“Significant loss of species and biodiversity — Over the next 35 years, humans may make a concerted effort to preserve rare species by collecting them and housing them in zoos. ”
The extremely dangerous effects of biodiversity cannot simply be handwaved out like this.
Firstly, this is impossible since the vast majority of species are unknown to science (remember that vertebrates and confierous plants only represent a small fraction of species). Actually obtaining viable samples from the 70,000 vertebrate species, 1,000,000+ invertebrate species, 300,000+ plant species and 100,000,000+ estimated bacterial species would be a herculean task of such magnitude that no one would ever pay for it. Let alone actually obtaining a genetically diverse pool—which would require at least 500 random individuals from each species. Zoos often have to trade individuals with each other and interbreed in order to maintain a genetically viable population.
But all of this is ignoring that we already have a zoo that houses all species and is perfectly capable of supporting all of them in the foreseeable future, and doesn’t cost anything to run. The only thing it asks is that we not destroy it.
“Doesn’t cost anything to run” is silly. If maintaining the ecoysystem was free, we’d do it because most people prefer there to be one rather than not. Maintaining the ecosystem trades off against all sorts of other things we want, and if we have to give them up to maintain it, that’s what it costs to run.
It doesn’t cost us anything in that we don’t have to give up anything we currently have (provided that we execute the right policies to maintain current levels of prosperity without expanding into nature even more). You’re talking about an imagined future cost, and that gets pretty tricky. Who’s to say that it doesn’t cost us to keep the Milky Way running, since in a billion years we could conquer it all?
Firstly, this is impossible since the vast majority of species are unknown to science
I don’t have subject matter knowledge, but these seems like good points.
But all of this is ignoring that we already have a zoo that houses all species and is perfectly capable of supporting all of them in the foreseeable future, and doesn’t cost anything to run. The only thing it asks is that we not destroy it.
This is easier said than done. Do you have proposals?
I suppose ‘extremely dangerous’ is subjective, but I’m confident in my usage of the term. It has been demonstrated that relationships between species are held in an extremely delicate balance. Extinction of one species can lead to another, which can lead to the blowing-up of a population of another (because it lost a major predator), which can lead to the extinction of others.
In fact we have been observing such fluctuations in the present. We have seen many species suddenly collapse, while others blow up with devastating results (algae blooms). And this is just with a few percent biodiversity loss, let alone 30%.
But the larger point is that we simply don’t know what will happen. The relationships between species are very complex. It’s possible that the entire food chain that we depend on will collapse (for example, if pollinating insects went instinct). It’s also possible that loss of biodiversity will have little effect on humans. We are extremely ignorant about it—but that’s no excuse to continue doing it.
“This is easier said than done. Do you have proposals?”
There have been many proposals where just diverting a few percent of worldwide GDP would eliminate global warming. Among them, adoption of renewables and nuclear power.
On an object level your point seems persuasive, but my prior is still that it’s not a big issue, because I haven’t seen other people highlight this forcibly before. Are you familiar with some discussion of it?
There have been many proposals where just diverting a few percent of worldwide GDP would eliminate global warming. Among them, adoption of renewables and nuclear power.
I mean actionable proposals for effective altruist types. I support adoption of renewables and nuclear power, but I don’t know what I or my friends can do to encourage it in a cost-effective way.
[Edit: I’d add that I think that what you describe falls under the category of “tail risk.” I haven’t heard this issue discussed, and It would be great if you were to write up a detailed account of your view, with citations.]
Loss of biodiversity has definitely been highlighted frequently, although it is often done without reference to climate change (even though it is acknowledged to be the most important factor in general), because people want to have their opinions heard without getting mired in political debates. But the material is there and can be revealed with a simple google search. I’m hesitant to give you links myself because I’d feel like I’m just cherry-picking the articles I want you to read.
I don’t know what I or my friends can do to encourage it in a cost-effective way.
I don’t either, aside from the usual cliche of ‘spreading awareness’ .
There has been a lot of concern about loss of biodiversity and the possible chain effects of collapse to one part of the food chain or another.
It also seems likely that the effects of global warming will be magnified by other effect.s For example, naturally speaking, if the Earth’s climate change many animals would normally just migrate north and be fine, but we’ve broken up huge wilderness areas into many small pieces of “wildlife preserve”, often relatively small areas of natural environment surrounded by built-up areas of human habitation.
A lot of scientists have described what is going on now as a mass extinction event, on a scale that’s only happened 5 times previously in Earth’s history.
As for your other question:
I mean actionable proposals for effective altruist types. I support adoption of renewables and nuclear power, but I don’t know what I or my friends can do to encourage it in a cost-effective way.
