
Biologist E.O. Wilson suggests ‘moon shot’ conservation effort - chmaynard
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/biologist-e-o-wilson-suggests-moon-shot-conservation-effort/
======
spodek
The challenge isn't coming up with moon shot ideas, the challenge is
implementation -- putting the bell on the cat.

Legislation without popular support is authoritarian, which people resist,
even if they like the law. They claim there is an environmental crisis, but
when voting, Americans don't see it that way.

You'll find no greater fan of science and education than me, but we need to
get to the next level of conservation isn't more facts nor moon shot ideas
from scientists who know that these things can work in principle.

We need people with the social and emotional skills of leadership -- not
likely forefront scientists, though basic scientific knowledge would help.

What works?

Speaking of successful moon shots, JFK wasn't a rocket scientist. He was a
skilled leader. He led and motivated people based on the situation of the
times using social and emotional leadership skills.

~~~
graeme
JFK's actual moonshot 1. required no sacrifice, 2. And wasn't a coordination
between people to sacrifice

That's the problem we face in dealing with environmental challenges. People
have a short run incentive to defect and exploit the environment.

~~~
golergka
How are billions of taxpayer's money not a sacrifice?

~~~
enraged_camel
Sacrifice means giving up something in return for another thing that is worth
much less (or nothing) in value.

Most people, especially on HN, would argue that the Apollo program has yielded
enormous benefits for America. And it cost only $25 billion - about as much as
Trump’s border wall (the cost estimates for which are most likely grossly
optimistic).

~~~
golergka
OK, so the only thing we disagree is the definition of "sacrifice".

------
dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp
A good idea if only because the natural world contains technology far beyond
what humans are capable of engineering today. I use the word technology
loosely here. Plants and animals are self-sustaining, self-replicating,
intelligent, et cetera. We depend on this natural technology to survive.

However, it's a tough political sell for many people (and many powerful
people). The more of us who put up money, the closer to the goal we are.

Charities such as the Nature Conservancy finance nature preserves... I'm
curious about other organizations and philanthropists who do too.

~~~
Gatsky
This is an excellent point. When we lose a species, we are throwing away
genotype-phenotype data which took billions of years to develop.

------
flyGuyOnTheSly
I'm reading E.O. Wilson's "Letters to a young scientist" right now.

He's a thoughtful man who really knows his stuff when it comes to biology.

If he suggests anything at all, the world should listen.

We owe him a greater debt than most people will ever realize.

~~~
8bitsrule
He's also a (literally) down-to-earth author who knows how to hold the
reader's attention ... a fairly rare distinction. He won Pulitzer Prizes for
General Nonfiction (for _On Human Nature_ in 1979, and _The Ants_ in 1991).

------
tonyedgecombe
"he also said that the current U.S. administration’s negative stance on the
environment has created an opportunity to mobilize public support and make
common cause among groups concerned about other policy areas"

It would be ironic if that is the lasting legacy of the current
administration.

~~~
hypertexthero
Another lasting legacy of the current administration might also a re-awakening
of civil rights discussions. See Daryl Davis in ”How can you hate me when you
don't even know me?” — [https://www.yahoo.com/news/unfiltered-can-hate-dont-
even-kno...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/unfiltered-can-hate-dont-even-
know-113457690.html)

------
_bxg1
Sounds wonderful, but I nearly laughed out loud at how unrealistic it is in
today's political climate. We can't even uphold our end of the Paris
Agreement.

~~~
_bxg1
Put differently: it would have been a moonshot three years ago. Today it's
nothing more than a political statement.

~~~
grzm
> _" [I]t would have been a moonshot three years ago. Today it's nothing more
> than a political statement. Today it's nothing more than a political
> statement."_

I'm not sure if this is just a statement on the current political climate or
an attempt to label Wilson as an opportunist speaking now without conviction.
I can't really speak to the former, but as to the latter, Wilson has been
active in conservation for decades, from advocating for forest protection[0]
to calling for setting aside 50% of the planet for wildlife.[1]

[0]:
[http://www.saveamericasforests.org/congress/congress.htm](http://www.saveamericasforests.org/congress/congress.htm)

[1]: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-world-
real...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-world-really-set-
aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/?no-ist)

~~~
_bxg1
The former. In my view the idea is empty (beyond being a thought
experiment/illustration of how badly we've messed things up already), but I'm
not suggesting it's empty for lack of conviction, only that he must himself
see how unrealistic it is.

------
announcerman
It's easy to be in favor of not cutting down rainforests when you're sipping
Brazilian coffee at your cushy software development job, it's much harder when
you're the one planting the coffee so your family doesn't starve to death.

~~~
vixen99
Why assume (some) coffee planters are too dumb not to understand a balance
sheet with the pros and cons of rainforest destruction clearly set out?

~~~
JasonFruit
Why did you jump to stupidity? When a person's livelihood is threatened, they
think about ensuring things like shelter, food, and clothing, not what the
environment will be like in a century. You need leisure and plenty before you
can worry about that sort of thing.

------
jfaucett
> Wilson, Harvard’s Pellegrino University Professor emeritus, says that
> setting aside half of the Earth’s land and half of its oceans would be
> enough to save 85 percent of species, which are becoming extinct at a rate
> between 100 and 1,000 times the rate before humans.

