The lost of biodiversity and the rate of extinction—ditto. We are going through a biological crisis. It is bad enough that a ‘world economic collapse’ might even be a blessing in the long term.
Setting aside the more complex issue of climate change for the moment, I’d like to comment specifically on this part. Frankly, it has always seemed to me that alarmism of this sort is based on widespread popular false beliefs and ideological delusions, and that people here are simply too knowledgeable and rational to fall for it.
When it comes to the “loss of biodiversity,” I have never seen any coherent argument why the extinction of various species that nobody cares about is such a bad thing. What exact disaster is supposed to befall us if various exotic and obscure animals and plants that nobody cares about are exterminated? If a particular species is useful for some concrete purpose, then someone with deep enough pockets can easily be found who will invest into breeding it for profit. If not, who cares?
Regarding the preservation of wild nature in general, it seems to me that the modern fashionable views are based on some awfully biased and ignorant assumptions. People nowadays imagine that wild nature is some delicate and vulnerable system that will collapse like a house of cards as soon as humans touch it. Whereas in reality, wild nature is not only extremely resilient, but also tends to grow and spread extremely fast, and humans in fact have to constantly invest huge amounts of labor just to prevent it from reconquering the spaces they have cleared up to build civilization.
Protection from disease
When there are a variety of species, a single pathogen is less likely able to ravage an ecosystem.
Protecting minority humans
A species of negligible value to a dominant society may be of critical value to a marginal society.
Protection of sentient species
Some endangered species are capable of learning language. Some humans are not. I typically value worth on a combination of mental traits. Some animals are capable of holding jobs. Some humans are not. Many people often value worth by productivity. Some animals are more valuable than some humans.
Natural history
DNA is subject to statistical analysis. This analysis can provide insight into previous environments and the adaptations needed to survive them. Humans may have a future use for a solution already encoded by another species.
Undiscovered potential
Most models would place a non-negligible value upon an unknown self-replicating organism that has been adapted to the modelers environment after several million generations. At the very least, identification, classification, and understanding would be attempted before placing a value.
Value from scarcity
Economics. As supply decreases, cost increases.
Ethics
Treat others as you would have yourself be treated. Don’t afflict others with the negative consequences of your actions. Protect the oppressed. Be a good neighbor. Share. Improve your environment for the next visitor. Because you may be judged by the rules you apply to others.
It is good to reconsider our memes, but for me biodiversity passes. I’ve tried to keep this brief in order to maintain clarity.
Natural history DNA is subject to statistical analysis. This analysis can provide insight into previous environments and the adaptations needed to survive them. Humans may have a future use for a solution already encoded by another species.
Biologists have DNA samples of every known species.
Undiscovered potential Most models would place a non-negligible value upon an unknown self-replicating organism that has been adapted to the modelers environment after several million generations. At the very least, identification, classification, and understanding would be attempted before placing a value.
Ok, but how much value would it place on an organism which wasn’t adapted to the modelers environment, as demonstrated by the fact that it was selected against and went extinct?
Protection from disease When there are a variety of species, a single pathogen is less likely able to ravage an ecosystem.
OK, but what reason, other than status quo bias, is there to prefer one result over the other?
Protecting minority humans A species of negligible value to a dominant society may be of critical value to a marginal society.
If so, then protecting that species is in the interests of the human population in question, and it then becomes of question of how best to serve their human interests. But that doesn’t get you anywhere as far as biodiversity, in and of itself, having instrumental value.
Value from scarcity Economics. As supply decreases, cost increases.
You probably mean price, not cost… but what does that have to do with anything? We’re trying to establish that biodiversity has a utilitarian purpose… how does this address that? If something is useless, who cares how much supply of it there is, or how it’s priced?
Ethics Treat others as you would have yourself be treated. Don’t afflict others with the negative consequences of your actions. Protect the oppressed. Be a good neighbor. Share. Improve your environment for the next visitor. Because you may be judged by the rules you apply to others.
