need at this time is to: > > o Scientifically document the value of preserving genetic > diversity in its original habitat, and get the message > to appropriate individuals and groups. This is a tremendous problem. No matter what the value is to one group of people or the world as a whole, one small selfish (or ignorant) group might want to destroy that value for their own short-term gains. Much like an addict who rips off a much-needed microscope from a hospital which he pawns for one fix. One of the primary requirements of a working program is education about the value of what's being preserved. Otherwise it is impossible to enforce preservation attempts. Even in the USA, poaching and theft of lumber from preserves is epidemic. And it will be hard to convince utilitarian interests even with scientific proof of irreplaceability. Ever try to convince a lumberman that a giant redwood isn't just "overripe" timber? All he cares about is that he can get $X / board foot. That sort of person will put great pressure on the political system to let him make his money: it's an immediate "benefit". Interestingly, Brazil is attacking this problem with both laws concerning how much jungle must be left alone, and educational programs. One recently publicized aspect of the problem is that the World Bank has been funding many projects which are major causes of the destruction of the rain forests. Efforts are underway to try to influence them. > o Find ways to help accomplish in less destructive ways what > individuals and groups want to gain from clearing the jungles. This requires extensive, expensive research over a long term. Much more than is being done now. > o Accelerate, in the meanwhile, efforts at preserving genetic > material samples; prepare to be able to do the triage *if* it > becomes necessary. One of the most successful approaches to preservation is something similar to what the Nature Conservancy is doing. Encourage donation of land and money for buyouts of key habitats for perpetual preservation. This seems to be working well in the united states, and I've read recent reports of some sucesses in Central America (where the forests are much more immediately threatened.) > Frankly, I don't know much about this, but it sounds important. I would like > to see discussion (by people better informed than I) of what practical > measures can be taken. You can get involved in a number of ways. There are numerous environmental organizations (Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, Audabon Society, World Wildlife Fund, etc.) that can all use help. I've applied to volunteer for a year or so on these sorts of problems in two projects in Peru and Brazil. If you are willing to pay for a short-term introduction to the heart of these problems, there are several terrific Earthwatch tours to keep your eyes open for. The most interesting one is with Terry Erwin, collecting insects from the canopy of the rain forest. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh