janw@inmet.UUCP (01/11/87)
[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
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/19/87)
Important thing first. I wrote: The second [preservation of endangered species by cultivation] 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 [recently], 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. [JanW] Dr. Francis R. Thibodeau Director of Science, The Center for Plant Conservation at The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University The Arborway Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 And now back to our usual discussions.... In article <121200012@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >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. Except when they are necessary side effects, we can try to eliminate [most of] them. > >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). Internalization of benefits merely makes a situation economically stable. It's foolish to let a one-shot opportunity to be forever lost because it isn't "internalized" yet. That sort of lack of foresight is typical of business, but fortunately governments can have a longer-term point of view. Much of the destruction can hardly be characterized as "vital interests", unless you think rich plantation owners will starve unless they cut down rainforest to grow hamburger meat. I'm not saying "stop all cutting": I'm saying "leave representative ecosystems, err by making them too large rather than too small." I don't think the mistake made in the Mississippi basin should be made in the Amazon basin. Imagine if there were some sizable national parks along the Mississippi and the great plains, preserving undisturbed forests and prairie that now exist nowhere? What would the cost have been? A miniscule reduction in production. > World economy is fragile; we need fast growth to generate the > surplus needed to solve any problems, including environmental > ones. World economy is fragile: we need OPTIONS to deal with future problems. Throwing away genetic resources that let us develop new and improved crops and processes can only make our position more precarious. Fast growth is no solution: if anything it is inefficient and risky. We have the surplus today to solve current problems: but today and in the future, there will be a political blockage of solutions. Fast growth won't solve that. I'm not ruling out fast growth though. The question is how much growth to allow, not it's rate. Fast or slow, should growth taper off only because all resources are consumed? Or should some resources be conserved? > 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. DNA within organisms seems to keep quite well when frozen in liquid nitrogen. But extremely few organisms can be successfully frozen, thawed, and live to reproduce: most of the ones I can name are specially adapted to a life style where this occurs naturally. Eventually, it might be possible to revive other organisms, or reconstitute them from DNA, but not likely in the next few decades. Artificial species preservation ought not to become a business because it would allow short-sighted business practices to determine which species are preserved: the remainder might become extinct. I can see it now: "We need to cut storage costs: throw out any species that haven't been asked for in the past 5 years. I don't know if these species are extant or in other collections, but we've got to cut costs!" Preservation of habitats prevents this sort of problem. > >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. The species that we haven't discovered yet are the vast majority of the endangered ones because they live in the until-now undeveloped areas. Nor would it be easy to collect the organisms we know about now. I know firsthand that some organisms have eluded searchers for periods of as long as fifty years. > 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. If you take the high estimate of species diversity, then you must also raise the estimated extinction rate. Neither number is well known, but choosing the high end of one range and the low end of another is not the way to measure a problem. > 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). The species that we know may well be indicators of a diversity that we have not yet recognized. You can't just assume that everything in the snail-darter's habitat is present elsewhere. That's not to say that we shouldn't use our resources wisely and get the biggest bang for each preserve. The money spent on the snail darter case could have gone far towards developing preserves around the world. But for that matter, the money that would have been spent building the dam could have gone a LOT further. The net benefits of the proposed dam were mostly pork-barrel. > >>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! Thanks. I'm glad we're agreed on this. It's extremely important. > >> 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. The profits from preserves will not always be directly attributable to the preserves. For example, third world nations have been complaining that they don't see any money from genetic material collected in their countries that is used to breed improved crop plants for developed nations. Likewise, material from preserves will be put to use in the future, but the preserves themselves will probably not profit from it. And it wouldn't help to finance preserves through usage fees of such material: that makes them vulnerable to usage fluctuations and inhibits R+D by increasing startup costs. > ... 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. I see. How many hula-hoops do you have stockpiled? Gambling on future value N years hence makes no sense when during that N years government action might keep values down, competition might reduce values, etc. Unless you negotiate exclusive rights, your investment is extremely risky. And nobody wants to see exclusive rights to genetic material that is available freely today. > >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. Preserving species is an infrastructural expense just like R+D. The value may not directly accrue to the preserver, but is well distributed over society as a whole. Consider the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. Heavily subsidized by government through tax breaks, they developed the bitmapped, mouse-driven user interface that is used on the Mackintosh, Sun, and many other machines. The benefit to the industry is immense, but direct return to Xerox is tiny by comparison. Likewise, preserving genetic resources in preserves will provide similar benefits to the growing biotechnology industry, as well as to traditional agriculture (which has yet to explore a fraction of the immense variety of plants that have crop potential.) -- "People always HAVE eaten people; people always WILL eat people. You can't change human nature!" (From "The Reluctant Cannibal" on the Flanders and Swann album "At The Drop Of A Hat".) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh