> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:49:07 +0100
> From: James Heartfield
> Subject: Gar Lipow on eco-optimism
>
> >3)This leads to the question of extinction. While you can argue about
> >the number of species we are wiping out, I don't think anyone can argue
> >that we are wiping out species at an accelerating rate.
>
> Assertion, never has been demonstrated (nor one suspects could it be,
> since you have to factor out the increased recording of species).
>
> More to the point, 99.9 species that ever existed are now extinct.
> Extinction is a law of nature.
>
What sort of shit is this? There are any number of accessible non-technical works on this subject (a good one being Jared Diamond's _The Rise and Fall of the Third Champanzee_) It is in fact clear that species are being driven into extinction at a rate far, far higher than is usual.
And that's the whole point. Yeah, 99.9 percent of species end up extinct - but not all at the same time. Extinction waves have happened before (about four or five times, I think), but they are catastrophic events - they are not 'laws of nature'. On this view, humans are precipitating an extinction wave that will impact the evolution of life on this planet as drastically as whatever did in the dinosaurs.
The upside? Maybe we'll be among the fucking casualties. Better a planet of dumb creatures than beings that pride themselves on their supposed rationality and moral stature, whilst exhibiting little or nothing of either.
PS and while I'm at it ...
> >2) De-forestation. Is forest acreage increasing? Yes - but OLD GROWTH
> >forest is decreasing.
>
> Well, forgive me if this sounds like nit-picking. The quality of the
> forested areas might be less good, but that is to dismiss the underlying
> trend for more agricultural product from less land due to increased
> agricultural productivity.
>
> Isn't that better than the nightmare scenario that greens have been
> selling us for so long of the world's forest disappearing?
>
I think the point here for any environmentalist is that the notion of
the value of a particular environment extends beyond its use as an
agricultural field or plantation forest. Hence the emphasis on old
growth, where emphasis on agricultural or other 'productive' use is
irrelevant.
People who think you haven't destroyed an environment just because you can still (for the moment) grow monocultures on the land it used to cover will always be arguing at cross-purposes with environmentalists.