[smiley]

I don't believe humankind is dependent on biodiversity

Shocked you, didn't I? Before I give Monte a heart attack let me elaborate.

For me biodiversity is a gage of the living conditions. It shows you how favorable the conditions in a certain place are for life. In a tropical rain forest you will find more forms of life than in an Arctic tundra, simply because the conditions for life in the tropics are much more favorable than in the arctic.

All species need a certain set of conditions to live. Most species don't become extinct because we hunt them down and kill them one by one, but because we take away one or more of the conditions for them to live.

It is important to realize that we share the same chemical makeup as all the life on this planet. We are all dependent on the same things, warmth, water, light etc. We also share a similar intolerance against certain substances. Willson destroyed the life on his island with methyl bromide. Methyl bromide would also kill a human population. So the conditions for life are very similar among the organisms on this planet.

Consequently it is almost impossible to kill a certain species without leading to a general deterioration of the living conditions (also for humans). Several attempt using DTP agent orange etc. have adequately shown this. Conversely it can also be said that when a species becomes extinct it is often caused by a general deterioration in the living conditions. Except the now extincty species, all the other species in that area are more or less affected.

To give an example. Certain species of lichen are very dependent on clean air. If they die it means that the air is not clean. You can also draw a linear correlation between the occurrence of these lichen and certain lung diseases. That does not mean that there is a causal connection. We don't get these diseases because of the absence of lichen. We (the lichen and us humans) are both affected by a deterioration of the environment.

So while I don't think that we are directly dependent on biodiversity (like we're not dependent on the occurrence of lichen), biodiversity is an incredible important parameter to watch. And the current mass extinction shows us that we are rapidly destroying the conditions for life on this planet.

[holmes]

im 100% done here.

"We are not dependent on licen".

omy god. where the fuck does soil originate from? fucking mosses and lichen are the builders of fucking soil. they are disapearing from the fucking planet. the smallest organismawe are the most dependent upon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fucking acidic polluted air, water and soil will kill us. it is already. where the fuck does cancer originate from? Now you are going to say heavy metals are not a problem. God help us.
Im outa here. later.
get your bags packed and liquidate asap.

fucking peak speak is a goddamn good think i went on there last night.

-Spada

[smiley]

im 100% done here.

"We are not dependent on licen".

omy god. where the fuck does soil originate from? fucking mosses and lichen are the builders of fucking soil. they are disapearing from the fucking planet. the smallest organismawe are the most dependent upon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your view of nature seems to be one wherein all systems are interconnected. Every organism has it specific role in this system and all species are dependent on each other. Much like the mechanism of a clock each organism has its own specific function.

I don't support that notion because I believe that such a system would be inherently unstable. It has no redundancy. Since all organisms are interdependent it takes one species to fail to bring the system down. Remove one part of a clock and it will stop.

If that was the case then life wouldn't have survived for so long on this planet. We have seen several cases of mass extinction. If all organisms were truly so interconnected, these events would have wiped out all life on this planet. Therefore we can assume that nature has provided a tremendous amount of redundancy. In other words we can remove a large number of species from this planet without endangering the ecosystem.

fucking acidic polluted air, water and soil will kill us. it is already. where the fuck does cancer originate from? Now you are going to say heavy metals are not a problem. God help us

.

If you had tread my post correctly you would have understood that I deem this a big problem. We are undoubtedly destroying the environment. With that we are destroying not only the habitat of many species, but also our own.

[BlisteredWhippet]

Well, it looks like people on this message board feel that biodiversity is important, John Denver. Overwhelmingly. You seem to have failed to cast any shadow of uncertainty over the "web of life" hypothesis. What are your thoughts?

[JohnDenver]

David,
Thanks for the interesting post and link. What you wrote gave me some interesting ideas, but unfortunately I don't have time to reply right now. I will post again soon though, so I hope you'll stay tuned.

the total number of species on earth, which is estimated to be between 10 and 30 million.

