I am not convinced by the alluded reference to birds not declining in
Brazil. Like the previous post indicated birds are largely passerine and
agile and can move to new habitats, providing there are habitats they can
utililize.  

I could quote Aristotle just to confirm where possibly Wilson is off the
mark, but he is not off the mark, and in my opinion the prediction that
100,000 species will become extinct is likely given current trends. I will
quote Aristotle:

"Anyway, a rap on the knuckles is surely earned by anyone who, perceiving
things to be thus in what is in any case the statistical exception even of
sensibles, extrapolates to the entire universe. Our little corner of the
observable universe is unique in its constant exposure to birth and decay.
It is an entirely negible component of the universe as a whole." [Book
Gamma, Metaphysics].

Now to get to the facts about birds. The contrarians argue from census
rather than from trends. Now if we look at bird extinctions we find first
that most birds that became extinct were species that lived on islands.
There are exceptions such as the carrier pigeon which lived on the North
American continent. Various bird species that lived on islands did not adapt
to man hunting them for pleasure and food. The fact is that when Thoreau
lived he had no recollection of seeing a single living Woodcock (pileated
woodpecker), and the only one he saw was a carcass. At the time this bird
was hunted to near extinction by hunters who sold them for food in local
markets much as the carrier pigeon was sold. They came back luckily, but
even so not until forests regrew and the trees became larger. Like the ivory
billed woodpecker, they could have become extinct in North America and
luckily for the ivory billed woodpecker it  still survives in Cuba. 

1.      Most species that have become extinct could no adapt to human
predation, especially island populations. The domestic cat is responsible
for extinction of species on some islands, for instance. Humans often
introduce vectors and predators into habitats having species which are not
accustomed to domesticated predators. 

2.      The effects of extinction of one species may impact negatively many
other species. For instance many other species of cavity nesting and
burrowing birds and mammals depend on the Pileated woodpecker. If the
pileated woodpecker becomes extinct, there is a great and distinct
possibility that other brids will become extinct due to a shortage of
cavities made by the woodpecker in trees. The effect is referred to as
'cascading extinction' brought on by the loss of a 'pathfinder' species such
as the pileated woodpecker. Another example is the salmon and grizzly bear.
With the end of the wild salmon stocks there is an inevitable decline in
food for bald eagles. Great numbers of bald eagles feed on salmon carcasses
left by grizzly bears which feed on the roe (eggs) and discard the
carcasses. The demise of various salmon species then involves the bear, and
the eagle and there are even more interactions that occur. One interaction
that is more slow but is also very insidious is the demise of berry plants.
Without the bear there is no dispersal of the huckleberry, and without the
regeneration of the huckleberry there is a lack of pollinators in the area,
and so on. When the reduction of wildfire is concurrent due to clearcut
logging in the most productive areas, there is an overlapping of effects
(cumulative effects) such that without wildfires, there is a lack of
regeneration of willow species. The willow along with other deciduous
species are the most species rich plants in the boreal forest. Up to 300
species of insects have been observed on these shrub and tree species. The
cascading and cumulative effects of forest management, habitat destruction,
and exploitation are very difficult to reverse once a certain point is
reached in the development of the forest. It is what I call the phenomenon
of the 'biological ice age' a stage which is irreversible. We can see this
phenomenon taking full hold in Asia, Europe, and in parts of the Americas.
For instance in the plains for instance there are only about 1 % of the
original grassland ecosystems still left intact. The simple fact is that
most of the species that once found their home there are no longer there:
coyotes, wolves, grizzly bears, elk, bison, antelope, etc. and the only
refugia that exists for these plains species in is in parks, or zoos, and
for the record there is no longer any plains bison left since they are
genetically indistinct now from the woodlands bison. On 99 % of the original
grassland ecosystems it is a fact that over 99 % of the species are
extirpated, and their only habitat left is in small fragment parks. In
Canada alone we now have over 300 species on the threated and endangered
lists. The cost of maintaining these species over the next decades will
become incredibly expensive, and some of these species will become extinct,
and other species will follow the same path of threatened existence. Even
frogs and many amphibia are in decline. So it is the trends that are
alarming, and it is inevitable that unless the source of the problem is
rectified there will be a cascade of extinctions. 

Closer to home. The wolverine, the fischer, the grizzly bear, the mountain
caribou (keystone species), the pine martin, the lynx, dolly varden are also
on their way out. Only sporadic individuals are reported even though as
recently as the early 90's they were still commonly seen. Canada has no
effective legislation to protect species dispite being a signatory to the
International Convention on Biodiversity. Other species that are in decline
inlcude the Chinook salmon, the northern spotted owl here. Steelhaed salmon
are very rare as well in the southern areas of their habitat. 

