Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for February 10, 2008

Science and Public Policy by Aynsley Kellow: Part 2, Virtual Extinctions in Virtual Ecosystems

By

How many plant and animal species go extinct each year?

Some years ago Greenpeace claimed 50,000 -100,000 species each year.

In the comment thread of an earlier blog post Lamna nasus suggested a figure of 90 species of mammal over the past five centuries.

Professor Aynsley Kellow in his new book ‘Science and Public Policy – The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science’ describes the Greenpeace figure of 50,000 – 100,000 species as “virtual reality” made possible by mathematical modelling.

Professor Kellow links the Greenpeace claims, to the modelling of a so-called species-area relationship dependent on the idea that ecosystems are self-regulating and tend towards equilibrium.

Quotable quotes include:

“Ecology lacked a scientifically respectable method for studying life, and the ecosystem approach provided scientific respectability by supplying ecologists with mathematical tools developed by physicists.”

“An ecosystem is nothing more than a construction… Ecologists tried to study ponds as examples of ecosystems, but soon found even they were not closed systems but connected to the watertable, and affected by groundwater flows, spring run-off, migrating waterfowl…”

Professor Kellow goes on to explain the origin of the species-area equation and the theory of island biogeography as developed by Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson. While the theory can explain the number of insect and arthropod species colonizing mangrove islands off the coast of Florida as a function of their distance from the mainland, the theory’s extrapolation to non-island situations and terrestrial ecology more generally is questionable. Furthermore predicting species loss by extrapolating backwards to suggest, for example, that a reduction in the area of forest will produce the same rate of species reduction as does its growth, has no basis in observational data but is common practice in conservation biology.

More quotable quotes include:

“In the absence of hypotheses which might be falsified by observational data, the extensive use of mathematical models introduces a virtual landscape where species, real and virtual, live and die, and where their utility to noble political causes restricts the scepticism of those who might question the validity of such ‘science’.

“Endangered species become not just trumps, but face cards in the game of politics used to create advantage.”

“The increased emphasis on mathematics which lent ecology its scientific gravitas helped steer it towards virtual science rather than experimental science, and it never shook off its normative shackles.”

“It perhaps became too abstract, a discipline attracting deskbound number crunchers more than those who liked to tramp about the woods in wool shirts counting deer scat.” [Kellow quoting Alton Chase]

“Wilson obviously finds beauty in nature, which is all very well, but to privilege this above other human needs as measured by opportunity cost is undoubtedly elitist and inherently anti-humanist.”

“There are, of course, all sorts of objections that can be raised against this virtual science. One fundamental problem is that it is based on the erroneous notion of ecosystem stability, since equilibrium lies at both the base of the theory and in the prescriptive concern with ecosystem maintenance.”

Why I am a Dynamist

By

In 1960 famous Austrian economist and political philosopher Friedrich Hayek wrote an essay entitled ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative’ explaining that a fundamental trait of the conservative attitude is a fear of change while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course.

In the same essay he wrote that conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate. Of course the Left also known as the Social Liberal, or simply Liberal in the US, is also inclined to use the powers of government, but to instigate change. An obvious manifestation of this today is the various rules, regulations and regulated trading systems being imposed by governments across the world with the aim of stopping climate change – something any empiricists (but particularly evolutionary biologists) recognise as impossible.

In the essay Hayek went on to explain that the correct name for his ideas was Whiggism, because it was the ideas of the seventeenth century English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in Europe that provided the conceptions that the American colonists took with them but which was later altered by the French Revolution, with its “totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings”. Hayek ends his essay by coming to an unsatisfactory conclusion as to what any new movement based on his political philosophy might be best called, but this has not stopped many labelling him, incorrectly a Libertarian.

Libertarians believe in freedom as long as the person and property of others is not harmed and that a combination of personal and economic freedom will inevitably produce creativity, abundance and peace.

But in a world of increasingly rapid technological change and increasing concern about the impact of development on the state of the world’s environment and increasing competition for limited resources (including water) there will always be impacts on person and property (particularly if you live downstream). Change brings winners and losers and Libertarianism is not a realistic or sophisticated enough political philosophy to deal with this.

In 1998 Virginia Postrel, the editor of Reason magazine, introduced a new label for a new political philosophy, a philosophy that she explained has given us greater wealth, opportunity and choice than at any time in history. In ‘The Future and Its Enemies – The Growing Conflict over Creativity, Enterprise and Progress’ Postrel suggests, like Hayek, that conservatives and social liberals have much in common and as a consequence the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are of little relevance. Instead she suggests we use the terms ‘stasis’ versus ‘dynamism’ to describe the chasm between those who want to control the future (conservatives and social liberals) and those who believe in the capacity of human beings to improve their lives through trial and error, spontaneous adjustment, adaptation and evolution (dynamists).

Postrel explains that dynamists keep the underlying rules neutral and transparent – a flat tax, for instance – and they stigmatize changes designed to favour particular groups. They believe in free markets but they are not just libertarians with a new name, as they include people with a more expansive view of public goods. So some dynamists support forms of paternalism including seat belt laws, antismoking regulations and a safety net for the poor. But instead of grand plans or ad hoc solutions they have the patience to let trial and error work within well-established and understood rules.

In short, the dynamist recognises that change is real and that our values are not things that have always existed, and will always exist. The future will be a consequence of the legacy of past generations and our own activities and should not be left to chance but neither should we seek to specify in advance exactly what the future will look like.