Monthly Semi-Intelligent Thought
I admit I haven't been having very many philosophical/intelligent thoughts recently, or I have chosen simply not to post them online via LiveJournal. However, I will now bore you to oblivion with a thought I had this morning (or just skip this entry and read stuff about the parties your other LiveJournal buddies attended this past weekend)...
By the way, this is not an argument or anything of that sort. It's the random assortment of my various thoughts, and they may be neither concise nor logical.
There's been a revival of debate regarding the Kyoto Protocol and its associated concerns due to a U.N. environmental conference this week in some South American country. There are some crazy editorials and commentaries popping up from everywhere in the political spectrum, including this one I read this morning (written by a "Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy"):
"According to a report on the projected annual costs of the Kyoto treaty to the United States, issued by the federal Energy Information Agency in October 1998..., 'The total cost to the economy can be estimated as the loss in actual GDP (the loss in potential GDP plus the macroeconomic adjustment cost) plus the purchase of international permits... Total costs range from an annual average level for the period 2008 to 2012 of $77 billion to $338 billion 1992 dollars depending on the carbon reduction case and how funds are recycled back to the economy.' ...What liberal environmentalists really hate is American business...The Kyoto treaty is their bid to close down entire sectors of American business under threat as-yet-conclusively proven scientific horrors to come."
When I read this, my initial reaction was one of outrage. In the past, I had been an extremely zealous supporter of environmental issues, due in part to my understanding of the environment and biological processes.
However, I've become more moderate in my beliefs since then. My belief now is that social evolution has surpassed biological evolution in importance. Humans have become so biological accomplished that they are able to manipulate species populations and (some) environmental factors to their own desires.
There is a famous scientific study involving the wolf-versus-deer population of a particular closed-system island environment. When fluctuations in the population of one species occurs, then there will be a change in the population of the other species to balance it. For example, if the weather is good that year and plants are plentiful on the island, the deer population will increase (more food = more breeding). Because there are more deer the following year, there will also be more wolves (again, since there are more deer to feed on, the wolves can breed more). The increase in wolf population will cause a decrease in deer population (more deer will be eaten as a result of more wolves). The decrease in deer population will in turn cause a decrease in wolf population (now there's less food since there were so many wolves before). The cycle here is evident.
Unfortunately, no such cycle operates to restrain human behavior. If humans wish to kill and eat all of the deer in the world, it can probably be accomplished without too much effort (it could occur in the period of a decade at most; a relatively short time in terms of biology). This will not damage the human population, because humans can find other sources of food, such as nuts, fruits, etc. The cultivation of agriculture has also removed the reliance humans have on wild animal populations. Because humans can cut a lot of the dependences that other species generally have, they are that much stronger (I am referring to "uncontrolled" dependences; for example, humans are still dependent on cattle and grain populations, but these are populations that can be "controlled" through agriculture).
(By the way, there are other factors contributing to the success of humans, including the innovative human mind, etc. The human population is harder to control because humans are constantly "in heat"; that is, they can reproduce whenver they choose, compared to a dog that is in heat only about once a year. This is another issue, though...)
If humans are so biological superior, what prevents them from totally annihilating other species? It's somewhat paradoxical in the classic perspectives of biology. My answer to this is social developments. It's true that humans kill roughly 2-8 species per day. However, social developments through time have convinced certain groups of individuals ("liberal environmentalists") to join causes in protecting other (or certain) species. The Chinook salmon of Oregon is an endangered species and will continue to receive revival efforts because of people who believe that it is wrong for the human species to completely kill off another population.
It's not so much a biological issue (even if almost every other species in the world died, humans would only need to cultivate the right plants species to maintain oxygen levels, and the necessary plants and animals they require for food...this is a little simplified, but for the sake of cutting down this argument--). It has become a moral issue, or maybe even an economical issue. It is "wrong" to kill off the endangered blue whales of the ocean through human pollution, hunting, etc. It is "right" to help the dwindling population of giant pandas in China, which have declined based on assumptions that human actions are involved. However, the poor economic and social conditions of Madagascar sort of remove the importance of biological ethics. It's not "right" or "wrong" to kill the world's only population of wild lemurs; it's survival of your people.
When I view it from this perspective, it seems a little cynical. It's very depressing for a biology major to see it this way.
As I consider the implications and concerns of the Kyoto Protocol, however, thoughts in my mind begin to change. Even if humans wish to say they are powerful enough to neglect influences of the environment, the environment, the economy, and people's ethics are still strongly tied. It's a tug-o-war between biological ethics and economical success (given the quoted statement I provided at the beginning of this monstrous entry).
However, stepping back from this, and looking at it purely from the biologist's point of view, our silly arguments about economic growth in the face of reviving the environment is trivial to the Earth. For humans, yes, social evolution is incredibly important, and it does hold strong influence over the futures of some species and areas.
The earth, unfortunately, doesn't care. If humans cause fluctuations of global temperature, they are potentially causing damage to themselves at no cost to the earth. Sure, some species may suffer. Perhaps fish populations will decline or polar bears will be left without their usual means of hunting. However, some poor village tribe on a Pacific island will suffer when the fish they rely on suddenly decline in population. Ok, so maybe no one will care if little islands like Madagascar undergo absurd economical and environmental destruction. The "big boys" of the world will still press forward with their reliance on agriculture, trade, etc. If the earth continues to change, more and more of the weaker countries/societies may suffer while the stronger ones carry on the human species.
Regardless of whether global warming was caused by humans or not, I'm now keeping in mind that the economical/social impacts are much more important than the biological ones. If other species undergo extinction, they've lost the game. Humans are no different; humans are still a species of the planet. If humans undergo extinction, the earth could care less. The earth will continue to exist and propogate new species (until the end of time or this particular universe, I suppose). If it is required, the earth may even propogate species better suited for warmer temperatures.