I had one question about this. Does that total include microbes like bacteria, yeast, algae etc.? And if not, why?

[JohnDenver]

For example, we take it as a matter of course that civilized people have indoor plumbing and sewage systems. We ignore the natural process of recycling wastes and consider the subject of composting toilets to be funny and quaint.

bart, I couldn't agree with you more on this point. I composted a lot of pig and rabbit shit at one point in my life, and I find the whole subject of recycling shit to be fascinating. It amazed me that you could take a pile of shit, household wastes and other organic ruffage, and cook it into sweet smelling dirt.

This is a topic we can all agree on. It is critical for ordinary life on earth, as well as for space travel and understanding sealed, cyclical biospheres. It drives me crazy that people have such strong childish taboos about a subject which is so critically important. We need to hire an army of ecologists and do a manhattan project on the human shit cycle tomorrow.

There is a fascinating old book I read once called "Farmers of Forty Centuries" by F.H. King. I believe it was written in the early 1900s, and describes a trip the author (an American) took to China to inspect its agriculture system. Shit was an extremely valuable commodity in the cyclic Chinese system. It even went to the point where a little boy would ride on the back of an ox while it worked driving an irrigation pump. His job was to collect the ox's shit in a ladle. There was a photo of that in the book.

The book (without photos) is in the public domain, and available on line here:
LINK

Here's a quote:
"One of the most remarkable agricultural practices adopted by any civilized people is the centuries-long and well nigh universal conservation and utilization of all human waste in China, Korea and Japan, turning it to marvelous account in the maintenance of soil fertility and in the production of food. To understand this evolution it must be recognized that mineral fertilizers so extensively employed in modern western agriculture, like the extensive use of mineral coal, had been a physical impossibility to all people alike until within very recent years. With this fact must be associated the very long unbroken life of these nations and the vast numbers their farmers have been compelled to feed."

This is also a great link: Civilization & Sludge: Notes on the History of the Management of Human Excreta
http://www.cqs.com/sewage.htm

[JohnDenver]

Note that the figure of 15,589 threatened species, as the Executive Summary says, is a vast understatement, since it is based on fully evaluating only 3% of species known to science (~1.5 million), and the 1.5 million species known to science are in turn only 10% (at most) of the total number of species on earth, which is estimated to be between 10 and 30 million.

Okay. I've found a source for a figure of 30 to 50 million, and it's here:
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.w ... manysp.htm

It turns out that this number only goes down to insects, not microbes, and therefore is way too low. Let's assume, for the fun of it, that there are 1 billion species of bacteria -- although that's probably still too low, considering that 1g of soil can contain 5000 species of bacteria, and 1g of mammalian feces contains hundreds of billions of bacterial individuals.

Consider this chart from the above link:


Notice how the chart stops at a body size of 0.5mm. In fact, it should keep going, down to microns and beyond, to the size of the smallest living thing -- maybe even viruses and prions. What I said above about the number of microbe species is clearly supported by the mathematical relationship given in the graph. Integrating under the entire curve might even give us a figure of trillions of species.

So let's do the math (just a rough ballpark figure): the IUCN says 15,589 species are threatened, but it has evaluated only 3% of scientifically described species-- and scientifically described species are only about 10% of the total number of species on earth. So that means the IUCN has evaluated about .3% of the total number of species on earth, and has found that roughly 15,000 of those are threatened with extinction. So if we extrapolate to a ballpark figure, 15,000 X 300 = 4,500,000 species threatened with extinction.

If we run this with a more accurate figure for the number of species (i.e. 1 trillion), we would come out with a figure more like 0.3 trillion species threatened with extinction, but they would basically all be bacteria. But is that really the way the world works? Has there even been one documented case of a bacteria extinction? Is that even possible? And don't bacteria multiply and mutate so rapidly that the whole idea of a "species" or an "extinction" is a little weird anyway? Are we taking account of the daily increase in the number of bacteria species due to the splitting of strains? How about genetically modified bacteria? Are they new species which we create in the lab? I don't see why not.

Looking at the summary data in Appendix 3 of the Red Book from the IUCN, we notice the following relationship: the bigger the animal, the larger the number of threatened species. It's not perfect, but the trend is obvious. In 2004, we have:

Mammals: 1,101
Insects: 559
Other inverts: 30
Bacteria: 0

You might say this is an artifact or our sampling ability, but I would contend that it reflects the following reality: the smaller the organism, the harder it is to drive species into extinction. Larger organisms are more extinction prone. Recent scientific research supports this conclusion:

Recent extinctions and declines of species have been phylogenetically selective (Bennett & Owens, 1997; Gaston & Blackburn, 1997; Russell et al., 1998; Purvis et al., 2000a). This suggests that, in addition to external factors such as the degree of habitat loss, there are intrinsic traits which render some species particularly extinction-prone. A growing body of evidence indicates that body size is one such trait: smaller-bodied species seem to be less vulnerable to decline and extinction than larger species (Gaston & Blackburn, 1995; Smith & Quin, 1996; Bennett & Owens, 1997; Jennings, Reynolds & Mills, 1998; Purviset al., 2000b; Cardillo & Bromham, 2001).
http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/apurvi ... AnCons.pdf

Now, I can think of lots of reasons why the above law is true. The most obvious, perhaps, is that very large species have very few individuals and reproduce very slowly, and thus are easily targeted and wiped out. There are lots of other reasons, but I will omit them for brevity.

Anyway, that is why your calculation is invalid. You are incorrectly assuming that all forms of life are equally prone to extinction.

Another point of criticism is that virtually the entire Red Book is devoted to documenting cases of endangerment, not extinction. Your calculation does not support a statement like "7 species go extinct every day". At best, it says something like "7 species go endangered every day", and thus does not, in fact, support E.O. Wilson's claims about an ongoing mass extinction.

The missing link is this question: How often do species on the endangered species list go extinct? I'm guessing very infrequently. Protecting endangered species is just another way to earn a paycheck, and those people want to keep their jobs. Don't kill the golden goose, as they say. Clone the damn thing, or show it porno movies, or knock it up with a syringe, or position it for mating with a crane... Whatever, just don't let those suckers die!

[JohnDenver]

Has there even been one documented case of a bacteria extinction?

Apparently not. I just plugged "bacteria extinction" into Google and got 13 hits. None of them concern extinction of bacteria species. They're about how to "extinct" the bacteria off a toilet seat etc. That's a major species devastation worry, due to household cleaning products. You wonder: "How many bacteria species am I extincting, per square inch of this steak I'm cooking?" The species loss due to McDonald's cooking hamburgers may dwarf the daily species loss in the Amazon.

[bart]

Thanks for the links, JohnDenver. I'd read part of 40 Centuries, but I hadn't seen the Civilization & Sludge. Fascinating stuff!

In your recent post, you seem to be saying that we don't need to worry about extinctions of microbes, since we aren't aware of any such extinctions. My question: how would we know? We are so ignorant of microbe ecology and the scale is so vast. We are like children playing with the controls of a complex machine we don't understand.

However, there are other problems with microbe ecology that ARE beginning to come to our attention. Here's a potential catastrophe from a few years back:

Soil ecologist Elaine Ingham spoke about a plant-killing GM bacteria that her Oregon State University research team prevented from being released into the environment. Dr Ingham said the alcohol-producing bacteria had been approved for field trials when her team discovered its lethal effects. She believed the widespread plant deaths caused by the bacteria would in turn affect all life on Earth. The GM klebsiella planticola produced alcohol [which is poison to plants] from post-harvest crop residue. The leftover organic sludge, containing the bacteria, would be returned to fields as fertiliser.
http://www.context.co.nz:8080/stories/storyReader$467

Also see:
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/K ... icola.html
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/Ingham.htm

On the more general theme of this thread...

I'm not sure I see the point of biodiversity-bashing. Do you really believe what you're saying, or are you just being contrary? My guess is about 80% contrariness! Nobody who is interested in muck can really be that opposed to biodiversity.

Are you are saying that the poor and small farmers in the Third World need to be able to degrade ecosystems in order to survive? I think just the opposite is the case, since they depend on healthy ecosystems more directly than those in rich countries. Ecosystems provide free services like water filtration, climate control and sources of herbs and edibles.

It is true that there are tensions between First World and Third World ideas about environmentalism, but increasingly environmentalism is becoming a Third World issue. I have not heard of any great outcry against biodiversity from the Third World.

Most biodiversity bashing seems to come from commercial interests and some (not all!) of the US rural population.

Even if you disagree with the high profile biodiversity advocates, what is the point of attacking them personally and impugning their integrity?

Which side are you on?

It's one thing to be independent minded and thoughtful; it's something else to throw in your lot with the attack dogs of the right.

[JohnDenver]

In your recent post, you seem to be saying that we don't need to worry about extinctions of microbes, since we aren't aware of any such extinctions. My question: how would we know?

bart, I'm not sure if the idea of "bacteria extinction" is even coherent. For example, consider a bacteria we have invested massive effort to eradicate: mycobacterium tuberculosis. We are completely incapable of killing it, and, in fact, our attempts to kill it have only made it stronger. Why would other bacteria be any more fragile than tuberculosis? Furthermore, the evidence strongly suggests that smaller, more rapidly replicating species are hardier than large species. Also, even if you do happen to make a strain of bacteria extinct, won't some related bacteria simply evolve in the course of few years to fill its niche? On the bacterial level, it is likely that no species extinction is really permanent.

I think these are strong reasons for believing that the extinction of bacteria species is a non-problem. If you, or anyone reading, has even a shred of evidence to the contrary, please post it.

I'm not sure I see the point of biodiversity-bashing. Do you really believe what you're saying, or are you just being contrary? My guess is about 80% contrariness! Nobody who is interested in muck can really be that opposed to biodiversity.

I am opposed to biodiversity because it is one plank in the PR campaign to sell powerdown, which I am viscerally opposed to. My opposition is genuine.

Are you are saying that the poor and small farmers in the Third World need to be able to degrade ecosystems in order to survive?

Yes (except I would delete the "to be able").

I think just the opposite is the case, since they depend on healthy ecosystems more directly than those in rich countries.

Then why are they destroying their source of sustenance? Clearly they are destroying it, because if they weren't, there wouldn't be a problem to campaign against.

The anti-growth environmentalists propose economic contraction and powerdown as the solution to this problem, but I would argue that powerdown will make it even worse. Powerdown will make everyone poorer, and they will try to compensate by attacking the environment. When fuel gets scarce, people will turn to the forests for wood etc. The environmentalists aren't thinking through the unintended consequences of their social engineering proposals.

Even if you disagree with the high profile biodiversity advocates, what is the point of attacking them personally and impugning their integrity?

I am not opposed to biodiversity. Nowhere in this thread have I said that we should exterminate endangered species, or any such nonsense. I have made three points:
1) We could very likely survive without many, if not most, species on the earth today. To prove this, we simply need to create a sealed, cyclical biosphere containing humans which is sustainable (i.e. we need to create a viable "space colony"). Smiley and Dezakin agree with me here.
2) If the only two options are: letting people die, vs. letting them assault their environment, we should let them assault their environment. To not do so would be tantamount to killing them. I think we all basically agree to this.
3) The science being used to sell the "ongoing mass extinction" is suspect at best, and, in fact, the PR effort is steering the science, as is the case with other political press release numbers. Katkinkate agreed with me here, as does the forestry professor from Puerto Rico. I will continue to attack this subterfuge because it is being used to promote an anti-growth agenda which will make everyone poorer, and devastate the environment.

Which side are you on?

I a pro-growth environmentalist. I believe we must grow beyond the planet. If we follow the anti-growth environmentalists, we will resign ourselves to the fate of the dinosaurs -- waiting until a big rock hits us.