Protection of sentient species Some endangered species are capable of learning language. Some humans are not. I typically value worth on a combination of mental traits. Some animals are capable of holding jobs. Some humans are not. Many people often value worth by productivity. Some animals are more valuable than some humans.
I agree that non human sentient species deserve protection, both because their existence has utility (in understanding the phenomenon of intelligence), and because I consider the protection of sentient life to be a terminal value. But what does that have to do with “biodiversity”?
Biologists have DNA samples of every known species.
I do not believe that be true. Even if it is, a single sample is insufficient for a meaningful statistical analysis.
Ok, but how much value would it place on an organism which wasn’t adapted to the modelers environment, as demonstrated by the fact that it was selected against and went extinct?
Non-negligible, depending on the criteria. It was my belief that human caused environmental destruction was the issue at hand. The organism was adapted for human’s natural environment (most of Earth), the environment changed.
OK, but what reason, other than status quo bias, is there to prefer one result over the other?
The current environment supports human life. The recent bee scare was a multi-continent threat to a species very important to our way of life.
You probably mean price, not cost...
Pardon me, I thought I had changed that.
If something is useless, who cares how much supply of it there is, or how it’s priced?
People who value money. Valdimir_M wrote: “If a particular species is useful for some concrete purpose, then someone with deep enough pockets can easily be found who will invest into breeding it for profit. If not, who cares?”
[Ethical arguments are] just begging the question.
I took the creation of Friendly AI to be an ethical consideration which was accepted by all commenters. I think the relationships are parallel.
I agree that non human sentient species deserve protection.… But what does that have to do with “biodiversity”?
I had in mind elephants, primates, and cetaceans. Each of these groups faces existential risks. Maintaining biodiversity is protecting species from extinction. Sentient species are a specific subset.
I was trying to argue for the propagation of the biodiversity meme. I felt that Vladimir_M was contradicting that meme. I thought I was being clear that my argument was not meant to be purely utilitarian (in which case I would have used values, or at least comparisons), but instead to argue that biodiversity has value within a variety of systems.
Biologists have DNA samples of every known species.
I do not believe that be true. Even if it is, a single sample is insufficient for a meaningful statistical analysis.
I believe it’s false. Good-sized animals are still being discovered. The ecology of micro-organisms is still being explored.
Ok, but how much value would it place on an organism which wasn’t adapted to the modelers environment, as demonstrated by the fact that it was selected against and went extinct?
Non-negligible, depending on the criteria. It was my belief that human caused environmental destruction was the issue at hand. The organism was adapted for human’s natural environment (most of Earth), the environment changed.
A lot of what’s worth finding out at our present level of knowledge isn’t about whole organisms, it’s about specific aspects—consider the work being done with spider silk. Spider silk would probably still be valuable even if there weren’t any living spiders.
If biodiversity is a terminal value of yours, then I can absolutely respect that, to exactly the same degree as anybody else’s terminal values. But the commenter I was replying to clearly seemed to be arguing that biodiversity has instrumental value.
But the commenter I was replying to clearly seemed to be arguing that biodiversity has instrumental value.
I reference here only the difference between Utilitarianism and Consequentialism (with the former being often referenced but largely naive).
Come to think of it if ‘providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings’ is actually the measure of instrumental value then you really only need a dozen species of plant and you’ve got all the ‘happiness and pleasure’ humans are likely to need.
When there are a variety of species, a single pathogen is less likely able to ravage an ecosystem.
Interesting, I just had a chat about this hypothesis with a Lyme disease expert. Lyme is apparently held up as the best example for this argument, but field data and mathematical modeling indicate that it isn’t true (I could probably dig up the relevant paper if you’re interested, but I haven’t read it).
I don’t know for sure about other zoonotic diseases in wildlife, but I don’t think this is certain enough to just be stated as fact.
Your other points seem worthy of consideration, but on the whole it seems the marginal benefit of a member of this crowd worrying about biodiversity, while not utterly negligible, is small.
If a particular species is useful for some concrete purpose, then someone with deep enough pockets can easily be found who will invest into breeding it for profit. If not, who cares?
Me. And I’m not alone. Many humans do value the preservation of significant elements of biodeversity that don’t have any ‘concrete’, objective value. This is arbitrary only in the sense that any terminal value is arbitrary. I suggest that it is not nearly as ‘easy’ to find someone to preserve a given part of the commons, even when that part would be considered value by the extrapolated volition of the population.
As George Carlin once said, “The earth will manage just fine. We’re the ones who are fucked!”. The fact that nature will endure is not that reassuring to any particular apex predator.
I agree though that “biodiversity” needs some backup arguments for us to care about it.
I am not a person who believes in providence, or the market’s invisible hand, or the balances that protect democracy, or Gaia. There are systems that are stable for long periods because of massive negative feedback. But that very feedback can turn positive under unusual situations, equalibriums can disappear and systems collapse.
I do not know whether we are going to ‘fall over a cliff’ and I don’t think others do either. We just don’t know enough. It is certainly clear to me that we are in danger, just not how much. WE DO NOT KNOW.
The planet has had periods of mass extinction before and has recovered, but the recovered biosphere was very different from the lost one. Technically we are losing species at the sort of rate that appeared during previous mass extinctions. Humans may be the ‘dominant life form’ that loses out this time.
Technically we are losing species at the sort of rate that appeared during previous mass extinctions.
I don’t have a good cite handy, but I’ve read enough on the subject over the years to say confidently that, technically, no, this is just not the case.
I share the puzzlement of others here that after a post where bioterrorism, cryonics and molecular nanotechnology are listed as being serious ideas that need serious consideration—by implication, to the degree that they might significantly impact upon the shape of one’s ‘web of beliefs’ - that the topics of climate change and mass extinction are given such short shrift, and in terms that, from my point of view, only barely pass muster in the context of a community ostensibly dedicated to increasing rationality and overcoming bias.
I find little rationality and enormous bias in phrases like; ”… why the extinction of various species that nobody cares about is such a bad thing”.
The ecosystem of the planet is the most complex sub-system of the universe of which we are aware—containing, as it does, among many only partially explored sub-systems, a little over 6 billion human brains.
Given that one defining characteristic of complex systems is that they cannot be adequately modelled without the use of computational resources which exceed the resources of the system itself [colloquially understood as the ‘law of unintended consequences’], it seems manifestly irrational to be dismissive of the possible consequences of massive intervention in a system upon which all humans rely utterly for existence.
Whether or not one chooses to give credence to the Gaia hypothesis, it is indisputable that the chemical composition of the atmosphere and oceans are conditioned by the totality of the ecosystem; and that the climate is in turn conditioned largely by these.
Applying probabilistic thinking to the likely impact of bio-terrorism on the one hand, and climate change on the other, we might consider that, um, five people have died as a result of bioterrorism (the work, as it appears, of a single maverick and thus not even firmly to be categorised as terrorism) since the second world war, while climate change has arguably killed tens of thousands already in floods, droughts, and the like, and certainly threatens human habitat as low-lying islands are inundated as sea-levels rise.
Upon these considerations it would appear bizarre to consider expending any energy whatsoever upon bioterrorism before climate change.
JanetK:
Setting aside the more complex issue of climate change for the moment, I’d like to comment specifically on this part. Frankly, it has always seemed to me that alarmism of this sort is based on widespread popular false beliefs and ideological delusions, and that people here are simply too knowledgeable and rational to fall for it.
When it comes to the “loss of biodiversity,” I have never seen any coherent argument why the extinction of various species that nobody cares about is such a bad thing. What exact disaster is supposed to befall us if various exotic and obscure animals and plants that nobody cares about are exterminated? If a particular species is useful for some concrete purpose, then someone with deep enough pockets can easily be found who will invest into breeding it for profit. If not, who cares?
Regarding the preservation of wild nature in general, it seems to me that the modern fashionable views are based on some awfully biased and ignorant assumptions. People nowadays imagine that wild nature is some delicate and vulnerable system that will collapse like a house of cards as soon as humans touch it. Whereas in reality, wild nature is not only extremely resilient, but also tends to grow and spread extremely fast, and humans in fact have to constantly invest huge amounts of labor just to prevent it from reconquering the spaces they have cleared up to build civilization.
