I happened to come across your blog from my friend's twitter. I found this topic very interesting. But it does not convince me though. Here are several questions from me:
First, let's say the price you listed from the cost of intricate fencing for toirtoises rescue -"BrightSource also agreed to install 50 miles of intricate fencing, at a cost of up to $50,000 per mile, designed to prevent relocated tortoises from climbing or burrowing back into harm’s way."
My questions is (1) are these facilities only for tortoises or they can be efficiently multipurposed for all similar endangered species? (2)Would it be different if these facilities can be efficiently rebuilt and recycled for general society use?(3) Would it be different if these facilities/protocols can be applied to all land mammals rescue?
Second, "there is no significant difference between humans and other living thing’s impact on the environment". I think this argument does not stand at all and against all our previous understanding on impacts from human activity. Indeed plant/algae changed the world but in a much slower rate and human after industry revolution changed the world within very short amount of time. You might need to cite some classic references to prove for this argument. I think it is very far from truth.
Third, "The final argument for protecting endangered species and policing invasive ones is that this practice furthers human aims by keeping food chains stable." Hmmm ...... Well if you want to move to Mars and whatever you need to take with me are the things human need to basically survive. Unfortunately, earth is not for human being "food chain". Biodiversity is to show respect towards other animals and give them back their own space. And many animals, that we don't know, they have potential medical use and pharmaceutical applications, see American yew， paclitaxel. If you go to Bio Research, you'd know how many animals are under research to give clues on how lives are formed and how they can used by human. It is a gene treasury. Is it wise to dispose it before you don't know how to "quantify" the value because of insufficient knowledge?
Fourth, if you argue against the endangered animal rescue because of economical values. Following the same logic, should we stop rescuing homeless cats/dogs? What is the reason for rescuing them why just not let natural selection does the magic? How much we spent on these animals each year from the human society? Why cats/dogs are more important in biodiversity value or food chain stability? Why we should value pets more than wildlives just because pet industry makes more money than zoo? Why we should play the role of God and choose who to live based on our human's desire. Is this human-centered view correct?
Fifth, how much money we spent on giant panda, on kiwi, and Rhinopithecus？If you argue against protection of this specific tortoises and list out several generalized arguments. They seem to be are arguing against all endangered species we have so far tried to protect. Do you think we should cancel the all wild life protection acts? If not, what is the standard to choose what wild life deserve to live, what deserve to go extinction?
Sixth, imagine -- in one ideal situation that we have enough resources and enter a Utopia environment that everybody gets what they want(not economic concerns). Do you agree with spending resources in protecting wild life? If you agree -- and happy to support wild life. Now the question is, during economic crisis, why we should give up on wild life first? What about giving up cryptocurrency? What about pausing SpaceX? Which is more important? Wild lives or our internet speed or having folding screen phones?
First of all thank you for reading and taking the time to write out your response, I really appreciate it!
I'll try to address your questions one by one.
1. You are definitely right that there can be much more cost efficient ways to protect endangered species. I think this does not get at the more central question of how to value protection of existing species but your next questions do.
2. In the article I focus on the fact that "human beings are not unique in their ability to radically change the environment at the expense of many other forms of life." All forms of life are looking to advance themselves at the expense of their competitors. You point out that humans, thanks to cultural and technological evolution, are more rapidly supplanting other forms of life. I don't see why this difference in speed should change the way we view ourselves and our relationship to nature. We are still a small branch off of the tree of life. We are growing quickly and damaging other branches, but this does not separate us at all from our countless biological ancestors who did the same. We may be moving quickly now, but we have still not come close to matching the algae and trees in terms of impact on the natural world.
Our fast growth could imperil itself by destabilizing the environment and causing radical changes that make it uninhabitable for human civilization, but this is treating bio-diversity as a means, not an end in itself.
3. You say "Biodiversity is to show respect towards other animals and give them back their own space." I think this is where our strongest disagreement lies. I don't see a good reason to hold this respect towards other animals. Having seen how hyenas eat water buffalos alive from the stomach first, I can guarantee that other animals would not afford the same respect to us. In fact, we see countless examples throughout space and time of species ruthlessly driving each other to extinction. In a way, it is more of an interference with nature to pull our punches and attempt to preserve current species rather than subjecting life to a steep selection barrier as it has been millions of times already in the past.
