Re: Why preserving BioDiversity is Extropian (was re: Environmental

Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:08:43 -0500


--------------0D04A78D28492964C9A5189A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paul Hughes wrote:

> CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Maintaining
> >diversity would probably permit improvements to farming in the
> >future, but it's not necessary. The oxygen you breathe effectively
> >comes from whatever plants fixed the carbon in the food you eat
> >- in other words, the same farm plants.
>
> Your statement strikes me as naive. Our understanding of the complex
> web of interconnections between food chains is limited at best. It may
> turn out that there is no connection. Howerver, our you willing to risk
> your survival on a hunch there is no connection between biodiversity and
> the *sustainability* of farming?
>
> First, the so-called green revolution that we have had over the last 30
> years has come at a cost - the depletion of top soil. Nitrogen
> fertilizers have helped us grow more food, but have also accelerated the
> rate at which that same land can't grow again without the introduction
> of ever greater and more potent fertilizers. It doesn't take a genius
> to realize that this trend can't continue forever - there is only so
> much nitrogen one can add to the soil. What is missing is the rich and
> biodiverse topsoil that must be sustained by adding to the soil exactly
> what is taken away (i.e. compost). Suprisingly very few farmers
> actually practice this type of composting.

This is beginning to be alleviated. For thousands of years, humans have
supported their agricultural habit by using their own excrement for
fertilizer along with that of their cows and horses and pigs. This practice
ended early in this century with the Progressives pushing through the FDA
acts which made such use of human waste illegal. Since that time, the
topsoil in this country has steadily declined.

However, in Texas and a few other places, this is beginning to be reversed.
Biosolids (class B types, not the toxic class C) from New York City ("NEW
YORK CITY?" the Texans decry....) are being shipped to a few towns in Texas
and being spread over the land. The land is fully capable of handling as
much agriculture as we want if we put back our wastes.... This is not being
done, instead it is being drained into the oceans.

>
>
> Secondly, the use of pesticides is a war that is slowly being lost.
> What is missing is a complex understanding of the *biodiversity* among
> the insect community that is essential for the pollination of countless
> species of edible plants. Sustainable farmers have realized this and
> have taken great measures to eliminate pesticides; and instead foster
> the growth of certain populatons of insects who are vital to either
> pollination or as predators to those insects who find the crops
> delicious.

And this is a good thing.

>
>
> My point is this: the connections between most species we have studied
> are sublte yet profound (i.e. if one species goes, so do others.) I do
> not know of any connection between say a peruvian beatle and the human
> community. But my ignorance of this, is no reason to gamble on their
> not being one. As an extropian I want to expand myself *indefinitley*.
> So until I have a better undertanding of the complex web of
> interconnections that is this bioshpere, I am not going to rush out and
> kill some species that may turn out to be essential later for my long
> term survival.

No one here advocates purposely destroying species, but if one cannot
compete, then it must either be altered or replaced. maybe an endangered
species' niche is no longer needed (like many North American predators), or
it cannot live by more than a fragile existence. If we are to support the
laws of nature, of which evolution and survival of the fittest are the
paramount ones, then we must not make undue efforts to sustain species which
cannot survive on their own. In this we are extending our own failed welfare
policies to the natural kingdom.

> Besides, the destructiion of biodiversity is not a very extropian thing
> to do as it is a net decrease in overall complexity. Isn't extropianism
> about increasing complexity?
>

Its also about improvement. If a species cannot cut it, then it either needs
to be improved or allowed to die out if it cannot, to be replaced with
another than can compete.

--
TANSTAAFL!!!
   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
------------------------------------------------------------
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?

--------------0D04A78D28492964C9A5189A Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

Paul Hughes wrote:

CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:

> Maintaining
>diversity would probably permit improvements to farming in the
>future, but it's not necessary.  The oxygen you breathe effectively
>comes from whatever plants fixed the carbon in the food you eat
>- in other words, the same farm plants.

Your statement strikes me as naive.  Our understanding of the complex
web of interconnections between food chains is limited at best. It may
turn out that there is no connection.  Howerver, our you willing to risk
your survival on a hunch there is no connection between biodiversity and
the *sustainability* of farming?

First, the so-called green revolution that we have had over the last 30
years has come at a cost - the depletion of top soil.  Nitrogen
fertilizers have helped us grow more food, but have also accelerated the
rate at which that same land can't grow again without the introduction
of ever greater and more potent fertilizers.  It doesn't take a genius
to realize that this trend can't continue forever - there is only so
much nitrogen one can add to the soil.  What is missing is the rich and
biodiverse topsoil that must be sustained by adding to the soil exactly
what is taken away (i.e. compost).  Suprisingly very few farmers
actually practice this type of composting.

This is beginning to be alleviated. For thousands of years, humans have supported their agricultural habit by using their own excrement for fertilizer along with that of their cows and horses and pigs. This practice ended early in this century with the Progressives pushing through the FDA acts which made such use of human waste illegal. Since that time, the topsoil in this country has steadily declined.

However, in Texas and a few other places, this is beginning to be reversed. Biosolids (class B types, not the toxic class C) from New York City ("NEW YORK CITY?" the Texans decry....) are being shipped to a few towns in Texas and being spread over the land. The land is fully capable of handling as much agriculture as we want if we put back our wastes.... This is not being done, instead it is being drained into the oceans.

 

Secondly, the use of pesticides is a war that is slowly being lost.
What is missing is a complex understanding of the *biodiversity* among
the insect community that is essential for the pollination of countless
species of edible plants.  Sustainable farmers have realized this and
have taken great measures to eliminate pesticides; and instead foster
the growth of certain populatons of insects who are vital to either
pollination or as predators to those insects who find the crops
delicious.

And this is a good thing.
 

My point is this:  the connections between most species we have studied
are sublte yet profound (i.e. if one species goes, so do others.)  I do
not know of any connection between say a peruvian beatle and the human
community.  But my ignorance of this, is no reason to gamble on their
not being one.  As an extropian I want to expand myself *indefinitley*.
So until I have a better undertanding of the complex web of
interconnections that is this bioshpere, I am not going to rush out and
kill some species that may turn out to be essential later for my long
term survival.

No one here advocates purposely destroying species, but if one cannot compete, then it must either be altered or replaced. maybe an endangered species' niche is no longer needed (like many North American predators), or it cannot live by more than a fragile existence. If we are to support the laws of nature, of which evolution and survival of the fittest are the paramount ones, then we must not make undue efforts to sustain species which cannot survive on their own. In this we are extending our own failed welfare policies to the natural kingdom.

Besides, the destructiion of biodiversity is not a very extropian thing
to do as it is a net decrease in overall complexity.  Isn't extropianism
about increasing complexity?
 

Its also about improvement. If a species cannot cut it, then it either needs to be improved or allowed to die out if it cannot, to be replaced with another than can compete. 

--
TANSTAAFL!!!
   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
------------------------------------------------------------
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?
  --------------0D04A78D28492964C9A5189A--