Why is biodiversity important?
Protection from disease When there are a variety of species, a single pathogen is less likely able to ravage an ecosystem.
Protecting minority humans A species of negligible value to a dominant society may be of critical value to a marginal society.
Protection of sentient species Some endangered species are capable of learning language. Some humans are not. I typically value worth on a combination of mental traits. Some animals are capable of holding jobs. Some humans are not. Many people often value worth by productivity. Some animals are more valuable than some humans.
Natural history DNA is subject to statistical analysis. This analysis can provide insight into previous environments and the adaptations needed to survive them. Humans may have a future use for a solution already encoded by another species.
Undiscovered potential Most models would place a non-negligible value upon an unknown self-replicating organism that has been adapted to the modelers environment after several million generations. At the very least, identification, classification, and understanding would be attempted before placing a value.
Value from scarcity Economics. As supply decreases, cost increases.
Ethics Treat others as you would have yourself be treated. Don’t afflict others with the negative consequences of your actions. Protect the oppressed. Be a good neighbor. Share. Improve your environment for the next visitor. Because you may be judged by the rules you apply to others.
It is good to reconsider our memes, but for me biodiversity passes. I’ve tried to keep this brief in order to maintain clarity.
Biologists have DNA samples of every known species.
Ok, but how much value would it place on an organism which wasn’t adapted to the modelers environment, as demonstrated by the fact that it was selected against and went extinct?
OK, but what reason, other than status quo bias, is there to prefer one result over the other?
If so, then protecting that species is in the interests of the human population in question, and it then becomes of question of how best to serve their human interests. But that doesn’t get you anywhere as far as biodiversity, in and of itself, having instrumental value.
You probably mean price, not cost… but what does that have to do with anything? We’re trying to establish that biodiversity has a utilitarian purpose… how does this address that? If something is useless, who cares how much supply of it there is, or how it’s priced?
This is just begging the question
I agree that non human sentient species deserve protection, both because their existence has utility (in understanding the phenomenon of intelligence), and because I consider the protection of sentient life to be a terminal value. But what does that have to do with “biodiversity”?
Thanks for the reply.
I do not believe that be true. Even if it is, a single sample is insufficient for a meaningful statistical analysis.
Non-negligible, depending on the criteria. It was my belief that human caused environmental destruction was the issue at hand. The organism was adapted for human’s natural environment (most of Earth), the environment changed.
The current environment supports human life. The recent bee scare was a multi-continent threat to a species very important to our way of life.
Pardon me, I thought I had changed that.
People who value money. Valdimir_M wrote: “If a particular species is useful for some concrete purpose, then someone with deep enough pockets can easily be found who will invest into breeding it for profit. If not, who cares?”
I took the creation of Friendly AI to be an ethical consideration which was accepted by all commenters. I think the relationships are parallel.
I had in mind elephants, primates, and cetaceans. Each of these groups faces existential risks. Maintaining biodiversity is protecting species from extinction. Sentient species are a specific subset.
I was trying to argue for the propagation of the biodiversity meme. I felt that Vladimir_M was contradicting that meme. I thought I was being clear that my argument was not meant to be purely utilitarian (in which case I would have used values, or at least comparisons), but instead to argue that biodiversity has value within a variety of systems.
I believe it’s false. Good-sized animals are still being discovered. The ecology of micro-organisms is still being explored.
A lot of what’s worth finding out at our present level of knowledge isn’t about whole organisms, it’s about specific aspects—consider the work being done with spider silk. Spider silk would probably still be valuable even if there weren’t any living spiders.
On the small side, but pea-sized frog recently discovered.
We were? Pardon me, my mistake. Please consider anything I wrote on the subject retracted. I’m a conscientious objector to utilitarianism.
If biodiversity is a terminal value of yours, then I can absolutely respect that, to exactly the same degree as anybody else’s terminal values. But the commenter I was replying to clearly seemed to be arguing that biodiversity has instrumental value.