Your second point about pharmaceutical applications might be true, but again this is holding bio-diversity as a means rather than an end which I do not contest. I think you are right that bio-diversity is useful in many ways, but I maintain that our standard of value should be measured in human suffering or pleasure.
4 and 5. Out of all the species that have ever existed, the ones that are around today are a miniscule fraction. Why should those species which happen to exist in the present occupy such an important position as to overturn our attempts to improve human lives? If the giant panda goes extinct, barring the complete destruction of life, some new species will arise in its place. If we inherently value bio-diversity, how do we decide between preserving the panda, and allowing it to die so that future species can grow in its place? The standard to choose which wildlife will life and die is the same one that has been in use for life's 5 billion year history: survival of the fittest.
6. If people want to produce resources to protect wildlife, I support them entirely, but I don't personally see it as especially valuable. In aggregate, this information about what people see as valuable is encoded into prices. If some humans want folding screens more than desert tortoises then I think that's a valid tradeoff.
My responses got kind of disorganized at the end, so please let me know if you want me to clarify something. Thank you again for reading and commenting!
haha - yes - since you are talking about natural selection and the magic of evolution (the one fits most get to to survive). Let's follow your logic. Human wisdom is direct result of evolution, right? Through the long history of evolution, years of learning from nature, we build up wisdoms from years and years. We learned from past lessons of the danger of air pollution, over deforestation and all environmental issues etc etc. To be fitted with nature and combat nature selection - we must learn and also forced to reach peace with nature. What if we respect wild animals and try our best and strike the balance and human being can last for another one thousand years as some day some of these species will proudly prove its value in the far far future; Or we don't respect wild animals and exploit earth to what we like -- and 1 out 100 chances that we human being only last for another 100 years. Now from the long accumulated wisdom from biologists who maintain the view of importance of biodiversity, should we try to protect them ? Yes the fittest that will survive, what if our greediness cause our own doom and result in the extinction of our species? A most recent example is COVID-19 right? If we continuously encroach the environment of bats and more and more viruses will be released into human society and it would only take a whirl for us to go to dark times again. If our wisdom from combatting natural selection told us to have awe in our neighbors -- we probably better do so otherwise nobody knows what would come next right ?
I don't think my article is opposed to this argument. You are basically saying "respect for nature is necessary to protect and pursue human goals." What I am contesting is "respect for nature is important because nature has inherent value." My argument is that nature only has instrumental value. It is only valuable to preserve nature insofar as it is valuable to humans. Often, we can produce much more value by rearranging nature to our liking.
Love your post. Healthy ecology doesn't necessarily mean an unimpacted environment. Plato (as per usual) remains correct. Our physical world is the "World of Becoming." It's in a constant state of change. We often conflate our metaphysical existence, the world of values and oughts, (the "World of Being") with the physical world. Hence the not-so-subtle quasi-religious subtext of the modern environmental movement.
I would urge you to dig a little deeper on the cost benefit analysis example of the solar farm. If you build 500 MW of unreliable solar power in the Mojave (where the sun also sets), with cutting- edge 500 Watt panels, you need 100K solar panels or 3,000 acres! A comparable footprint for a plant that runs in the dark (AKA peak energy) is 10-15 times smaller. Not sure where your interests lie, but I highly recommend this talk:
Thank you for your insightful comment and kind words! I hadn't made a connection to Plato but it's a very interesting way to think about it.
You are definitely right that there are definitely much denser and also just cooler forms of energy than solar like nuclear and geothermal. Density isn't worth much in middle-of-nowhere Nevada though lol.
Thank you again for reading and commenting, we'll have to see where my career goes haha!
LOLed @ "I am talking, of course, about Ordovician Algae and the first trees that followed them."
