On Extinction

[Rkitko]

A friend posted this on his livejournal (http://lord-whimsy.livejournal.com). I decided to share it with all of you:


CHINESE RIVER DOLPHIN DECLARED EXTINCT

http://www.somethingtimeless.com/images/061214-dolphin-extinct_big.jpg

The rare Chinese river dolphin has gone extinct, according to scientists who could not find a single one of the animals during a six-week search on China's Yangtze River. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061214-dolphin-extinct.html?source=rss)

A beautiful, strange creature that has existed for 20 million years, now gone forever.

Here's something sobering: scientists estimate that over 90% of all species that once lived on our planet are now extinct. Of course most were from natural causes (I think there has been over six major worldwide extinction events during the course of Earth's history), but what worries me is that our resilience as a species will only accellerate this extinction wave. I see it in people who have such a lowered threshold of beauty that they find the most banal music, art and surroundings enjoyable, even preferable. People like this, of which there are legion, won't miss the richness that once existed in our world. We can stand to be a bit less accommodating, I think; it might save us from a world of inescapable desolation. So would the idea that this is the only world, and it is all we have.

My conception of Paradise (if I believed in such things) would be brimming with extinct creatures: Carolina Parakeets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Parakeet), Dodos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo), Moas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa), Quaggas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quagga), Thylacines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_wolf), Trilobites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite), Mammoths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth), etc. Anyone have a favorite extinct animal they might like to see brought back?

[Rkitko]

My reply? I'd like to see the Passenger Pigeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon) back. Aldo Leopold wrote of that species:


Men still live who, in their youth remember pigeons; trees still live that, in their youth, were shaken by a living wind. But a few decades hence only the oldest oaks will remember, and at long last only the hills will know.

We grieve because no living man will ever see again the onrush of victorius birds, sweeping a path for spring across the March skies, chasing the defeated winter from all of the woods and prairies.

There will always be pigeons in books and in museums but they are dead to all hardships and to all delights. They cannot dive out of a cloud, nor clap their wings in thunderous applause. They know no urge of seasons; they feel no kiss of sun, no lash of wind and weather, they live forever by not living at all.

[Bat]

Does anyone else feel like crying when they read this stuff?

[Rkitko]

Yes, Bat, I do. And it's OK to mourn the loss. It's fortunate that these large mammal extinctions are few and far between compared to the other kinds of species. Just don't forget to mourn for the Rocky Mountain locust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_locust), the Xerces Blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerces_Blue), and the Grass Valley Speckled Dace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_Valley_Speckled_Dace). We're in the middle of the Holocene extinction event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event) (largely caused by humans) and in the last century, anywhere from 20,000 to 2,000,000 species went extinct with 3-4 per day being the best guess. Of course, the rate of extinction has increased with time and current estimates are around 6 species per hour. I mention this not to make anyone depressed, but to ask that you direct that sadness and rage into action.

Our poor planet...

Someone once joked that with the extinction of one species, many others may be spared.

[Bat]

I just saw a bat the other evening...flew under the lights on the corner of the house, evidently after something to eat. This is December for crying out loud!! There are maybe a few moths and gnats at this time of year since it's been 40-65 degrees this month. I hope there are enough odd hatchings to feed a bat--they eat a lot. Summer is Bug Utopia around here, but in winter, nada. A bat will not stay in hibernation if it is above 50 degrees and will use up its stored fatty resources in very short order, consequently may not make it through the winter, whether it goes back into hibernation or not.
I am pretty worried about this warm winter we are having, and its effect on what is growing around us, flora and fauna. I don't want to see that bat die, and I would very much like my tulips to come up in the spring! ...unfortunately, RKitko, other than feeding birds and mowing grass after 6 in the summer, there's not a lot I can do about it except make noises to my congressmen when a good petition comes around...I do that.
It is still a very warm winter.

[DaveM]

This leads me to recall weekends spent during childhood (a bit over 30 years ago) at some beach property owned by a friend's family along the St. Croix River (part of the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin). We has masks, fins, and snorkels, and a favorite pastime was to swim around the shallows collecting clams just to see how many we could assemble in a weekend (if I remember right the record was around 750). We never took them out of the water, mind, and at the end of the weekend took care to spread them out a safe distance from the beach so they would not be harmed.

Four species of clams inhabit the St. Croix. Each is now on the endangered list.