It's like we're all on Columbus's ship. The anti-growth people are saying: "There's no land out there, we have to turn back." I'm saying: "We can't turn back because we've gone too far, and we'll die trying to get back. We've got to have faith in our technology."

My biodiversity bashing may not be very nice, but neither is the rampant technology bashing on this forum. They're two sides of the same coin. I am viscerally opposed to luddism because, in my view, it is the road to death. God gave us brains to help us go the next step beyond the dinosaurs, and we must have faith in ourselves, not hate ourselves.

It shocks me when I read about all the gas the people at peakoil.com use. I live in a huge metropolis, and I don't use any gasoline at all. I walk everywhere. Suburbia is already dead here. I only know about 2 or 3 people who even have a car. I already know how to raise vegetables if that need arises. I have a very small energy footprint, and I live like an environmentalist. So, as I've said before, we have a ton in common if we could just get over the luddite/powderdown hurdle.

It's one thing to be independent minded and thoughtful; it's something else to throw in your lot with the attack dogs of the right.

When the environmentalists preach that "peak oil is the crash that we deserve for our wicked ways", you are also throwing your lot in with the dogs of the right. I sometimes imagine Julian Darley tidying up his slides after a presentation, and a guy with a couple of teeth missing and a NASCAR jacket walks up, and says: "Man, this peak oil die-off thing is something else... How soon you reckon it's gonna happen? This society is all fucked up, and we need a die-off, specially of the gubmint. You got gold and a gun Julian?" Those people are so right-wing that they're off the dial. But the environmentalists are all buddy-buddy with them in here.

I think, in the long run, the environmentalists will split. The doomer environmentalists will join up with the survivalists, and the other environmentalists will join up with their true brothers, conucopians like me.

[bart]

There's an a error in logic here, JD.

You're suggesting that iif we can't render organism X extinct when we want to, that means that no similar organisms are in danger of extinction.

Typically, the sorts of organisms we want to exterminate are pests, weeds and diseases. These are very hardy organisms (think: rats, lice and typhoid) which are well adapted to the conditions created by human habitation. It's no surprise we can't get rid of them.

On the other hand, the organisms in danger of extinction are those small in numbers or reliant on specific environmental conditions.

That said, I don't know that it makes sense to talk about species extinction of microbes, as we might talk about the potential extinction of the polar bear. Completely different scales. And you're right that microbes have a fearsome ability to adapt. I'm sure that the fungi and bacteria will long outlive human beings -- they'll dance on our graves.

The problem we have with microbes is that we create environments in which problem organisms are favored. For example, the overuse of antibiotics favors the evolution of super-bugs which have developed resistance to antiobiotics. This is a problem for us, though, rather than the microbes.

//

About your positions on biodiversity, environmentalism and powerdown -- yes, I see now. For you, they do fit together. Well, it doesn't seem as if we'll come to agreement anytime soon! In the meantime, though, let me offer this observation:

In order to achieve abundance, one doesn't have to stay stuck in the high-energy, high-impact technologies of the past 200 years. We'll probably have to change our definition of "abundance" away from jet travel and throwaway plastic toys. Maybe abundance could be defined along the lines of: healthy, delicious food; beautiful, hand-crafted tools and homes; satisfying relationships and communities. Such a lifestyle can be achieved with a fraction of the energy and environmental impact of our current way of life.

So in my mind, true abundance = healthy ecosystems = biodiversity = envrionmentalism = powerdown. These concepts do not seem contradictory to me, as they seem to be to you.

[johnmarkos]

I am opposed to biodiversity because it is one plank in the PR campaign to sell powerdown, which I am viscerally opposed to. My opposition is genuine.

The anti-growth environmentalists propose economic contraction and powerdown as the solution to this problem, but I would argue that powerdown will make it even worse. Powerdown will make everyone poorer, and they will try to compensate by attacking the environment. When fuel gets scarce, people will turn to the forests for wood etc. The environmentalists aren't thinking through the unintended consequences of their social engineering proposals.