This is ridiculous. Species extinction is nothing new, that literally is the
process of evolution and the universe as we know it. The amazing thing is one
species has so far overcome that and managed to bring evolution to an ever
increasing degree under its own control. If we don't want a species to go
extinct our primary concern should be how it effects human well-being. Some
species going extinct is very likely a net positive for human flourishing on
this planet, others very likely a huge loss. But regardless I think it should
be weighed in that context. Obviously, this still means you should look after
the world - its the only one we've got - and we want to maximize human
flourishing in it so we need to care for it.

But these people are so far removed from nature's reality its crazy -
especially considering they are biologists. This idea that nature is something
beautiful and lovely apart from these evil humans who live in it is, frankly,
absurd. Nature is harsh, brutal and violent. If you don't believe this try
living without heating, electricity, running water, and access to a grocery
store for a prolonged period of time. I've done it and its brutal and that is
with a massive amount of technology and tools to overcome the harsh
environment that surrounds us.

~~~
7952
One of the advantages of our mastery of the environment is that we can choose
to do things for frivelous reasons. We don't have to protect nature but we
want to because it is beautiful and amazing. Just like we don't have to send
humans to space, but we really want to.

These are primarily moral questions. The environment and our interactions with
it are just too complex to manage in such a mechanistic way.

~~~
thereisnospork
If we aren't making the world better for people, what are we doing it for? How
can the objective 'make the world better for people' be immoral? Its a zero
sum game, every dollar and man-hour spent preserving the Laotian spotted dung
beetle could have been spent helping improve the lives of people.

I'm not trying to argue their isn't value in the nature, aesthetically,
recreationally, scientifically, etc. but these are points that need to be
weighted against the human cost of preservation not 'let them eat cake'
platitudes.

~~~
7952
All sides invariably believe that what they are proposing is in the best
interest of humanity.

The environment is tricky because there are so many things that you would
ideally not want to put into conflict with one another. Just look at the
debate over herbicide use in farming. You have to balance the livelihood of
farmers, the health of insects, food supply, human health etc. I don't think
there is a single simple answer to that question. That is why it becomes a
political and moral question. That is the process that we use for answering
difficult contraversial questions. And the solutions inevitably have benefit
and costs to different people.

~~~
thereisnospork
> You have to balance the livelihood of farmers, the health of insects, food
> supply, human health etc.

This is the role that money serves in society. If the greater we can't or
won't pay a Brazilian to not cut down a bit of rainforest - it literally
wasn't worth saving. (because the collective we would rather have the
hardwood/farmland).

------
pvaldes
My applause to harvard.edu and Mr. Powell for including the name of the human
in the title instead of the outrageous and demeaning "scientists say" motto
that lazy journalists use commonly. We need more people aware that science is
done by individual people with real faces and names.

------
PeterStuer
Can only happen if we manage to reverse this clock. In the current political
climate this can only happen through pandemic outbreaks of deadly diseases or
through world-war. Barring those we'll consume ourselves to death.

[http://www.worldometers.info/world-
population/](http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)

------
spraak
The article misses that the reason we need to do this us much more than for
enjoyment of nature, but that we need it to survive.

------
pfisch
I mean this proposal is sort of ridiculous. There is just no chance this is
going to happen at all.

Stopping global warming is far less ambitious and we clearly can’t do that.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
This is not a "moon shot". The total cost of the entire Apollo program over 14
years was around 200 billion 2016 dollars.

The costs of reserving half the Earth's land and oceans will easily be in the
trillions in terms of economic opportunity costs.

In addition, it will need to be defended. My guess is that much of the
critical areas needed for this effort are inhabited or exploited by some of
the poorest people in the world and they will desperately fight anyone who
tries to take away their livelihood (witness for example the backlash of
people in coal country to any attempt to curtail coal)

Given how humanity is not really doing much about climate change which in the
next few decades will significantly affect humans directly and costs a
fraction of what is being suggested here to mitigate, I have no hope that
anything even resembling this will come to pass other than by someone forcibly
conquering the world and then issuing a decree.

~~~
Alex3917
> The costs of reserving half the Earth's land and oceans will easily be in
> the trillions in terms of economic opportunity costs.

That's not really that much money in the grand scheme of things, especially
since the benefits would greatly outweigh the costs.

~~~
sokoloff
Could you make an attempt to enumerate and quantify the benefits and discount
them back to today (DCF analysis)?

------
austincheney
> which are becoming extinct at a rate between 100 and 1,000 times the rate
> before humans

I have always wondered how people come up with that conclusion. How do people
guess at those numbers? We honestly don't know how fast species went extinct
at various points in the past and we don't really know how fast they are going
extinct right now. We are still discovering new species, by the way, and there
may be some that go extinct that we never discover.

~~~
nharada
> We honestly don't know how fast species went extinct at various points in
> the past and we don't really know how fast they are going extinct right now.

Citation needed please. Yes, they're estimates, but there are scientists who
have devoted their entire careers to exactly that question. A quick Google
turns up entire books devoted to this topic
([http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/344/13...](http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/344/1307/local/front-
matter.pdf)) Your phrasing here makes it sound like this number is entirely
random and not based on any evidence or science.

~~~
ianai
It seems like blanket denials of research to impeach an article would be
against the rules here.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
I don’t know about the rules, but the comment is certainly uninteresting. It’s
getting downvoted currently, which is nice.