[Rkitko]

On the contrary, Bat, I think there's a lot you can do. I'm sure you already do many of the things I'm thinking of, but then good for you! Just don't think your little effort doesn't count. Primarily, reduction of the amount of resources you use is key.

Go to http://ecofoot.org/ and calculate your ecological footprint. Then play around with your figures and see what you'd be willing to do to reduce your footprint. For example, this was my footprint:

TOTAL FOOTPRINT: 21 ACRES. IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON. WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON. IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.6 PLANETS.

Mine's high primarily because I don't take public transit (consequence of my employment), fly a moderate amount (consequence of living away from everyone I love), and consumerism habits (it's hard to shop for local or organic perishables when you're on a fixed budget and live alone). With a few small changes, I'll be down to 19 acres. Still need to work on that, but for further reduction, I'd have to move to another city with better public transportation and radically change my consumer habits.

There's plenty you can do. Though on extinction, most extinction events occur on islands (because they're fragile hotspots of biodiversity) that have been invaded by humans and invasive species. To do anything directly about that, we just need to convince everyone to return those islands to a natural state and quit exploiting their resources. A big job, but it starts with each and every one of us. Perhaps I'm just an obsessive optimist, but I believe I can change the world. Or maybe I'm just young and stupid ;)

[DaveM]

Intriguing. My score was 17. I note that one is disproportionately penalized for eating meat and living in one's own private dwelling (mine is far more energy-efficient than any of the apartments I lived in and could be made more so). I own this house; I earned the money with which to purchase it. I pay for the food I eat--and yes, that includes meat. If grazing land actually held the value accorded it by this survey, beef, especially, would be impossible to afford and the free market would adjust the consumption of it proportionately.

Probably worth noting that there is almost certainly no one on this board who has the "footprint" that their parents, with inefficient appliances, uninsulated houses, 10 mpg cars without pollution controls, and steak on the table every night did. They worried about "the population explosion". We worry about....something to worry about.

Anyone who wishes to is of course free to move into barracks and live on soybeans. I doubt they will like it very much. And trust me, even if everyone did that, it would only be a matter of time before some "save something from the humans" group found a way to make that lifestyle look bad.

Remember DDT? Remember nuclear winter, the coming ice age, and "the big one" that was going to drop California into the ocean (oh and let's not forget swine flu and bird flu)? It's very strange, but we're all still here. Why some insist on feeling guilty about it I have no idea.

[Rkitko]

Interesting thoughts, DaveM. If I interpret your post correctly, I see you bracing yourself against my, and other's, cautions of an unsustainable society and threats to our ecosystem health. I assure you, I am no shrieking enviro wacko presenting doomsday predictions everywhere I go. I present cautious, well-researched arguments. Just a few points:

I bet my parents had a smaller footprint than me. The cars of the 70s were much more fuel effecient than the cars today, both parents worked locally, we ate modestly with a lot of food from our garden... My consumption is way out of hand and I need to get it under control.

It's not necessary to live so simply that all joy is taken out of life. And I typically dig my heels in whenever I hear this kind of rhetoric that evolves when people are faced with something that challenges their comforts. We live beyond our planet's means. Period. Something must change. That's all I'm saying.

The coming ice age was a miscalculation on the part of the scientists in the 70s. They didn't have the available data we have now.

DDT is still being produced in the US and exported elsewhere. We all have concentrations of DDE, the breakdown product of DDT, in our bodies. It's still a threat. Concentrations of other endocrine disrupters like PCBs and dioxins are rising as well, especially in the arctic. I agree some of the clarion calls warning us of some evil are over-the-top and can get on the nerves if heard too often, especially when they don't come true. But I wouldn't dismiss all grand projections. And please note the difference between projections and predictions. Science can project, not predict. I've never posted any comment on these topics in such manner that should be read as a prediction, but rather a projection if current behavior and trends continue.

It's exactly those clarion calls against certain pesticides or against DDT that gets them banned or that helps enact things like the Montreal Protocol. Real change comes from those. Don't tire of these warnings, embrace them.

I don't feel guilty about living. I feel guilty about the way in which I live and the way in which my countrymen and women live. I embrace sustainability and wish I had the means and will to fully change my lifestyle.

Just to clear things up :)

[DaveM]

I am not bracing myself against anyone. I merely find it deeply troubling that the former science of ecology, which purports to be the study of how living thngs interact, has become a quasi-religion which begins with the premise of: "since humans are useless and add nothing to the world, how will every other species on earth handle it?"