Hi Maxwell,
I happened to come across your blog from my friend's twitter. I found this topic very interesting. But it does not convince me though. Here are several questions from me:
First, let's say the price you listed from the cost of intricate fencing for toirtoises rescue -"BrightSource also agreed to install 50 miles of intricate fencing, at a cost of up to $50,000 per mile, designed to prevent relocated tortoises from climbing or burrowing back into harm’s way."
My questions is (1) are these facilities only for tortoises or they can be efficiently multipurposed for all similar endangered species? (2)Would it be different if these facilities can be efficiently rebuilt and recycled for general society use?(3) Would it be different if these facilities/protocols can be applied to all land mammals rescue?
Second, "there is no significant difference between humans and other living thing’s impact on the environment". I think this argument does not stand at all and against all our previous understanding on impacts from human activity. Indeed plant/algae changed the world but in a much slower rate and human after industry revolution changed the world within very short amount of time. You might need to cite some classic references to prove for this argument. I think it is very far from truth.
Third, "The final argument for protecting endangered species and policing invasive ones is that this practice furthers human aims by keeping food chains stable." Hmmm ...... Well if you want to move to Mars and whatever you need to take with me are the things human need to basically survive. Unfortunately, earth is not for human being "food chain". Biodiversity is to show respect towards other animals and give them back their own space. And many animals, that we don't know, they have potential medical use and pharmaceutical applications, see American yew， paclitaxel. If you go to Bio Research, you'd know how many animals are under research to give clues on how lives are formed and how they can used by human. It is a gene treasury. Is it wise to dispose it before you don't know how to "quantify" the value because of insufficient knowledge?
Fourth, if you argue against the endangered animal rescue because of economical values. Following the same logic, should we stop rescuing homeless cats/dogs? What is the reason for rescuing them why just not let natural selection does the magic? How much we spent on these animals each year from the human society? Why cats/dogs are more important in biodiversity value or food chain stability? Why we should value pets more than wildlives just because pet industry makes more money than zoo? Why we should play the role of God and choose who to live based on our human's desire. Is this human-centered view correct?
Fifth, how much money we spent on giant panda, on kiwi, and Rhinopithecus？If you argue against protection of this specific tortoises and list out several generalized arguments. They seem to be are arguing against all endangered species we have so far tried to protect. Do you think we should cancel the all wild life protection acts? If not, what is the standard to choose what wild life deserve to live, what deserve to go extinction?
Sixth, imagine -- in one ideal situation that we have enough resources and enter a Utopia environment that everybody gets what they want(not economic concerns). Do you agree with spending resources in protecting wild life? If you agree -- and happy to support wild life. Now the question is, during economic crisis, why we should give up on wild life first? What about giving up cryptocurrency? What about pausing SpaceX? Which is more important? Wild lives or our internet speed or having folding screen phones?
First of all thank you for reading and taking the time to write out your response, I really appreciate it!
I'll try to address your questions one by one.
1. You are definitely right that there can be much more cost efficient ways to protect endangered species. I think this does not get at the more central question of how to value protection of existing species but your next questions do.
2. In the article I focus on the fact that "human beings are not unique in their ability to radically change the environment at the expense of many other forms of life." All forms of life are looking to advance themselves at the expense of their competitors. You point out that humans, thanks to cultural and technological evolution, are more rapidly supplanting other forms of life. I don't see why this difference in speed should change the way we view ourselves and our relationship to nature. We are still a small branch off of the tree of life. We are growing quickly and damaging other branches, but this does not separate us at all from our countless biological ancestors who did the same. We may be moving quickly now, but we have still not come close to matching the algae and trees in terms of impact on the natural world.
Our fast growth could imperil itself by destabilizing the environment and causing radical changes that make it uninhabitable for human civilization, but this is treating bio-diversity as a means, not an end in itself.
3. You say "Biodiversity is to show respect towards other animals and give them back their own space." I think this is where our strongest disagreement lies. I don't see a good reason to hold this respect towards other animals. Having seen how hyenas eat water buffalos alive from the stomach first, I can guarantee that other animals would not afford the same respect to us. In fact, we see countless examples throughout space and time of species ruthlessly driving each other to extinction. In a way, it is more of an interference with nature to pull our punches and attempt to preserve current species rather than subjecting life to a steep selection barrier as it has been millions of times already in the past.
