Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:13:08 -0400
From: Gordon Fitch
Subject: Re: Gar Lipow on eco-optimism
Eric Franz Leher:
> ...
> 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.
> ...
The problem with this sort of statement is that we don't know
how many species there are, we don't know how many are actually
being driven into extinction, and we don't know what the usual
rate of extinction is, or even if there is something we could
reasonably call a "usual rate". In other words, the statement
comes with a big "KICK ME" sign pasted on its butt.
Sorry Gordon mate, but you're the one with the KICK ME sign tacked to his arse. Can't you sort out what is significant from what is not? Oh, a nice fact - we don't know exactly how many species there are on earth. SO FUCKING WHAT? We deal with this apparently insoluble problem by taking a sample. We deal with what we already do know. We look at a number of species in certain habitats at different periods of time. Those species that don't turn up at all during the later stages of our survey give us a rough idea of the rate of extinction. It's better than nothing.And then what little trick of the human intellect do we use? Yes! Extrapolation. We are quite justified in doing this because of the high degree of interrelatedness between species in a particular habitat.
I can't believe the simplemindedness of your objections. It doesn't matter that we don't know how many species there are. It doesn't matter that we don't know 'actually' how many are being driven into extinction (that's what we're trying to get some idea of, for Christ's sake). Ditto for the 'usual' rate of extinction - that's what we're trying to figure out. And I'M the one with the sign on his butt?
Look, someone actually attempted this (Diamond, cited above, p323-24), and here is what he had to say:
" ... is extinction not a natural process anyway? If so, why make a big deal about the wave of extinction happening now?
The answer to this first argument is that the current extinction rate caused by humans is far higher than the natural rate. If the estimate that half the world's total of thirty million species will become extinct in the next century is correct, then species are now becoming extinct at a rate of about 150,000 per year, or seventeen per hour. The world's 9,000 bird species are becoming extinct at a rate of at least two per year, but bird species under natural conditions were disappearing at a rate of less than one per century, so the present rate is at least 200 times the normal rate. Dismissing the extinction crisis on the grounds that extinction is natural would be just like dismissing genocide on the grounds that death is the natural fate of all humans ..."
If you still have a problem with the idea that we can make an estimate of rates of extinction, then let's see your argument. Swearing and ragged prose style apart, I am amenable to reason. That's how you'll get me to shut up - by finding the fault in the logic. But think things through before you try to tag anyone as a fuckwit - if you slip up, they will be mighty peeved.