Human beings are not useless--as we are a capable species, we have come to dominate the world (when another species builds New York, I'll retract that). But when we build dams, it is an abomination. When a beaver builds dams, it's just doing what beavers do. Sewage runoff into the ocean is considered a major ecological disaster (and I agree that it's poor practice). Meanwhile, fish have been pooping into the ocean for as long as there have been fish.

We are not a plague on the land. We have as much right to be here on our own terms as any other species that is doing the same.

It may be worth noting that the quiz which started this thread is deliverately skewed against anyone living in industrialized countries. The data fails to note that the majority of the world's population has a standard of living which most likely does not have one tenth of the environmental impact as those of us who have prospered. I refuse to apologize for having a roof over my head, warmth in the winter, and mechanized transport (no politically correct public transportation here). That fellow who bathes in the Ganges and picks rice grains out of the gutter in New Delhi most likely would ace this test. Go hand him a trophy and see how he responds. And then take a look at the water quality in the Ganges.

[RedjackRyan]

I scored a surprising 15 on the little test at the top of the thread, most likely from the fact that I rarely drive any further than to and from work except on special events. After playing a bit with the various selections, i'd have to agree with Dave.. there is a definate skew evident.


While i'll admit to being saddened by this species being forced into extinction the practical side of my personality wonders what does this mean overall to me? I'm forced to answer - not a great deal. That isn't intended to be inflamatory, but comes directly out of my love of science and my faith in humanity. Humankind is on the verge of being able to do some extremely cool things with genetic material, 20 years from now those dolphins may enjoy a thriving population due to some Jurassic Park science. I also cite the evidence of the Coelocanth (sp) a prehistoric fish thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago until they started hauling them up in nets around 1960. Life is tenacious, I no more believe that every last one of these dolphins is dead than I believe RandyPA is Republican.

I do recall a pretty lengthy discussion on sustainable resources (http://janisian.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1213)and alternative resources on this forum not too long ago so i won't get that ball started again.. I still believe that such thinking is a good thing, and i also still believe that until its presented to the public at large in such a way as they can see all the benefits without all the preaching, its going to remain a pipedream for all but a dedicated few.

Now in my personal situation, I know for a fact that despite having computers running 24/7/365 I still have a far smaller electrical draw than my parents, and thats with an electric stove. In general I think the american people do far better than the numbers would suggest on creating a smaller impact on our non-renewable resources. Numbers can be made to reflect whatever agenda is on the table, and numbers don't make me feel guilty.

The house i plan to build will be as green as my checkbook will allow it to be, but that said I don't plan on changing the way I live my life one iota. I will continue to burn hardwood charcoal, and continue to drive my suv..at least until a bubblecar comes along. :D

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Good afternoon all

Wellllllllll, where to start.... Lets see....

Rkitko... The cars of the 70's were more efficient?????? Faster, perhaps... Quicker, I think..... Efficient?????? I drove a Plymouth Sport Fury with a 361 cube engine and a big ass four Barrel carb... (I would have preferred a Hemi or at least a 440CI.) ...I got maybe 16 miles per gallon on the open road.... 12 mpg on the Highway... and possibly 8 mpg or less when street racing on Hamilton Blvd.... (I don't think it was all that efficient as I often lost races)

Do I respect the earth? Yes, but that said so long as meat is available at the market I plan on indulging.... So long as there is electricity I will turn on a light.... When it's cold I will turn on the heat and all with no sense of guilt....

I also believe the quiz lacked in practical sense... Not all things are black or white.... there are shades of gray....

Though I respect your opinion on this, I also fall in line with my Republican Brother The Most reverant and Holy Monsignour REDJACK... I feel before I will be willing to alter my life style I would sure want to see the MASSIVE squandering of rescources by government and corporations put in control... I sent Greenpeace a donation a few years back and they sent me an unsolicited Calendar... True one calendar means little but how many trees died because those that preached about our ecology failed to do as they said?

That said.... As we enter the season to be Jolly and kill a tree for Christmas I wish you all the best of Holidays... HO HO HO MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL A FRESH BEEF!!!!

R. from Pa

[RedjackRyan]

I never get so terrified as when Randy and I agree on something.

Someone check the temperature in hell please!!