Your second point about pharmaceutical applications might be true, but again this is holding bio-diversity as a means rather than an end which I do not contest. I think you are right that bio-diversity is useful in many ways, but I maintain that our standard of value should be measured in human suffering or pleasure.
4 and 5. Out of all the species that have ever existed, the ones that are around today are a miniscule fraction. Why should those species which happen to exist in the present occupy such an important position as to overturn our attempts to improve human lives? If the giant panda goes extinct, barring the complete destruction of life, some new species will arise in its place. If we inherently value bio-diversity, how do we decide between preserving the panda, and allowing it to die so that future species can grow in its place? The standard to choose which wildlife will life and die is the same one that has been in use for life's 5 billion year history: survival of the fittest.
6. If people want to produce resources to protect wildlife, I support them entirely, but I don't personally see it as especially valuable. In aggregate, this information about what people see as valuable is encoded into prices. If some humans want folding screens more than desert tortoises then I think that's a valid tradeoff.
My responses got kind of disorganized at the end, so please let me know if you want me to clarify something. Thank you again for reading and commenting!
haha - yes - since you are talking about natural selection and the magic of evolution (the one fits most get to to survive). Let's follow your logic. Human wisdom is direct result of evolution, right? Through the long history of evolution, years of learning from nature, we build up wisdoms from years and years. We learned from past lessons of the danger of air pollution, over deforestation and all environmental issues etc etc. To be fitted with nature and combat nature selection - we must learn and also forced to reach peace with nature. What if we respect wild animals and try our best and strike the balance and human being can last for another one thousand years as some day some of these species will proudly prove its value in the far far future; Or we don't respect wild animals and exploit earth to what we like -- and 1 out 100 chances that we human being only last for another 100 years. Now from the long accumulated wisdom from biologists who maintain the view of importance of biodiversity, should we try to protect them ? Yes the fittest that will survive, what if our greediness cause our own doom and result in the extinction of our species? A most recent example is COVID-19 right? If we continuously encroach the environment of bats and more and more viruses will be released into human society and it would only take a whirl for us to go to dark times again. If our wisdom from combatting natural selection told us to have awe in our neighbors -- we probably better do so otherwise nobody knows what would come next right ?
I don't think my article is opposed to this argument. You are basically saying "respect for nature is necessary to protect and pursue human goals." What I am contesting is "respect for nature is important because nature has inherent value." My argument is that nature only has instrumental value. It is only valuable to preserve nature insofar as it is valuable to humans. Often, we can produce much more value by rearranging nature to our liking.
Love your post. Healthy ecology doesn't necessarily mean an unimpacted environment. Plato (as per usual) remains correct. Our physical world is the "World of Becoming." It's in a constant state of change. We often conflate our metaphysical existence, the world of values and oughts, (the "World of Being") with the physical world. Hence the not-so-subtle quasi-religious subtext of the modern environmental movement.
I would urge you to dig a little deeper on the cost benefit analysis example of the solar farm. If you build 500 MW of unreliable solar power in the Mojave (where the sun also sets), with cutting- edge 500 Watt panels, you need 100K solar panels or 3,000 acres! A comparable footprint for a plant that runs in the dark (AKA peak energy) is 10-15 times smaller. Not sure where your interests lie, but I highly recommend this talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GHihfiAvus&ab_channel=ImproveThePlanet
Found your blog via 1729 and subbed. (Balaji sent me some crypto for one of my response as well! https://www.undergrounddesigns.us/writing-discourse/chesterton-challenge-to-founders)
Anyway, great work, Max. You have a great future ahead of you, hopefully outside Academia :)
Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
Thank you for your insightful comment and kind words! I hadn't made a connection to Plato but it's a very interesting way to think about it.
You are definitely right that there are definitely much denser and also just cooler forms of energy than solar like nuclear and geothermal. Density isn't worth much in middle-of-nowhere Nevada though lol.
Thank you again for reading and commenting, we'll have to see where my career goes haha!