I reference here only the difference between Utilitarianism and Consequentialism (with the former being often referenced but largely naive).
Come to think of it if ‘providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings’ is actually the measure of instrumental value then you really only need a dozen species of plant and you’ve got all the ‘happiness and pleasure’ humans are likely to need.
Interesting, I just had a chat about this hypothesis with a Lyme disease expert. Lyme is apparently held up as the best example for this argument, but field data and mathematical modeling indicate that it isn’t true (I could probably dig up the relevant paper if you’re interested, but I haven’t read it).
I don’t know for sure about other zoonotic diseases in wildlife, but I don’t think this is certain enough to just be stated as fact.
Your other points seem worthy of consideration, but on the whole it seems the marginal benefit of a member of this crowd worrying about biodiversity, while not utterly negligible, is small.
Me. And I’m not alone. Many humans do value the preservation of significant elements of biodeversity that don’t have any ‘concrete’, objective value. This is arbitrary only in the sense that any terminal value is arbitrary. I suggest that it is not nearly as ‘easy’ to find someone to preserve a given part of the commons, even when that part would be considered value by the extrapolated volition of the population.
As George Carlin once said, “The earth will manage just fine. We’re the ones who are fucked!”. The fact that nature will endure is not that reassuring to any particular apex predator.
I agree though that “biodiversity” needs some backup arguments for us to care about it.
I am not a person who believes in providence, or the market’s invisible hand, or the balances that protect democracy, or Gaia. There are systems that are stable for long periods because of massive negative feedback. But that very feedback can turn positive under unusual situations, equalibriums can disappear and systems collapse.
I do not know whether we are going to ‘fall over a cliff’ and I don’t think others do either. We just don’t know enough. It is certainly clear to me that we are in danger, just not how much. WE DO NOT KNOW.
The planet has had periods of mass extinction before and has recovered, but the recovered biosphere was very different from the lost one. Technically we are losing species at the sort of rate that appeared during previous mass extinctions. Humans may be the ‘dominant life form’ that loses out this time.
I don’t have a good cite handy, but I’ve read enough on the subject over the years to say confidently that, technically, no, this is just not the case.
Here are some links to numbers and graphs:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html
http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.htmls
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Sixth_Great_Extinction
The rate to extremely high and that rate will continue (probably increase) if nothing is done.
I share the puzzlement of others here that after a post where bioterrorism, cryonics and molecular nanotechnology are listed as being serious ideas that need serious consideration—by implication, to the degree that they might significantly impact upon the shape of one’s ‘web of beliefs’ - that the topics of climate change and mass extinction are given such short shrift, and in terms that, from my point of view, only barely pass muster in the context of a community ostensibly dedicated to increasing rationality and overcoming bias.
I find little rationality and enormous bias in phrases like; ”… why the extinction of various species that nobody cares about is such a bad thing”.
The ecosystem of the planet is the most complex sub-system of the universe of which we are aware—containing, as it does, among many only partially explored sub-systems, a little over 6 billion human brains.
Given that one defining characteristic of complex systems is that they cannot be adequately modelled without the use of computational resources which exceed the resources of the system itself [colloquially understood as the ‘law of unintended consequences’], it seems manifestly irrational to be dismissive of the possible consequences of massive intervention in a system upon which all humans rely utterly for existence.
Whether or not one chooses to give credence to the Gaia hypothesis, it is indisputable that the chemical composition of the atmosphere and oceans are conditioned by the totality of the ecosystem; and that the climate is in turn conditioned largely by these.
Applying probabilistic thinking to the likely impact of bio-terrorism on the one hand, and climate change on the other, we might consider that, um, five people have died as a result of bioterrorism (the work, as it appears, of a single maverick and thus not even firmly to be categorised as terrorism) since the second world war, while climate change has arguably killed tens of thousands already in floods, droughts, and the like, and certainly threatens human habitat as low-lying islands are inundated as sea-levels rise.
Upon these considerations it would appear bizarre to consider expending any energy whatsoever upon bioterrorism before climate change.