[DaveM]

My parents owned two cars--a 1968 Ford Galaxie (which I learned to drive with, as it happens) which averaged 17 MPG and a Ford pickup truck which brought in around 12. One of my first cars was a 1970s "compact"--a 1971 Maverick which got 22 mpg when I bought it and 25 after I adjusted most of the factory settings on the engine (you could do that back then). None of these vehicles had any form of emission control.

My family lived in two houses while I lived with my parents--the first was 2200 square feet on two floors, had no insulation in the walls and single-glazed windows in some areas (it was purchased new in 1966). Along with the usual appliances it had an indoor trash incinerator.

The second house was 2400 square feet--four inches of insulation in the walls and six in the roof (I put most of it in). Garbage went into a barrel in the garden where it was burned. Five people lived in the house in 1977--my parents lived alone there for some years until they sold it and bought an 1800 square foot house where my mother now lives alone. As the entire place has cathedral ceilings, she lives on one floor, but heats two.

During the years spent in the first house, I remember walking under skies streaked by black jet exhaust. I remember when smokestacks actually emitted smoke. Where'd that all go?

My house is 975 square feet plus a partially finished basement. There are six inches of insulation in the walls and 18 in the second story ceiling. All of the windows are double-glazed with storm windows besides. All of the appliances are Energy Star compliant or have been modified to render them as nearly so as possible (the monitor on my father's office computer drew more electricity than does my entire system). Every light fixture that is used more than a few minutes per day is fitted with compact fluorescent bulbs. The thermostat has a timer and is set to 68 degrees during the day and 60 at night (a similar time shuts the water heater off at night). Air conditioning is at 78 degrees and used only when absolutely needed.

My car averages 40-43 MPG and meets all present emission requirements. It is driven less than 5000 miles per year. I recycle my glass, plastic, paper, cardboard, and tin cans, and the majority of my wardrobe comes from thrift stores. My watch winds up, as do all of the clocks in the house.

I refuse to regard myself as a burden, either to my neighbors or to "the planet".

[Rkitko]

I must say I'm surprised at the reaction. Some responses:

The test is simplified, I admit, but I have a much more in-depth EXCEL spreadsheet that covers a heck of a lot more bases and the results generally came out the same with respect to the online simple version. I forget who produced it, but each conversion of resource use to biologically productive acres was cited with articles from respected scientific journals like Science and Nature. The only reason you may see a skew is if the skew really exists. Eating meat does indeed take more resources. The test could be made better and you're right it's there to serve a purpose, but the conclusions are no less sound, in my opinion.


Human beings are not useless--as we are a capable species, we have come to dominate the world (when another species builds New York, I'll retract that). But when we build dams, it is an abomination. When a beaver builds dams, it's just doing what beavers do. Sewage runoff into the ocean is considered a major ecological disaster (and I agree that it's poor practice). Meanwhile, fish have been pooping into the ocean for as long as there have been fish.

We are not a plague on the land. We have as much right to be here on our own terms as any other species that is doing the same.

I disagree. And why "former science of ecology"? The science is still strong and very much neutral. It's application, you and I may disagree on. But once it's out of the realm of description and projection, it becomes an applied use of science. I also disagree on a point you raise that amounts to "human beings are part of nature, so therefore their actions are natural." I strongly disagree with that. The examples you cite differ in degree and kind. While a bever's dam creates additional habitat and many species depend on them, a human's dam has been known only to encourage the population explosion of non-native invasive species. Likewise, marine organism excrement is part of the natural environment and many natural processes depend on it. Our addition of phosphates, nitrates, and contaminants not removed during sewage treatment (like endocrine disrupters, antibiotics, etc.) only serves to harm organisms that get in the way or cause toxic algal blooms and fish kills. I have always argued that humanity's actions, now that we're conscious of them and sentient, are utterly non-natural. You're right, we have the power to create such things as New York City. I question whether we should use that power. I reject the notion that we are to dominate the planet. Instead, we are to be good and kind stewards, which we're not doing very well, in my opinion. We are, IMHO, a plague on the land. Just look at what we've done to the place...


I also cite the evidence of the Coelocanth (sp) a prehistoric fish thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago until they started hauling them up in nets around 1960. Life is tenacious, I no more believe that every last one of these dolphins is dead than I believe RandyPA is Republican.

