Comments on: Extinctions: between economics and psychology

By: parasite kid

parasite kid — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:56:33 +0000

In response to this post I would like to bring up two points. In the first point made by merle, the short-sightedness of our societal framework is highlighted. There are obvious consequences for our current predicament, which will require long term commitment to a solution (or range of solutions). So how do we readjust our vision? This is something that in itself will take a long time to change and I greatly appreciated the recent lecture by David Orr calling for immediate action to change our educational system to address this. How can we expect students to graduate with a far reaching vista when they have been groomed to cram for the next test? In their fixation on the end of the semester, the process of learning and the appreciation of learning seem to be lost – with obvious consequences for society as a whole.

The second point that struck me in reading this post was the contrast between groups that rely on a species for livelihood and those that use it for recreation. Recreational sports people have created some of the best financed and strongest conservation groups (eg. Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited). They obviously value the ecosystem service that is provided to them however, since their income already comes from other sources, they are freed from the discounting trade-off that occurs for individuals that rely on these resources. So it seems that it is not only recognizing the use of these ecosystem services but also being freed from the immediate burden of financial need that is necessary to successfully protect these species.

By: Culture Kid

Culture Kid — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:01:23 +0000

I think that Dr. Festa-Bianchet did talk about the reasons marine fish are left off the list, and it is an important one: livelihood. The fish that are left off are the same ones on which people depend for economic and (sometimes) nutritional sustenance. He spoke specifically about clashes between the DFO and SARA, and the fact that mandates from the former negate any real effectiveness of the latter.

Questions of out of sight, out of mind are valid, though. Marine fish do not generally catch public attention, particularly people who are far removed from marine environments. I have heard people cynically remark that animals without tear ducts are not considered important, meaning that animals not widely viewed as cute and cuddly are less significant to the public. Certainly this was disproven as Fest-Bianchet showed that most reptiles and amphibians make it onto the lists annually. However, I still think there is some merit to the notion that aesthetic valuation plays an important role in perceptions of and decisions about environmental policy. Perhaps I am being too cynical in positing that the superficiality of culture works its way into the means we relate to, anthropomorphize, use, or ignore other species.

By: Culture Kid

Culture Kid — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:06:59 +0000

I think this notion of discounting is indeed central to government decision-making, especially in terms of conservation policy. It is a new concept to me, but this is an excellent way of epitomizing its theoretical base. Many politicians work within its purview, too, because immediate economic return is central to the livelihoods of the regions and people they represent. This is an incredibly frustrating to conservationists, but how does one bridge the gap between sustaining a way of life and sustaining a species? So far, the solution has been to choose one or the other. But choosing to protect the people instead of the fish is a dead-end endeavour; as marine species populations continue to dwindle, livelihoods disappear still. The notion of discounting must somehow be re-worked into a different kind of equation.