Biologist E.O. Wilson suggests ‘moon shot’ conservation effort
news.harvard.edu
news.harvard.edu
Legislation without popular support is authoritarian, which people resist, even if they like the law. They claim there is an environmental crisis, but when voting, Americans don't see it that way.
You'll find no greater fan of science and education than me, but we need to get to the next level of conservation isn't more facts nor moon shot ideas from scientists who know that these things can work in principle.
We need people with the social and emotional skills of leadership -- not likely forefront scientists, though basic scientific knowledge would help.
What works?
Speaking of successful moon shots, JFK wasn't a rocket scientist. He was a skilled leader. He led and motivated people based on the situation of the times using social and emotional leadership skills.
That's the problem we face in dealing with environmental challenges. People have a short run incentive to defect and exploit the environment.
Most people, especially on HN, would argue that the Apollo program has yielded enormous benefits for America. And it cost only $25 billion - about as much as Trump’s border wall (the cost estimates for which are most likely grossly optimistic).
But, willfully reducing economic growth worldwide? To say to an individual "You, personally, could improve your material circumstances with this land, but we won't let you"? That's a sacrifice, and a game theory problem.
Even if both goals are equally worthy, the latter type of situation will be far harder to co-ordinate than the former.
Ouch, that hurts. Kick us while we’re down.
However, it's a tough political sell for many people (and many powerful people). The more of us who put up money, the closer to the goal we are.
Charities such as the Nature Conservancy finance nature preserves... I'm curious about other organizations and philanthropists who do too.
He's a thoughtful man who really knows his stuff when it comes to biology.
If he suggests anything at all, the world should listen.
We owe him a greater debt than most people will ever realize.
It would be ironic if that is the lasting legacy of the current administration.
I'm not sure if this is just a statement on the current political climate or an attempt to label Wilson as an opportunist speaking now without conviction. I can't really speak to the former, but as to the latter, Wilson has been active in conservation for decades, from advocating for forest protection[0] to calling for setting aside 50% of the planet for wildlife.[1]
[0]: http://www.saveamericasforests.org/congress/congress.htm
[1]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-world-real...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/climate/world...
It’s a “do your best” agreement. There are no repercussions for not meeting your goals.
If the United States had not left, it’s still unlikely that we would have met our goals either.
Furthermore, if you read the article, the Paris agreement does not go far enough.
This is ridiculous. Species extinction is nothing new, that literally is the process of evolution and the universe as we know it. The amazing thing is one species has so far overcome that and managed to bring evolution to an ever increasing degree under its own control. If we don't want a species to go extinct our primary concern should be how it effects human well-being. Some species going extinct is very likely a net positive for human flourishing on this planet, others very likely a huge loss. But regardless I think it should be weighed in that context. Obviously, this still means you should look after the world - its the only one we've got - and we want to maximize human flourishing in it so we need to care for it.
But these people are so far removed from nature's reality its crazy - especially considering they are biologists. This idea that nature is something beautiful and lovely apart from these evil humans who live in it is, frankly, absurd. Nature is harsh, brutal and violent. If you don't believe this try living without heating, electricity, running water, and access to a grocery store for a prolonged period of time. I've done it and its brutal and that is with a massive amount of technology and tools to overcome the harsh environment that surrounds us.
These are primarily moral questions. The environment and our interactions with it are just too complex to manage in such a mechanistic way.
Yes, but at what costs? Taking away half the available land and water resources on the planet - which is what they are advocating for - will inevitably have costs associated with the benefits you mention. If those costs are negligible I'm fine with it, if on the other hand we significantly make the lives worse for all human beings for "frievlous reasons" I think we would be right to criticize these views.
I'm not trying to argue their isn't value in the nature, aesthetically, recreationally, scientifically, etc. but these are points that need to be weighted against the human cost of preservation not 'let them eat cake' platitudes.
The environment is tricky because there are so many things that you would ideally not want to put into conflict with one another. Just look at the debate over herbicide use in farming. You have to balance the livelihood of farmers, the health of insects, food supply, human health etc. I don't think there is a single simple answer to that question. That is why it becomes a political and moral question. That is the process that we use for answering difficult contraversial questions. And the solutions inevitably have benefit and costs to different people.
This is the role that money serves in society. If the greater we can't or won't pay a Brazilian to not cut down a bit of rainforest - it literally wasn't worth saving. (because the collective we would rather have the hardwood/farmland).
The reason they are so motivated is for fear of biodiversity loss. The concern is that once something is lost it cannot be recovered. The second and third order consequences are that habitats are complex things that depend upon a certain level of diversity to continue to perpetuate. Diverse habitats are necessary for resource extraction, some weather phenomena, medical discoveries, and continue biological research.
On one hand all these arguments are entirely valid propositions. Like climate science the science is very real with great research and there are orders of magnitude of complexity that people have yet to fully appreciate. After that there are progressively extreme slippery slope arguments to prevent change out of fear of the unknown whether not those fears are validated.
I am not stating any opinion for or against but merely answering your question of why.