The Coelacanth, like a few other species (like one of my favorite trees, the dawn redwood), was only known to science by fossil record before a living specimen was discovered. It being noted as "extinct" was only a label given because it hadn't been found in nature yet. The difference here is that we know these dolphins once lived in this river. We have data showing a declining population. We have no confirmed reports of sightings recently with a extended search turning up nothing. If any are alive, the population is so low, they are called "functionally extinct." There will not be enough to sustain or revive a population. Just like the captive breeding program of the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) failed because there wasn't enough genetic variability to avoid a bottleneck. No true viable population of Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit will ever return to the plains. They have plans to crossbreed with a close relative, but the genetics won't be pure. (Sideline: If you're really interested in this topic, may I suggest an excellent book by David Quammen called Song of the Dodo?)


Rkitko... The cars of the 70's were more efficient??????

I was speaking mostly of the late 1970s, after the oil crisis and enactment of the CAFE standards. My parent's had a VW Rabbit, which got great mileage but was diesel.

By the way, this is a great discussion. Thanks for making me think of these things in new ways. Let's keep exchanging ideas...

[DaveM]

In other words, "four legs good, two legs bad".

And that is where ecology ceases to become a science and begins to become a religion.

Human poop is no more unnatural than that produced by any other species (what exactly constitutes "natural", by the way?). The fact that we dispose of our natural wastes through collective systems is unique among species. But I suppose anyone who prefers to step in their own excretions is free to do so.

When I was younger I thought the loss of the passenger pigeon was a terrible thing, and I still believe it would have been an unforgettable experience to see one of those legendary flocks that blotted out the sky. Now, I consider that every urban area has an active pigeon eradication program and know that a flock of sky-blotting proportions would bring with it a downpour of pigeon poop. And I find myself wondering if people truly did look up in awe when the passengers flew over. Then again, this was in a time when city streets were often open sewers.

As to dams, I agree that many have built where they should not have, and that the water diversion created by same is at times used inappropriately. The Colorado River no longer runs to the sea, for example, due to the amount of water drawn out of it. If people in California stopped sprinkling their lawns and Las Vegas shut off its fountains, this would not be so. I neither live in California nor sprinkle (or fertilize) my lawn.

The millions of Chinese who have not drowned in annual flooding due to the building of dams on the Yellow and Yangtzhe Rivers would I suspect agree that the projects were a good idea. These dams, therefore, create and preserve natural habitat, albeit for mere human beings.

The problem is, that with eco-whatever having become a matter of faith rather than science, the degree of unreason has been reached where no sort of rational solution to the perceived "problem" would be accepted or acceptable to anyone. Someone might come along and demand that I abandon my compact car in favor of a bicycle. Not long after, another would take the bicycle over complaints about the chemicals used in its manufacture and perhaps the treatment of workers (despite the latter being disgusting dirty humans). Then someone else would have a problem with the leather in my shoes.

Self-hatred projected outward against an entire species is a very sad thing. I refuse to accept someone else's "issues"--if they can't handle them, what makes the responsibility mine?

For my next post I will describe in as much detail as possible several examples of human beings creating and maintaining a sustainable natural habitat, which thus far has brought benefits to all concerned.

[Rkitko]

I disagree, again. Enviro-eco-whateverism is no religion or faith. You're right it's not strict science, rather it's an applied science. It steps slightly outside the demarcation of science by ascribing value judgements on things and actions. I think this is a valuable process and if based in good science, the judgements also tend to be spot on. We can take an example, analyze it from all positions, prepare a cost-benefit model (including ALL costs, even those now being considered in some places like the cost of clean water or clean air), and come out with a value judgement on whether this particular thing would be net cost or net benefit.

It does not, however, make base claims that "four legs good, two legs bad." Besides, I place value in lots of things with less than or more than four legs ;)

