I don't quite understand environmentalists. That applies to any number of issues, of course, almost nothing that environmentalists do makes sense to me. But, as I have only limited time and space, let me pick just one area to question: the endangered species laws.

As I understand it, and at the risk of over simplifying, evolutionary theory states that traits arise by random mutation within a given species. If a trait proves to increase the number of offspring, either by increasing the number of young or by increasing lifespan and allowing one to produce more young, then that trait will become more common. If it does the opposite, it will become less common, or disappear. And if it has no impact on reproduction the outcome is unknown, it could disappear, decrease or increase, with no way to predict which will happen.

So, if there is no human intervention, evolution would work as follows: A member of species A develops a particular trait which proves to enhance survival, allowing him to have more offspring. These offspring all have this new trait, eventually forming subspecies A1. At some point while A1 is increasing in numbers, another beneficial trait appears, giving rise to subspecies A2. Between the competition with A1 and the competition with A2, both more effective at breeding, the original species A begins to decline in numbers, leaving more food, room and resources for species A1 and A2 who eventually take over the region form the now extinct species A.

If that is the natural outcome, how can environmentalists say that we should preserve "endangered species"? If a species of creatures is so uncommon that they are in danger of vanishing, does that not suggest that they have failed to adapt? Would not the most "natural" outcome be to allow them to follow dinosaurs, neanderthals and other outdated branches of the evolutionary tree into oblivion? Also, by preserving these evolutionary losers, aren't they reducing the resources available to the more evolved and successful species who would fill the vacuum left by the dying species? Aren't they actually acting as a brake on evolution and trying to hold time still?

Is that truly the most "environmentally friendly" outcome? To try to hold back change and stand in the way of the natural progress of species?

Now, I know many will argue, "those species aren't dying because of competitors, but because of man!" But that is an absurd argument for so many reasons.

First, man is a part of nature, so to say anything man does is "not natural" is absurd. If man is not a part of nature, where did we arise? Are environmentalists siding with biblical literalists and saying we are lower than angels but higher than beasts? I thought that environmentalists were of the "man as another ape" school. If man is a part of nature, what he does is not "unnatural" and so even being driven to extinction by man is still a part "of nature" and should not be opposed by the environmentalists.

Second, many species have adapted quite well to man and managed to survive. If they cannot adapt to the changes man has wrought, it does prove that a species is too fragile to survive. Just as changes in climate or rainfall can drive species to extinction, so can changes wrought by man. To call one natural and one unnatural is to draw artificial lines. Either a species can adapt to whatever changes it encounters or it can't. That man caused the changes does not change that fact. To keep a species alive simply because we say man is to blame is still to try to preserve a species which would otherwise have gone extinct. It is still to try to stand in the way of natural selection.

Third, there are few species facing extinction which were not in a very shaky position long before man caused any problems. A quick look through the endangered species list shows a huge number of beasts confined to VERY limited geographical areas, or huge predators whose numbers were never very great as they required extensive hunting grounds. If a species existed in only one field in Oregon, it did not take man to bring it to extinction, a good drought or forest fire could have done the same. The species the environmentalists are trying to protect are very rarely ones which would be robust but for man, they are most often borderline species which were well along the way to disappearing before man was even aware they existed.

Now, please, do not take this to mean that I think we should not make efforts to preserve species. I am a fan of zoological parks, and I would be quite sad to see the big cats or bears or eagles or even species of fish or frogs or beetles vanish form the earth. But I think we should admit that all of this protection of species is simply the result of human benevolence, and is not in any way "preserving nature". If nature were left untouched by man, many, many species would vanish, so please do not pretend keeping these species alive is somehow more "natural", maintaining species is every bit as unnatural as building a skyscraper. Nature is brutal and unfeeling, it is human kindness that is preserving these species, not any sort of love of nature, nor is the preservation of every species more "natural" than simply allowing them to die off, in fact, it is less natural, and we will be better off if we recognize that fact.

Why?

Because as soon as we realize preserving species is a luxury, and not a noble calling, we can begin to balance out species preservation against other human actions. Rather than sacrificing all progress to the sacred need to maintain a pristine nature, we can say that we have desires to preserve species and to build factories, and we can decide which matters more in any given circumstance, rather than one side winning every time by claiming greater "nobility".

Instead, those who wish to preserve a species can freely participate in the market, either purchasing and protecting that land, as did many bird sanctuaries of the early 20th century, or they can try some other private option, such as relocation, breeding programs, zoos, or any other privately funded and managed scheme. Once we remove the argument that somehow those preserving species are doing something more important, that they are standing in as a proxy for "holy mother earth", we will be able to approach the question sensibly, and the cost of preserving species can be borne more fairly, with those who value preservation picking up the costs of doing so.

None of this means I wish to see species dying off, but I also do not think that preserving every last tiny subspecies should be seen as the ultimate goal of human existence. Man is as much a part of nature as any of the species others seek to preserve, and I think perhaps it is time we showed a bit of favoritism to that tiny part of nature which is our own species.

--------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED 02/28/2008

In replying to comments on this post, I found myself recommending two older books which provided me with a lot of useful information. Though I ordered both in either the late 1980's or very early 1990's, they have stood the test of time, and continue to be favorites. For those who do not read comments, I am reproducing my recommendations here:

1. The Ultimate Resource (Julian Simon) - This book makes two useful arguments:  That zero population growth schemes make us poorer, not richer and that we are not in danger of running out of "finite" resources, so long as we allow market forces and human ingenuity to work.

2. Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns (Jay Lehr ed.) It is a collection of many, many essays on a range of environmentalist arguments. The interesting part is how relevant a set of essays from the late 1980's still proves today. The arguments have changed little, and this book still provides a number of great refutations, ranging from DDT to carcinogenesis to media bias to global warming. It has helped me argue with environmentalists for nearly two decades now.

For a nice, short read, along the lines of Simon's book, I would also recommend The Doomsday Myth (Charles Maurice and Charles Smithson). It recounts a number of shortages throughout history where economic forces caused both economization and substitution, effectively ending the shortage. It isn't exactly a scholarly tome, but it does provide some startling examples of places where events we consider progress were actually reactions to prior "crises", for example the change to petrochemicals being spurred by a shortage of whale oil for lighting and lubrication, or the change to coal (and the subsequent technological innovations) coming about as a result of wood shortages. It is a great source of examples for those who often argue with the economically ignorant.

These may be out of print now, but if you can find copies, I highly recommend all three.