Most people are not scientists and lack any amount of objectivity, and so the neutrality of basic science concepts are hard to grasp for many people. Science generally comes in only two flavors: research and experimentation. Policy recommendations are politics. Science and politics are distinctively separate qualities. For the non-scientist this is an impossibly hard thing to accept. Whether or not a given set of science is important for (insert any value qualifier here) does not make it any more or less scientific.
We also depend deeply on rich, stable ecological systems to provide raw materials and speciality substances to our societies.
We have no idea how to live or prosper in the absence of a vibrant network of life on Earth. Doing so would likely be very difficult.
It's on our own best interest to protect nature on Earth.
> Species extinction is nothing new, that literally is the process of evolution
No. If you want a one sentence definition of evolution then it is change in gene frequencies within a population over time due to natural selection. You'd also want to point to the processes of mutation, recombination, chromosome-level rearrangements, and speciation. You are confusing standard mechanisms of evolution with species selection, which is occasionally put forward as an auxiliary mechanism of evolution but which orthodoxy largely rejects and which no-one believes is a dominant mechanism of evolution. If you want to learn more about this then read Dawkins' early books from the Selfish Gene onwards.
> If we don't want a species to go extinct our primary concern should be how it effects human well-being.
This sentence, and its paragraph, are incoherent. It appears that what you're trying to say is: "We should decide whether species go extinct according to whether they benefit humans". Hopefully such a repulsive argument needs no counter here.
> This idea that nature is something beautiful and lovely apart from these evil humans who live in it is, frankly, absurd. Nature is harsh, brutal and violent.
Yes, the natural world is harsh, brutal and violent. Perhaps you could explain how you get from that observation to the conclusion that it lacks beauty and is not worth preserving for its own sake.
Stopping global warming is far less ambitious and we clearly can’t do that.
The costs of reserving half the Earth's land and oceans will easily be in the trillions in terms of economic opportunity costs.
In addition, it will need to be defended. My guess is that much of the critical areas needed for this effort are inhabited or exploited by some of the poorest people in the world and they will desperately fight anyone who tries to take away their livelihood (witness for example the backlash of people in coal country to any attempt to curtail coal)
Given how humanity is not really doing much about climate change which in the next few decades will significantly affect humans directly and costs a fraction of what is being suggested here to mitigate, I have no hope that anything even resembling this will come to pass other than by someone forcibly conquering the world and then issuing a decree.
That's not really that much money in the grand scheme of things, especially since the benefits would greatly outweigh the costs.
1: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl...
I have always wondered how people come up with that conclusion. How do people guess at those numbers? We honestly don't know how fast species went extinct at various points in the past and we don't really know how fast they are going extinct right now. We are still discovering new species, by the way, and there may be some that go extinct that we never discover.
Citation needed please. Yes, they're estimates, but there are scientists who have devoted their entire careers to exactly that question. A quick Google turns up entire books devoted to this topic (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/344/13...) Your phrasing here makes it sound like this number is entirely random and not based on any evidence or science.
Consider the Drake Equation[1]. This equation was created to stimulate conversation. It was never intended for scientific merit, but this doesn't stop people from looking at evidence and then making unsubstantiated guesses about things. People can guess and theorize all they want, but in the absence of evidence any guess is crude.
So, lets talk about it in terms of numbers. Between 2000-3000 years ago how many species went extinct rounded down to the nearest 1000? In the past ten years how many species have gone extinct rounded down to the nearest 50? You must have some kind of numbers, based upon something, that serve as the presented basis of comparison. Without evidence of numbers you are simply making an extremely crude guess.
You disagree with a claim in the article. Someone replies asking you to cite evidence for your opinion. And you respond telling them you’re not going to do the research for them? Why would you even make the claim of disagreement in the first comment if you can’t already provide information to back it up?
I like that after you refuse to support your own claims, you then tell the person to grow up. Awesome.
What is the scientific process to prove something doesn't exist? What is evidence of a thing that isn't?
I will repeat myself. How do you cite evidence of something that doesn't exist? Case in point, can you provide any example, from any form of science, of evidence of something that doesn't exist?
As an example: Eventually scientists may prove the existence of dark matter, but they will never prove that dark matter doesn't exist because evidence of absence isn't scientific.
If you show me how such any evidence, evidence of absence, is vaguely possible I will find it for you.
Or, you could prove me wrong. If this topic is utterly indisputable this should be a simple feat. A single simple Google search. Things like appeals to authority and argument from ignorance are not scientifically credible. I could be wrong, but all anybody has done is shown offense.
Incivility like this, and flamewars like this subthread, are things we ban accounts for. Would you please not post like this? Regardless of how right you are or how wrong someone else is.
They use fossil dating methods, core samples, and way more things than I’d know.
The theme of the conversation is that species naturally go extinct all the time, but now in the age of industrial man the rate of extinction is much faster. This is likely a valid and accurate claim, but associating this claim with comparative quantities is not scientific.
Why should I be afraid? People should not feel afraid to engage in science.