I a pro-growth environmentalist. I believe we must grow beyond the planet. If we follow the anti-growth environmentalists, we will resign ourselves to the fate of the dinosaurs -- waiting until a big rock hits us.

In order to achieve abundance, one doesn't have to stay stuck in the high-energy, high-impact technologies of the past 200 years. We'll probably have to change our definition of "abundance" away from jet travel and throwaway plastic toys. Maybe abundance could be defined along the lines of: healthy, delicious food; beautiful, hand-crafted tools and homes; satisfying relationships and communities. Such a lifestyle can be achieved with a fraction of the energy and environmental impact of our current way of life.

So in my mind, true abundance = healthy ecosystems = biodiversity = envrionmentalism = powerdown. These concepts do not seem contradictory to me, as they seem to be to you.

There's gotta be a middle ground here.

Some high technology is compatible with a low energy way of living. Many energy expenditures do not improve quality of life. Energy use does not correlate directly to comfort or quality of life.

Biodiversity may not be an end in itself but it is an indicator of the health of the general environment for humans. For example, mercury poisoning in wilderness species probably correlates to mercury in the human food chain, affecting children and developing fetuses.

This reminds me of a jag I've been on lately about the difference between systems-level thinking and problem-level thinking. The next two paragraphs are conjecture in an attempt to articulate this thought.

Ecologists and those concerned with biodiversity tend to be systems-level thinkers who are good at articulating the big picture but not so good at coming up with working solutions to problems. Traditional Western scientific thinking tends to divide problems up into sub-problems, order them by severity, and solve them one by one. The traditional approach is actually quite effective in some ways.

If the Earth were a house, systems-level thinkers would be the only ones who were capable of articulating that the place was falling apart. On the other hand, they would be incapable of picking up a wrench or a mop and fixing the problem. Problem-level thinkers want to start fixing things, once they perceive there is a problem to solve.

Anyway, I think we need both kinds of thinkers.

[Liamj]

...This reminds me of a jag I've been on lately about the difference between systems-level thinking and problem-level thinking. The next two paragraphs are conjecture in an attempt to articulate this thought.

Ecologists and those concerned with biodiversity tend to be systems-level thinkers who are good at articulating the big picture but not so good at coming up with working solutions to problems. Traditional Western scientific thinking tends to divide problems up into sub-problems, order them by severity, and solve them one by one. The traditional approach is actually quite effective in some ways.

If the Earth were a house, systems-level thinkers would be the only ones who were capable of articulating that the place was falling apart. On the other hand, they would be incapable of picking up a wrench or a mop and fixing the problem. Problem-level thinkers want to start fixing things, once they perceive there is a problem to solve.

Anyway, I think we need both kinds of thinkers.

Hmm, systems vs. problem thinking is a useful pair of reference frames, but my experiences & observations are quite different to yours.

Ecologists don't have problems finding solutions to problems, its making those solutions work/getting them implemented within 'growth' economics that is the undo-able.
-How do you slow landclearing (which causes salinity, erosion, biodiversity loss etc) when MORE land is reqd (for ag, housing, roads...) every year?
-How do you reduce pollution when its cheaper to pollute (& MAYBE pay occasional fines) than scrub your emisions?
-How do you reduce water use when ppl aren't charged by how much they use?

Do you blame doctors for ppl not quitting smoking?

Also, the solutions provided by non-holistic science are frequently of short term use only. Sure, we can divert a river to irrigate crops; but irrigation raises water tables locally (leading to salinity, waterlogging, soil structure collapse, infrastructure corrosion..) and kills rivers where its taken from. We can kill 90% of the bugs in a 900ha paddock, but those that survive have increased pesticide immunity & no predators and their population can explode. If you keep your head inside the problem-frame box you can avoid seeing the consequences, but they're still there.