As for dams, there are a lot more problems than just the water. They interfere with natural movement of organisms (perhaps, such as this Chinese river dolphin), cause millions of pounds of relatively toxic silt to pile up behind them, slow the water down and warm it up, making it unhospitable to native species and inviting non-native invasives in to disrupt the local ecology, and sometimes dams are the cause of small extinction events all on their own. I see dams as too much cost for too little benefit. Such as the case in China at the Three Gorges Dam (which I assume you were referring to). Hundreds of villages up river were flooded for this project. Those people were removed from their natural environment and moved into cold-war-era-looking concrete buildings higher up the banks. Important history and archeological sites are now lost under water. Millions of people displaced. And the most amusing thing of all: Most of the new villages upriver will not see a single kilowatt-hour of energy produced at that dam. As for the flood prevention, yes it is a good thing, but again I see more costs than benefits. And besides, people shouldn't be living in floodplains. There's a Washington state campaign out there put out by the Department of Natural Resources that has a picture of a serene floodplain and the bold lettering: FLOODPLAINS ARE FOR ____ (several different posters, one with "THE BIRDS" in the blank, another with "FLOODS," and yet another with "WILDLIFE.") I found them amusing. Many species have evolved to life suited on a floodplain, such as the seed-eating piranhas of the large Amazonian floodplain. We're not one of them. We don't belong there. Or at least our buildings don't belong there...

For more interesting reading on dams, check out Water Wars by Vandana Shiva, which focuses on India.

I just wanted to emphasize again that yes, sometimes, as you suggest, the eco-fads can get out of hand. But not with a reasonable approach and applied scientific method. This is largely the goal of sustainability studies--to approach these problems in a reasonable manner and not go overboard with dire predictions and out-there solutions. Those that you hear are the loud fringe group, just as loud and just as fringe as the fundamentalist christians. I don't let those wackos represent all christians to me. Don't let those fringe eco-idiots represent my ideas or sustainability ideas in general to you.

Furthermore, I do not self-hate. I'm somewhat offended over the implication that I might. I simply call it as I see it: Our species is not angelic and neither am I in my treatment of the place on which I depend. We have some obvious problems that many ignore and continue to ignore. My only "issue" is that there is collective denial about the state of environmental problems (again, not to be taken as an outrageous off-the-wall claim. I dislike it when people dismiss my concerns by saying I'm simply crying wolf one too many times.)

Dave, I like you. You're a nice guy. Intelligent and funny. I wonder how we might see eye-to-eye on this, if ever? Is there some idea or something I'm not conveying correctly? Or do we just disagree? Or have I misinterpreted something you've said? Perhaps if it's just you and I interested in this conversation, we could continue it off-board to avoid making anyone else uncomfortable with a bit of serious discussion? Thoughts?

[DaveM]

Minnesota was admitted to the Union in 1858. Prior to that and for some years thereafter there were two more or less inhabited areas here: St. Paul, at the head of the navigable portion of the Mississippi River, and around the shore of Lake Superior. The remainder of the state was accessible, more or less, only to the occasional fur trader who managed to make his way up one or another of the rivers which abound particularly in the northern part of the state.

In 1856 a young man arrived in St. Paul by steamboat and took a job with the Mississippi Steamboat Company. His name was James J. Hill. He studied the river routes which then permitted sole access to much of the state, as well as the growing railroad industry. Using private money, most of it secured by his own property, he purchased the tiny St. Paul & Pacific RR (at the time on the edge of bankruptcy) and set out to write a chapter in history.

Again using private money, Hill purchased rights of way generally one mile in width along a number of what he regarded to be profitable routes. His workers laid track at over a mile per day, clearing the timber along each right of way as they progressed. Some trees were made into railroad ties, others would fuel the wood-burning locomotives of the time. Some were sold as lumber. Minnesota's first major industry was formed by several companies who came along, cleared the remaining stumps, and burned or boiled them for creosote and turpentine, variously. Within a few years, the majority of the state was accessible via what became known as the Great Northern Railroad. More importantly, where there had been largely uninhabited wilderness (I'm deliberately ignoring any discussion of Native Americans as that is a separate issue), there was half a mile of cleared land on each side of the newly-laid rails.

This came at a time when a wave of immigrants was entering the United States. They bought homestead acreage from Hill at a pittance--he offered those who bought land from him free or very low cost transportation from New York via both his. Farms and towns sprung up along the newly-laid rails. Lumbering became a major industry--that, and countless farms started on the cleared land producing crops, provided profitable freight for the Great Northern, earning a solid living for the farmers and making fortunes for Hill and the bankers who had risked their money on him. People called him a robber baron, but he provided valuable services in exchange for every penny he earned. By the late 1880s (when iron was discovered in Northern Minnesota, which calls for a post in and of itself), once impenetrable wilderness could be crossed easily by rail--roads began from each rail terminal and eventually spread throughout the state. By the end of his life, Hill had performed much the same feat throughout the Dakotas and Montana, as well as Iowa and Missouri. He became known, rightly so, as "the Empire Builder".

