atowhee posted: " "New York Times" has opinion on what our species can and should do about extinctions we are causing: "Humans have the ignominious distinction of being the only species to be individually responsible for a global extinction crisis, and because of " Towheeblog
"New York Times" has opinion on what our species can and should do about extinctions we are causing:
"Humans have the ignominious distinction of being the only species to be individually responsible for a global extinction crisis, and because of that many believe we have a moral responsibility to protect species we have imperiled.
Javier Jaén
By Tim McDonnell
Because of the ravages of habitat destruction, climate change and other man-made threats, up to one million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction. To what lengths can, and should, humans — the species singularly responsible for the worst ecological crisis in 65 million years — go to rescue them from the brink?
Conservation is traditionally a game of protecting parcels of land, keeping people out of the physical spaces that other species need to thrive. But technological advances, and the mounting urgency of biodiversity loss, have inspired scientists to experiment with ever-more ambitious, far-fetched, hands-on and sometimes risky interventions. They include assisted reproduction, which is poised to make the last two remaining northern white rhinos on Earth — both females — a little less lonely by spring 2024. They include physically relocating individual animals, potentially into even closer proximity to people. And they include the controversial, cutting-edge biotechnology known as gene drive, which could be used to write the demise of invasive predators into their own DNA.
As conservation science accelerates, its practitioners are grappling with new ethical questions about how to use it. The history of the field is replete with examples of well-intentioned interventions that backfired, and there remains little international regulation of how biotechnology is deployed in the real world, leaving it up to individual governments, funding organizations and scientists themselves to pump the brakes.
As I write in my guest essay this week, the rest of us humans also need to re-examine our relationship with the ecosystems that sustain us, and set aside the outdated, artificial divide between nature and society. "You might argue there's no such thing as a natural system anymore," Brad Shaffer, a biologist who has argued in favor of using cities as "urban arks" for endangered species, told me.
Humans have not been kind to our roommates on Earth. But we still have a chance to keep more of them from being evicted."
Click here for deeper look at the Patagonia future so contradictory to what profit-drive corporations are supposed to do according to conservative economists. This is NOT kow-towing to shareholders' selfish interests.
Javier Jaén
No comments:
Post a Comment