One reason cited for the decline of the mountain caribou is the location of
clearcuts. The clearcuts create great habitat for moose which would normally
not be common in an old forest. The presence of moose serves as a
compensatory prey species for the wolf. The wolf normally cannot survive in
the winter where caribou live in the mountains since there is no large
animals to prey on. So with the creation of a vast number of clearcuts, the
wolves can prey on the moose in the winter, and then in the summer migrate
to the alpin areas and prey on caribou calves assisted by roads, etc. This
is why the mountain caribou is now becoming extinct in BC and northern
Idaho. The caribou is also preyed on by bears as well, but the main factor
is the wolf which can easily hunt the calves since the early spring habitat
is largely fragmented and migration corridors are no longer intact due to
roads, railways, water reservoirs, etc. preventing them from seeking out
protective habitat for rearing and calving. In southern most BC, an area as
large as France, there are only about 300 mountain caribou left. In the SW
portion of BC there are only 10-15 grizzly bear left in the north Cascades
mountains. Due to habitat loss, fragmentation, and predation by man, the
most sensitive species have all but vanished. Caribou are also dependent on
old growth forests of Engelman spruce in the late winter since it is these
forests that provide abundant supplies of lichens that are only found on
very old trees. Clearcut logging completely eradicates these lichens which
take up to 250 years to establish in nature. Only very small areas of the
'commercial forest' are being managed to protect late winter habitat. The
only stable populations that exist are located in one or two very large
provincial parks (over 500,000 hectares in size). The prognosis is very poor
for the caribou since only about 6 % of the forests in BC are protected from
clearcut logging. 

Quoting from Aristotle once again: 

"It is clear, then, that wisdom is knowledge having to do with certain
principles and causes." [Metaphysics, book alpha 1]" 

It is also clear from the foregoing discussion that wisdom does not consist
in knowledge of the facts themselves, but more importantly to the knowledge
of causes about the reasons for habitat loss, species extinction, and
degradation of habitat in general. The insight that I am able to offer is
that it is not necessary - in fullness of the recognition of the causes -
that man must become more understanding of nature - but that a more deeply
understood appreciation and respect for nature is required. This involves a
discussion and commitment to principles of action which recognize the
intrinsic worth of nature for it's own ends. The diffuculty in meeting
conservation goals and objectives that would preserve species and habitats
is vastly less when many individuals learn to value nature for nature's
sake. Without a deep sense of responsibility that approaches the
'non-reciprocal' nature of caring symbolized by the relation of parent to
child, there can be no progress. 

The rational understanding, the 'calculative rationality' of appling
technological solutions at the outset, indeed, in advance of any assessment
of personal values and feelings regarding nature, will be hopeless, and it
is not because nature is not resilient enough to withstand more abuse, it is
because man may make the world totally uninhabitable for himself in certain
locations. There is no value purely in protecting species but there is value
in conserving the quality we enjoy in our relatively pristine environment
found in North America. 

In India and Africa for instance the daily struggle for existence approaches
what some people would call 'hell on earth'. I have seen and been in areas
where misery is a fact of daily life, where the water is completely toxic
mud boiling down 'rivers' lined with garbage, where children beg for money
and food or gifts until past midnight. Children with flies constantly
feeding on their skin, eyes and lips. More likely than not their parents are
working in the farms that feed us all this marvellous food and textiles:
coconuts, pineapples, bananas, cotton, etc. The future for western man is
already here, and you can go and live in it if you like, but I dare anyone
to ...just go there and see if you can survive. Try a nice place like La
Victoria, at night alone. Or go to Panama City and visit certain areas in
the day. Find a place where there are no policeman. 

A friend of mine once drank from the waters of the River Ganges. She ended
up in hospital convalescing for 6 months. She was warned...maybe she was
having too much fun in Goa. The is certain wisdom contained in the
principles (arche) of conservation, respect for nature, and moderation of
personal habits of consumption that can be applied to all challenges
confronting life on earth. One is to practice first what one preaches. I
don' therefore acknowledge much power to the belief in the 'moral equivalent
of war' because i think that war means violence, and it is not anything else
but violence to the senses. It may make rational sense to confront violence
with violence, but violence as an end, a value sitting astride an end or
activity is senseless fear of the future. Fear is a powerful force in human
nature, what Jung referred to as the Other, or the possibility of an
irrational presence. That irrational presence cannot be identified since it
is seems to be embodied differently in each individual, but it is the simple
'presence of a anti-utopian' situation that motivates most moral actions.
The presence of the good does not motivate humans in itself since there is
nothing to dread or fear in the good, but only in the bad, the malum bonnum
(Hobbes). This is likewise wisdom of the ancients since Plato talked about
the soldiers' need to over come his fear with a 'noble courage' to take the
beautiful risk. Even Bonhoeffer talks about this 'risk' when he says that
"even if God is dead we should live as though God is still alive" and adding
to this "God is a hypothesis par excellence." 

There is nothing more palliative metaphysically therefore in taking "solace
in uncertainty" whether it is in reference to the good or the bad. It is too
bad that it always takes the threat of risk, an 'eminent hazard' to awaken
any moral action for the good. Did for instance the peoples of the western
hemisphere think it was going to be fun declaring war on Hitler and the Nazi
war machine? No. No one would say that a modern war is fun. So if the same
threat exists with relation to species and their habitat is eminent and
respected and accomplished scientists state that species extinction and
habitat loss is an "ultimate concern" that we should take "solace in
uncertainty"? No of course not. The repercussions are that we North
Americans, the rich, the affluent of the world - whether in means or
abilities - have the sole responsibility to conserve what is left of the
vast biological heritage we have come to recognize and in part to know. And
out of a deep humanitarian respect we should also be practicing moderation
in habits of consumption and choice. 

Abyssus invocat absysum [deep calls unto deep] and the shallow shall
perceive until shallow until they become estuaries of learning and reverence. 

sensibly yours,

john foster







%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%