In all of his efforts, James J. Hill never accepted a cent of government subsidy or "incentive". He paid back every loan he ever received. And his road never failed to run at a profit. To this day, his money continues to endow libraries, museums, cultural centers--and nature preserves.

But what of the environment? That is, after all, the topic of this discussion.

Well, neither Hill nor the farmers or townspeople needed all of the land he had purchased. Most of the "leftover" property was abandoned, until the coming of the various State and National Forest programs. Countless miles of old right of way--and much other land that had been clearcut by "boom time" loggers and abandoned--was planted in native trees and managed as cropland (yes, I know, National Forest timber prices remain a joke, but that again is a separate issue). Due to the extensive plantings, there are now more trees in Minnesota than there were when it was largely uninhabited. Due to the large amount of agriculture throughout much of the state, there are also larger numbers of herbivorous animals (notably deer) than there were "naturally".

One habitat suffered--the prairie which once covered much of the central and southern part of the state. This was at first turned into cropland, in a time when 90%+ of the populace worked in farming or in some connection to it. As the change from an agricultural to an industrial economy began, it became obvious that much of the land wasn't that great for farming in the first place. The prairie is being restored, along with its native species. During my lifetime I have seen the return of the prairie chicken and the wood duck from near-endangered status. I have also watched the range of the opossum and ring-necked pheasant expand north by approximately 180 miles. I am elated by the increase in numbers, though troubled by the possible harbinger of change in the climate.

Minnesota now supports roughly 9 million people with plenty of wild space besides. It stands as a lesson in stewardship brought about by and large by the efforts of a man whose sole motive was profit--James J. Hill.

If I am boring folks, sing out and I'll shut up.

[RedjackRyan]

I have always argued that humanity's actions, now that we're conscious of them and sentient, are utterly non-natural.

Thats interesting, we have almost the same philosophy just flipped around from each other. I believe that by definition , Sentience brings with it an insatiable desire to leave ones mark on the world in the short time allotted. Awareness of ones own mortality is what drives innovation, construction, and conquest. As a result of sentience I view humanities actions as completely natural.


Great discussion thread imo. I'm off to work, post more later.

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

The problem as I see it is that on one side we have ecologists and environmentalist extremists that seem to feel the very existance of mankind is a plague... (Which to a certain degree I tend to agree with)

On the otherside we have some people that live for technology and progress... (Which to a certain degree I agree with) which feel any restraint of progress conflicts with mankinds self proclaimed right to freedom of will and choice....(Which to a certain degree I agree with)

I see this as one of those never ending conflicts that is to a great degree unresolvable....

It seems to me that neither side of the issue is willing to bend towards a common sense place of moderation...

In the United States we have a government that claims to care about our environment so they legislate "We the People" on such silly things as to VOC's ("Volital organic compounds") released into the atmosphere from industries such as the auto, aircraft and coating industries.... If you look at California AQMD regulation 1136 enacted in 1986 (A model used for many Federal statutes) you will find such terms as "technolgy forcing" which means that at the time written the technology to meet the goals expected at that time did NOT exist... The impact to this single rule sent tens of thousands of jobs a mere couple miles across the southern border.... The end result... Our nation lost jobs, we lost revenue, we lost benefit of the existing prior legislation which was having more of a positive impact, and the smog blows back across the boarder unrestrained...... Government whines about aresol cans, Charcoal BBQ starter fluids and in general limits things that make little difference.... Yet with all those limitations and restrictions the number one polluter is in fact by law exempted from these laws... The Federal Government....We frequently hear how we need to use fuel wisely and conserve conserve conserve.....Yet Air force one is an aircraft designed to carry upwards of 292 passangers and scaled back to carry 46 (not including crew... Then flown back and forth for all the campaigns and presidential elections and vacations, when in fact a 30 passanger Learjet would accomplish the same goal at a far smaller cost to both the raxpayers and the environment... Government executive vehicles are not Chevrolet caviliers you may have noticed but instead overweight armoured S.U.V's (Just like my buddy REDJACKS.... The presidential cavalcade is not two or three vehicles but instead traffic is stopped often leaving tens of thousands of cars tied up in traffic jams burning fuel so the sixteen or more vehicle cavalcade can get to its destination... I for one would feel far more obliging about conservation if I truely thought it MIGHT make a difference... We are badgered about recycling by a government that needs ever often useless document (in numerous languages) in quadruplicate to keep the federal paper shredders busy...Yet our government sells off weapons, vehicles and even government owned real estate WITHIN the United States to foriegn industry or governments at far below actual value... But FEMA can buy 10,000 trailers, place them in a mud lot in Arkansas, pay to put stones down and then require round the clock security and maintanence while people are without homes STILL from Katrina... (Sorry but this all has bearing on the topic I think...)

