Steven wrote:
> All respect to Volker, the field of Conservation Biology (I was a charter
> member of the society by the way) has badly muddied the water with genetic
> information. There may be some reason to protect genetic information, but
> legally and morally it is an original child. We don't know enough to go
> there yet, IMO. If the genetic definition of species were to prevail, the
> outcome would be that most "species" listed under ESA would be delisted.
> And, I can see Jensen from Utah and what's his name from Alaska making DNA
> testing required on all individuals under the ESA. Some can of worms.
>
Volker here:
I wasn't really suggesting to protect individual (rare) genes. What I meant
was the protection of a process which in turn might result in the protection
of genes. In my opinion, the dynamics inherent in natural systems make the
protection of processes, which are the base of evolution and of the
perpetuation of natural systems, the most important task of conservation.
Populations of animals and plants at the fringes of their distribution are
particularly dynamic systems with constant immi- and emigration events as
well as catastrophic die-offs, new colonisations, and migrations. These
dynamics are valuable processes in many senses and deserve to be protected.
Many of our forms of land use result in the loss of natural processes, such
as a tree farm isn't allowed to go through all the cycles of a natural
forest, a dammed river lacks flooding events, and an agricultural area is
frozen in a certain stage of natural succession.
I suggest that the conservation of natural processes should be an important
part of an environmental ethic.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|