I don't know what I'm trying to say.
I'm lost.
By the way, this is not an argument or anything of that sort. It's the random assortment of my various thoughts, and they may be neither concise nor logical.
There's been a revival of debate regarding the Kyoto Protocol and its associated concerns due to a U.N. environmental conference this week in some South American country. There are some crazy editorials and commentaries popping up from everywhere in the political spectrum, including this one I read this morning (written by a "Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy"):
"According to a report on the projected annual costs of the Kyoto treaty to the United States, issued by the federal Energy Information Agency in October 1998..., 'The total cost to the economy can be estimated as the loss in actual GDP (the loss in potential GDP plus the macroeconomic adjustment cost) plus the purchase of international permits... Total costs range from an annual average level for the period 2008 to 2012 of $77 billion to $338 billion 1992 dollars depending on the carbon reduction case and how funds are recycled back to the economy.' ...What liberal environmentalists really hate is American business...The Kyoto treaty is their bid to close down entire sectors of American business under threat as-yet-conclusively proven scientific horrors to come."
When I read this, my initial reaction was one of outrage. In the past, I had been an extremely zealous supporter of environmental issues, due in part to my understanding of the environment and biological processes.
However, I've become more moderate in my beliefs since then. My belief now is that social evolution has surpassed biological evolution in importance. Humans have become so biological accomplished that they are able to manipulate species populations and (some) environmental factors to their own desires.
There is a famous scientific study involving the wolf-versus-deer population of a particular closed-system island environment. When fluctuations in the population of one species occurs, then there will be a change in the population of the other species to balance it. For example, if the weather is good that year and plants are plentiful on the island, the deer population will increase (more food = more breeding). Because there are more deer the following year, there will also be more wolves (again, since there are more deer to feed on, the wolves can breed more). The increase in wolf population will cause a decrease in deer population (more deer will be eaten as a result of more wolves). The decrease in deer population will in turn cause a decrease in wolf population (now there's less food since there were so many wolves before). The cycle here is evident.
Unfortunately, no such cycle operates to restrain human behavior. If humans wish to kill and eat all of the deer in the world, it can probably be accomplished without too much effort (it could occur in the period of a decade at most; a relatively short time in terms of biology). This will not damage the human population, because humans can find other sources of food, such as nuts, fruits, etc. The cultivation of agriculture has also removed the reliance humans have on wild animal populations. Because humans can cut a lot of the dependences that other species generally have, they are that much stronger (I am referring to "uncontrolled" dependences; for example, humans are still dependent on cattle and grain populations, but these are populations that can be "controlled" through agriculture).
(By the way, there are other factors contributing to the success of humans, including the innovative human mind, etc. The human population is harder to control because humans are constantly "in heat"; that is, they can reproduce whenver they choose, compared to a dog that is in heat only about once a year. This is another issue, though...)
If humans are so biological superior, what prevents them from totally annihilating other species? It's somewhat paradoxical in the classic perspectives of biology. My answer to this is social developments. It's true that humans kill roughly 2-8 species per day. However, social developments through time have convinced certain groups of individuals ("liberal environmentalists") to join causes in protecting other (or certain) species. The Chinook salmon of Oregon is an endangered species and will continue to receive revival efforts because of people who believe that it is wrong for the human species to completely kill off another population.
It's not so much a biological issue (even if almost every other species in the world died, humans would only need to cultivate the right plants species to maintain oxygen levels, and the necessary plants and animals they require for food...this is a little simplified, but for the sake of cutting down this argument--). It has become a moral issue, or maybe even an economical issue. It is "wrong" to kill off the endangered blue whales of the ocean through human pollution, hunting, etc. It is "right" to help the dwindling population of giant pandas in China, which have declined based on assumptions that human actions are involved. However, the poor economic and social conditions of Madagascar sort of remove the importance of biological ethics. It's not "right" or "wrong" to kill the world's only population of wild lemurs; it's survival of your people.
When I view it from this perspective, it seems a little cynical. It's very depressing for a biology major to see it this way.
As I consider the implications and concerns of the Kyoto Protocol, however, thoughts in my mind begin to change. Even if humans wish to say they are powerful enough to neglect influences of the environment, the environment, the economy, and people's ethics are still strongly tied. It's a tug-o-war between biological ethics and economical success (given the quoted statement I provided at the beginning of this monstrous entry).
However, stepping back from this, and looking at it purely from the biologist's point of view, our silly arguments about economic growth in the face of reviving the environment is trivial to the Earth. For humans, yes, social evolution is incredibly important, and it does hold strong influence over the futures of some species and areas.
The earth, unfortunately, doesn't care. If humans cause fluctuations of global temperature, they are potentially causing damage to themselves at no cost to the earth. Sure, some species may suffer. Perhaps fish populations will decline or polar bears will be left without their usual means of hunting. However, some poor village tribe on a Pacific island will suffer when the fish they rely on suddenly decline in population. Ok, so maybe no one will care if little islands like Madagascar undergo absurd economical and environmental destruction. The "big boys" of the world will still press forward with their reliance on agriculture, trade, etc. If the earth continues to change, more and more of the weaker countries/societies may suffer while the stronger ones carry on the human species.
Regardless of whether global warming was caused by humans or not, I'm now keeping in mind that the economical/social impacts are much more important than the biological ones. If other species undergo extinction, they've lost the game. Humans are no different; humans are still a species of the planet. If humans undergo extinction, the earth could care less. The earth will continue to exist and propogate new species (until the end of time or this particular universe, I suppose). If it is required, the earth may even propogate species better suited for warmer temperatures.
I don't know what I'm trying to say.
I'm lost.