The difference between science and pseudo-moral programs.

The following one-page article is a good example of writing about a subject, and slanting it with pseudo-morality as regards humans and their relationship with our planet. As a eugenicist, I try to refrain from declaring that unless we act quickly in a certain way, “humans will evolve back to being apes,” or some other such dire but un-provable speculation. Yet, the desire on the part of those promoting the preservation of biodiversity could be used to argue for human biodiversity and the preservation of races and even the formation of new races or breeding populations. Some groups could breed for athletic ability, intelligence, beauty, and yet others for a host of preferred behavioral traits (happiness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, etc.).

I would argue then that people who plead for the preservation of biodiversity are no different from those of us who argue for the application of eugenics to improve our children’s genetic quality. In both cases, the argument is not scientific but a program to fulfill a desire or to bring about one’s worldview. It is often said that eugenics is a pseudoscience, but in fact, it is not a science at all. Just like those who worry about biodiversity, they have no way of proving that with the loss of biodiversity humans would be better or worse off—at this point it is mere speculation. Just as a eugenicist may be able to show that on average, intelligence is now declining, that fact does not dictate a solution or a program. A eugenic’s program then needs no justification, and neither does a program for preserving biodiversity. The difference is, those who argue for biodiversity have been able to pass laws to protect species, while eugenics has been shunned as inhumane or unworkable. The only difference in these two programs is that eugenics is allowed when paid for and practiced by the individual, while biodiversity has been forced on all of society with laws to protect endangered species while stopping technological progress.

A quick retort from many who are against genetic manipulation is that many smart people do great harm, like those who invented the atom bomb, so maybe humans should be less intelligent. It is easy to see where such arguments lead—in circles. Therefore, my aim here is to show that any program that is really a promotion of someone’s worldview and not science, should be so acknowledged. With that in mind, I will critique this short article in a way that the biodiversity side would likewise critique a eugenics’ program if it were sewn together as incoherently as their position often is. The article with my comments:

Published online: 20 May 2005
Past century sees biodiversity dive
Michael Hopkin

The latest of the Ecosystem Assessment reports is bad news.

Biodiversity is disappearing faster than ever, according to a report backed by the United Nations. Without action to curb the rate of ecosystem damage, its authors argue, the health and livelihoods of people around the world

.

Humans have done more damage to the world’s stock of biological diversity in the past 50 years than at any other time in history, say the researchers behind the study, titled Ecosystems and Human Well-being: The Biodiversity Synthesis Report. Over the past century, species extinctions have reached about 1,000 times their natural rate, because of human actions.

Unless this trend is halted, people will lose vital benefits from the natural world, dubbed ‘ecosystem services’, said Kaveh Zahedi at the report’s launch in London on 19 May. “Everyone depends on nature for a secure livelihood,” said Zahedi, who is head of the UN Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, UK.

[NUENKE: It is true that humans could not exist without some natural resources, but human longevity, health and prosperity have expanded rapidly over the last 100 years as other species die off. We are now attempting to eradicate polio—would the loss of that particular organism harm humans? How about the thousands of other pests, weeds, molds and diseases we try to destroy in order that those species we rely on can thrive. I can see a cosmopolitan city where there are no pigeons, rats, possum, rabbits, squirrels, sea gulls, geese, dear, feral cats, crows, and an ever increasing number of animals that now thrive and despoil cities. So at least in large cities, we could surely benefit from far fewer species sharing our space.]

Some 3.5 billion people around the world depend on the oceans for food, added Jim Knight, the recently appointed British government minister with responsibility for biodiversity issues. But since the advent of commercial fishing, global fish stocks have plunged by up to 90%. Around 70% of the world’s population still rely on nature for traditional medicines, he added.

[NUENKE: The solution to not having enough food and resources of course is to limit population growth while increasing technology, not necessarily spending money on preserving species that may have no benefit for humans. In addition, if there are some traditional medicines that are preferable to modern medicines, they can be cultivated as we would any other food plant that we grow as crops. It is the very production of food and technology that displaces other species. Let the market place determine which species should be preserved and which ones sacrificed.]

Millennium plan
The report is the latest in a series arising from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year project to catalogue data on the world’s natural resources that involves more than 1,300 scientists. It reveals that 12% of bird species, almost a quarter of mammals and around a third of the world’s amphibians are facing extinction.