[johnmarkos]

Ecologists don't have problems finding solutions to problems, its making those solutions work/getting them implemented within 'growth' economics that is the undo-able.
-How do you slow landclearing (which causes salinity, erosion, biodiversity loss etc) when MORE land is reqd (for ag, housing, roads...) every year?
-How do you reduce pollution when its cheaper to pollute (& MAYBE pay occasional fines) than scrub your emisions?
-How do you reduce water use when ppl aren't charged by how much they use?

The problems you are describing are not caused by problem-level thinking but by no thinking at all. That is, by people simply doing what they want, without considering the consequences. Although solutions to these problems may originate in the minds of systems-level thinkers, they will never be implemented until they are translated into problem-level language. It's the only language people who have the power to make policy or stop polluting understand.

Do you blame doctors for ppl not quitting smoking?

No. In fact, I would point out that the reduction in the number of (U.S.) smokers is a success of doctors' problem-level thinking. Measurement (problem-level thinking) of the illnesses (heart disease, cancer) caused by smoking translated into policy (Surgeon General's Warning, restriction of advertising), which resulted in changed behavior. Doctors and others knew for centuries that tobacco was bad for people's health. This gut knowledge was systems-level thinking. However, noone could change people's behavior from the instinctive, "I want to smoke, therefore I shall smoke," until doctors quantified the problem using allopathic medicine and scientific measurement.

[Liamj]

Ecologists don't have problems finding solutions to problems, its making those solutions work/getting them implemented within 'growth' economics that is the undo-able.
-How do you slow landclearing (which causes salinity, erosion, biodiversity loss etc) when MORE land is reqd (for ag, housing, roads...) every year?
-How do you reduce pollution when its cheaper to pollute (& MAYBE pay occasional fines) than scrub your emisions?
-How do you reduce water use when ppl aren't charged by how much they use?

The problems you are describing are not caused by problem-level thinking but by no thinking at all. That is, by people simply doing what they want, without considering the consequences. Although solutions to these problems may originate in the minds of systems-level thinkers, they will never be implemented until they are translated into problem-level language. It's the only language people who have the power to make policy or stop polluting understand.

Do you blame doctors for ppl not quitting smoking?

No. In fact, I would point out that the reduction in the number of (U.S.) smokers is a success of doctors' problem-level thinking. Measurement (problem-level thinking) of the illnesses (heart disease, cancer) caused by smoking translated into policy (Surgeon General's Warning, restriction of advertising), which resulted in changed behavior. Doctors and others knew for centuries that tobacco was bad for people's health. This gut knowledge was systems-level thinking. However, noone could change people's behavior from the instinctive, "I want to smoke, therefore I shall smoke," until doctors quantified the problem using allopathic medicine and scientific measurement.

I disagree. It wasnt problem-level thinking that advanced the public health case against tobacco co's, it was decades of research, litigation and document leakage. Proving causuality was delayed for many years while tobacco co's withheld their own data which proved causuality back in the '50s.

There is great problem level tinking for all the probs i mentioned, and we even know approximately how we might fix them, but because there is a lock on the political (bigbusiness lobbies, campaign funding, media representation), legal (most lawyers wins) & economic (cheapest product wins) processes, nothing gets done.

Take US 'Clean Air' Act, everyone knows it will mean more pollution & thus more mortality, there is decades of problem level science on how to monitor & moderate pollution, but with Bush Corp in the Whitehouse it ain't worth anything, they are going backwards.

Probs can be defined in whatever language you like, but economic & political power is real and substantial and will win every time. I'm a bit incredulous that you're suggesting these probs are just a matter of framing.

[johnmarkos]

Probs can be defined in whatever language you like, but economic & political power is real and substantial and will win every time. I'm a bit incredulous that you're suggesting these probs are just a matter of framing.

I'm not. Framing the problems in language that those in power understand is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to solving them.

[smallpoxgirl]

and a guy with a couple of teeth missing and a NASCAR jacket walks up, and says: "Man, this peak oil die-off thing is something else... How soon you reckon it's gonna happen? This society is all fucked up, and we need a die-off, specially of the gubmint. You got gold and a gun Julian?"