Well, if you’re interested, there are a number of fairly simple things people can can do to reduce their power consumption and the amount of fuel they use in transportation by a few percent. This has other positive effects as well, like reducing air pollution. Not that conservation efforts are going to solve the problem by themselves, but at least they may buy us a little time.
“Significant loss of species and biodiversity — Over the next 35 years, humans may make a concerted effort to preserve rare species by collecting them and housing them in zoos. ”
The extremely dangerous effects of biodiversity cannot simply be handwaved out like this.
Firstly, this is impossible since the vast majority of species are unknown to science (remember that vertebrates and confierous plants only represent a small fraction of species). Actually obtaining viable samples from the 70,000 vertebrate species, 1,000,000+ invertebrate species, 300,000+ plant species and 100,000,000+ estimated bacterial species would be a herculean task of such magnitude that no one would ever pay for it. Let alone actually obtaining a genetically diverse pool—which would require at least 500 random individuals from each species. Zoos often have to trade individuals with each other and interbreed in order to maintain a genetically viable population.
But all of this is ignoring that we already have a zoo that houses all species and is perfectly capable of supporting all of them in the foreseeable future, and doesn’t cost anything to run. The only thing it asks is that we not destroy it.
“Doesn’t cost anything to run” is silly. If maintaining the ecoysystem was free, we’d do it because most people prefer there to be one rather than not. Maintaining the ecosystem trades off against all sorts of other things we want, and if we have to give them up to maintain it, that’s what it costs to run.
It doesn’t cost us anything in that we don’t have to give up anything we currently have (provided that we execute the right policies to maintain current levels of prosperity without expanding into nature even more). You’re talking about an imagined future cost, and that gets pretty tricky. Who’s to say that it doesn’t cost us to keep the Milky Way running, since in a billion years we could conquer it all?
Why do you say extremely dangerous? The IPCC predicts that climate change will cause the extinction of 20%-30% of species by 2100. This seems bad, but not extremely dangerous.
I don’t have subject matter knowledge, but these seems like good points.
This is easier said than done. Do you have proposals?
I suppose ‘extremely dangerous’ is subjective, but I’m confident in my usage of the term. It has been demonstrated that relationships between species are held in an extremely delicate balance. Extinction of one species can lead to another, which can lead to the blowing-up of a population of another (because it lost a major predator), which can lead to the extinction of others.
In fact we have been observing such fluctuations in the present. We have seen many species suddenly collapse, while others blow up with devastating results (algae blooms). And this is just with a few percent biodiversity loss, let alone 30%.
But the larger point is that we simply don’t know what will happen. The relationships between species are very complex. It’s possible that the entire food chain that we depend on will collapse (for example, if pollinating insects went instinct). It’s also possible that loss of biodiversity will have little effect on humans. We are extremely ignorant about it—but that’s no excuse to continue doing it.
“This is easier said than done. Do you have proposals?”
There have been many proposals where just diverting a few percent of worldwide GDP would eliminate global warming. Among them, adoption of renewables and nuclear power.
On an object level your point seems persuasive, but my prior is still that it’s not a big issue, because I haven’t seen other people highlight this forcibly before. Are you familiar with some discussion of it?
I mean actionable proposals for effective altruist types. I support adoption of renewables and nuclear power, but I don’t know what I or my friends can do to encourage it in a cost-effective way.
[Edit: I’d add that I think that what you describe falls under the category of “tail risk.” I haven’t heard this issue discussed, and It would be great if you were to write up a detailed account of your view, with citations.]
Loss of biodiversity has definitely been highlighted frequently, although it is often done without reference to climate change (even though it is acknowledged to be the most important factor in general), because people want to have their opinions heard without getting mired in political debates. But the material is there and can be revealed with a simple google search. I’m hesitant to give you links myself because I’d feel like I’m just cherry-picking the articles I want you to read.
I don’t either, aside from the usual cliche of ‘spreading awareness’ .
There has been a lot of concern about loss of biodiversity and the possible chain effects of collapse to one part of the food chain or another.
It also seems likely that the effects of global warming will be magnified by other effect.s For example, naturally speaking, if the Earth’s climate change many animals would normally just migrate north and be fine, but we’ve broken up huge wilderness areas into many small pieces of “wildlife preserve”, often relatively small areas of natural environment surrounded by built-up areas of human habitation.
A lot of scientists have described what is going on now as a mass extinction event, on a scale that’s only happened 5 times previously in Earth’s history.
As for your other question:
Well, if you’re interested, there are a number of fairly simple things people can can do to reduce their power consumption and the amount of fuel they use in transportation by a few percent. This has other positive effects as well, like reducing air pollution. Not that conservation efforts are going to solve the problem by themselves, but at least they may buy us a little time.