Industry and the environmentalists are not all that much better, just a smaller scale...

Perhaps when they all get serious I may as well... Until then I will recycle cans, bottles and paper... I will not litter... And I will respect wildlife... Though I think hunting season on some political lobbyists and lawyers should be extended...

Greenpeace BEGS for money to help the environment then they spend that money to send out messages and (unsolicited calendars and travel bags) that I consider to be extremist (Same with NRA and The American legion for that matter) to sell their political points of view...

Nope when the rest of the world gets serious I will consider it... Not one day before... I mean we have an administration now that dosen't believe in global warming.... But I'd bet they do believe in the Easter bunny (a photo op)

Enough Rambling....

Happy Holidays to all of you

Environmentally friendly (in a mediocre sort of way) R. from Pa

[Bat]

My ecofootprint is 18, and that doesn't consider the fact that I feed birds and squirrels, own 5 cats (indoor strictly), have a resident possum and chipmunk in the backyard--and a newly-spotted bat. I think I'm doing pretty well, actually. I drive little, even tho I love to; mostly to the store and home. I cook once a day, the rest is cold. Use the microwave often, then comes the countertop electric toaster oven, the the big oven, maybe once a month. Stovetop, about 4 days a week, very sparingly...in other words, I don't often go on a cooking binge unless it is going to stretch out over a few days, which makes up for a lot of extra cooking.
The one thing I need to do is take my car in and see why the mileage has gone down about 9 mpg since it was new...used to get 33 mpg.

[RedjackRyan]

A lot of really excellent points have been raised on both sides of the issue, and i'm also pleased to see that each of us, in our own ways, is doing what they can to protect the enviornment. Rkitko I thank you for the reading suggestion, I'll make a point of reading Song of the Dodo as soon as possible.

I am very much a technologist, I believe that science and innovation will be the driving force of human existence just as it has been since the first caveman picked up a rock and used it as a tool. While many bad things have come from scientific advancement, an equal if not greater good has also come from science. Unlike Randy, I do believe that enviornmentalists and technologists can live in harmony at some point. Enviornmentalists would not have many of the green technologies without the tech community doing the development side of things. The enviornmentalist community championing various causes, gives reason for the tech groups to produce eco-friendly items. So there is an inherent bit of cooperation and moderation between the groups already. (though it may be argued the tech community is profit driven)

Ultimately however, I am a Human first kinda guy. I will usually side with whatever arguement benefits humans first, jobs, living conditions, food, etc. After those items are covered, i'm more than willing to address other issues, be they enviornmental, animal welfare, or other. I try to keep an open mind though I don't buy into the notion that we can 'save the planet' as I believe that the planet will continue to spin long after we've wiped ourselves from its face. The Earth will heal itself, continue to produce new species and evolve until the Sun goes out billions of years from now.

That said, I do acknowledge, that for our own good, we need to pay closer attention to our impact on the enviornment, but again my motivation comes from a human first standpoint more so than worrying about the frog that might get trampled. Nature finds a way to survive, and while a number of scientists were unable to find any dolphins when they were looking...nature has a way of surprising us when we least expect it.

I hope that ramble made some sort of sense, four interruptions while typing it and i lost my train of thought somewhat. I do value the opinions of every poster to this thread, knowledge is good and i do like to keep an open mind.

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

This may be just a bit off topic but...... We just received a snail mail addressed to:

Randy "methusalah... and its your fault" and Betty "who can do no wrong"

Now I ask what people first, Monsignoirish environmentalist pirate from the Pittsburg region would send such a thing????

I wonder....

Best to all and Happy Holiday...

R. from the FAR MORE CIVILIZED side of Pa...

[RedjackRyan]

<completely innocent look> Must be a fluke of the mail delivery, I would NEVER send such a thing. But Betty can do no wrong in my eyes.

[DaveM]

You mean there's a post office aboard ship? GREAT! We can get our holiday sale stuff there!