This is largely due to destruction of natural ecosystems such as grasslands and forests, says Georgina Mace, one of the report’s authors and director of science at the Institute of Zoology in London. She adds that 10-20% of the remaining resources are due to be converted to other land uses, such as agriculture, by 2050.

But there have been some successes, Mace says. In Europe, for example, financial incentives to encourage farmers to set land aside as a refuge for natural plants, birds and insects, have allowed biodiversity in farmland to bounce back.

[NUENKE: I wonder how the land set-aside program would work if Europeans were starving? These programs work because farmers have become too productive in Europe, driving down prices, and taking land out of production is just a means to prop up prices while reducing the number of farmers. I would argue that returning land to its more natural state may be aesthetically pleasing for society, but it cannot be shown that a few saved species makes the environment more or less attractive for humans. Again, many weeds and insects are pests for humans and are better off eradicated rather than preserved.]

This shows that economics is the key to achieving similar feats across the world, she argues. “We know biodiversity has value, but [in the past] we’ve been bad at assessing what that value is.”

[NUENKE: Any value assigned to the preservation of biodiversity, versus the value of human expansion of technology, including the elimination of species either as pests or just in the way, is vacuous. I have looked at the arguments, and they are purely emotional, as this article alludes to. It is equivalent to eugenics stating, “We know eugenics has value, but [in the past] we’ve been bad at assessing what that value is.” That is, their indoctrination of the public to accept the benefits of biodiversity without question needs firming up with more propaganda—not scientific facts.]

The report’s authors have put a price tag on the environment to support their argument. They calculate, for example, that an intact hectare of mangrove forest is worth more than US$1,000 to a country such as Thailand, and only $200 when farmed intensively.

[NUENKE: Then why not let the free market determine all questions regarding land use, and keep emotional issues out of the question? If a new dam is to be built, ruining some pristine forest, let an economic analysis determine which one should be forfeited. What are people willing to pay for? How many and how much will people pay to camp, hike, and or hunt in the preserved forest? How much electricity will be generated and how valuable will the recreational lake property be after the damn is built? It is the same kind of cost-benefit analysis that couples can use to determine if they should spend $10,000—the current cost of the procedure—to test harvested fertilized eggs to select those that are free of genetic disease for implantation. Eugenics, like biodiversity, can use the same type of free market considerations for making decisions.] 

Disputed goal
Biodiversity may be at odds with the UN Millennium Development Goals, first among which is to stamp out world poverty and hunger. Some economic analysts argue that this cannot be achieved without an increase in intensive farming.

“There are trade-offs to be worked through,” admits Mace. “The issue is recognizing that there are no win-wins.”

Zahedi points out that another of the Millennium Development Goals calls for environmental sustainability, arguing that, in cases such as fisheries, efforts to preserve biodiversity are not in conflict with the need to ensure a continuing food supply.

[NUENKE: Any goal of stamping out poverty and hunger, that does not include population control, is headed for disaster eventually. Thirty years ago, zero population growth was all the rage. Now it is accepted that anyone should be able to have as many children as they want, and those who have more should pay for these impoverished children. My personal hope is that a massive die-off brought about by climate, war or any other cause, will provide the necessary corrective for preservation of the White race. What Whites need is a reality check, on who they are going to have compassion for—their own kin or someone else’s?

Postscript: While finishing this article I was listening to National Public Radio. A Dr. Patricia Parker was discussing a program of trying to bring about concern for endangered parasites like lice and ticks. Her claim was that since they were of interest to certain scientists, they had value, and should be protected like any other species that is endangered. She foresaw someday expanding the Endangered Species Act to include what most people would like to have eradicated as harmful parasites to humans and other animals. She seemed to have little concern for the fact these parasites are painfully itchy to the host, and explained that humans were also parasites, so we should look on lice and ticks as having the same rights as humans, or some such nonsense. By her logic, we should not interfere with the AIDS virus because we can watch it evolve, viruses have as much right as humans to parasitize a host, and the virus is interesting to some scientists. Someone say Tuskegee Syphilis Project reinvented?]

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Friday, June 3, 2005 at 06:31 PM in Science & Technology
Comments (5) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: ”Authoritarianism” research

Previous entry: Centrism and its implications