I will have you know that I have all my teeth!

So do Jato and Specop (I think.)

[Graeme]

Biologists produce global map of plant biodiversity

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego and the University of Bonn in Germany have produced a global map of estimated plant species richness. Covering several hundred thousand species, the scientists say their global map is the most extensive map of the distribution of biodiversity on Earth to date.

"Plants provide important services to humans—such as ornaments, structure, food and bio-molecules that can be used for the development of drugs or alternative fuels—that increase in value with their richness," says Jetz, an assistant professor of biology at UCSD and the senior author of the paper. "Tropical countries such as Ecuador or Colombia harbor by a factor 10 to 100 higher plant species richness than most parts of the United States or Europe. The question is, Why?"

While explorers to these tropical regions long ago recognized this increased diversity over more temperate regions, the general understanding among ecologists about this striking difference continues to be very limited.

physorg

[Polemic]

Too bad we can't declare southern Mexico and northern South America a "World Park" and relocate the humans out of it (to the south of it.)

Since that won't happen, the rainforests will all be destroyed by their dirt-poor, low IQ, fecund inhabitants working for greedy global corporate interests.

[Graeme]

Shannymara, Thank you for your comment. I posted this article intially because I thought it was an important piece of scientific work. But then I realised that the implications of this work are quite profound. We are going through the painful process of learning to live with our natural environment. We can't just isolate ourselves from it and pretend that our actions won't have any effect on it. Burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests are having a detrimental effect on our environment. We will eventually learn to stop burning ff and look after our forests. I was drawn back to the excellent wikipedia article on sustainable development, which to me points the way ahead.

However, technologies such as renewable energy, recycling and the provision of services can, if carried out appropriately, provide for growth in the economic sense, either without the use of limited resources, or by using a relatively small amount of resources with a small impact. In the latter case, even the use of small amounts of resources may be unsustainable if continued indefinitely without incorporation of more effective recycling.

In addition, in the links below this heading

The United Nations Division for Sustainable Developments lists the following areas as coming within the scope of Sustainable Development;

you will see biodiversity. Then click on this link and see the benefits of biodiversity:

Food and drink
Biodiversity provides food for humans. About 80 percent of our food supply comes from just 20 kinds of plant. Although many kinds of animal are utilised as food, again most consumption is focused on a few species.

There is vast untapped potential for increasing the range of food products suitable for human consumption, provided that the high present extinction rate can be halted.

Medicines
A significant proportion of drugs are derived, directly or indirectly, from biological sources; in most cases these medicines can not presently be synthesized in a laboratory setting. Moreover, only a small proportion of the total diversity of plants has been thoroughly investigated for potential sources of new drugs. Many Medicines and antibiotics are also derived from microorganisms.

Industrial materials
A wide range of industrial materials are derived directly from biological resources. These include building materials, fibres, dyes, resins, gums, adhesives, rubber and oil. There is enormous potential for further research into sustainably utilising materials from a wider diversity of organisms.

Other ecological services
Biodiversity provides many ecosystem services that are often not readily visible. It plays a part in regulating the chemistry of our atmosphere and water supply. Biodiversity is directly involved in recycling nutrients and providing fertile soils. Experiments with controlled environments have shown that humans cannot easily build ecosystems to support human needs; for example insect pollination cannot be mimicked by man-made construction, and that activity alone represents tens of billions of dollars in ecosystem services per annum to mankind.

Leisure, cultural and aesthetic value
Many people derive value from biodiversity through leisure activities such as enjoying a walk in the countryside, birdwatching or natural history programs on television.

Biodiversity has inspired musicians, painters, sculptors, writers and other artists. Many cultural groups view themselves as an integral part of the natural world and show respect for other living organisms.

Don't you think that aiming for sustainable development is a worthy goal? I just hate to see all the pessimism discussed here. Yes we do have problems but it doesn't neccesarily mean that it is the end of civilization in spite of what Lovelock says!