Chuck

I don't back you up either on your attack on this article or on the
medium carrying it.

First of all, Nature is not a magazine but a respected scientific
journal. The whole process of establishing a scientific finding usually
starts with a hypothesis. For example, Molina and Rowlands published -
in this same journal, Nature - their startling theory that CFCs could
cause ozone-depletion in 1974, long before there was any scientific
observation to back up their hypothesis. Nevertheless, it did prove
true, scientifically confirmed by both modelling and empirical
observations. Notwithstanding, it was wisely acted upon by the
precautionary principle; even the Vienna Convention and the Montreal
Protocol were signed before we had the science. When the science did
arrive, it showed the situation was far worse than had been foreseen and
the Montreal Protocol had to be seriously tightened with a faster and
more draconian phase-out schedule.

Secondly, this is a short news communication and has not been published
as a peer-reviewed paper. Notwithstanding, the conditional tense abounds
and it clearly demonstrates its hypothetical nature. Readers are able to
draw their own conclusions; you have drawn yours as a naysayer, while
others, like myself as ayesayers, may be alarmed. You are entitled to
your opinion, just as much as I am, but it certainly does not serve your
cause to be so vituperative against both the substance and the form of
the article.

Thirdly, in this day and age, in cases like this, where there may be a
risk of irreversible damage, it has become usual to apply the
precautionary principle. That is to assume, if there are reasonable
grounds, the worst and to take strong measures to combat the supposed
"evil". If it is later shown that this was overkill, then the worst that
has happened is that we have wasted some money. OTOH, if the situation
is as bad, or worse, than has been painted, then that plant that may
save thousands from a painful and premature death (including perhaps
yourself), may have been saved from extinction, to put it on an
emotional note. The problem is also that a single plant type is not an
isolated item, but a part of a biotope. Other species, such as fungi and
insects, may depend on it and these may be part of a much more important
food chain. Every single species that we lose, through the inconsiderate
action of man, whether deliberately or inadvertently, is a loss for the
whole world. I have personally witnessed how this island has been raped
over the last 50 years. It is estimated that about 40% of plant species
have disappeared, or nearly so, and probably as many animal species
(more, if you count insects). In some cases, the niche has become
occupied by more harmful species. Control of this necessitates the use
of more herbicides and insecticides that kill good and bad
indiscriminately and pollute our ecosystems.

In other words, the terms of our short tenancy on our planet should
include "thou shalt not cause harm to living things that may thus be
endangered and thou shalt do everything in thy power to ensure that they
survive".

That having been said, humans are not responsible for all extinctions
and I have little doubt that species die off from natural causes every
day. After all, you can hardly blame us for the dinosaurs! It is
probable that natural genetic mutations generate new species every day,
as well. Nature is a melting pot in constant movement. Humans do not
have the right to add or remove species from that pot or play at
sorcerers' apprentices.

Best regards,

Brian

Charles Dolci wrote:
> I had always thought that Nature was a "Science magazine", but I guess I was
> wrong. Or maybe their definition of "science" is different than mine.
>
> Refer to an article at http://www.nature.com/nsu/021028/021028-11.html
> entitled "Dying plants double"
>
> New calculation of threatened species gives startling result.
> 1 November 2002
>
> HELEN PEARSON
>
> Nearly half of the world's plants could be close to extinction, scientists have
> warned.  The calculation triples previous estimates.
>
>>>>    "... could be close to extinction ..." THEN IT IS EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE THAT
>>>
> THEY COULD BE "FAR FROM EXTINCTION".
>
> The number of plants on the standard Red List of threatened plant species is a
> massive underestimate, say the botanists, because it lacks data on tropical
> forests.  When estimates from here are taken into account, the fraction of
> species under threat spirals from 13% to between 22% and 47%1.
>
>
>>>>    WHAT KIND OF PRECISION IS THIS ".. between 22% and 47%."?  MAYBE IT IS
>>>
> THE BEST THEY CAN DO GIVEN THEY "lack data on tropical forests" WELL, IF THEY
> LACK DATA ON TROPICAL FORESTS THEN HOW DO THEY KNOW THOSE FORESTS HAVE
> THREATENED PLANT SPECIES? IS IT NOT EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE THAT THE LIST OF
> THREATENED SPECIES IS MASSIVELY OVERESTIMATED?  AFTER ALL, THEY LACK DATA.
>
> Monitoring the environments most at risk would cost only US$100 per species per
> year - $12.1 million in total - says Nigel Pitman of Duke University in Durham,
> North Carolina, one of the report's authors.
>
> "We may be on the edge of a mass extinction of plants," says Pitman.  "We'd like
> to see a major investment for the world's threatened flora."
>
>
>>>>    THEN AGAIN WE MAY NOT BE. WHY DON'T THEY WAIT FOR SOME DATA BEFORE THEY
>>>
> PROCLAIM THE RAIN FORESTS DEAD.
>
> The figures are startling, and probably in the right ballpark, says botanist
> Michael Nee of the New York Botanical Garden.  Razing tropical forests for
> farming is thought to be a prime cause of species annihilation.  "There are too
> many people raping the landscape," says Nee.
>
>
>>>>    "... proabably in the right ballpark ..." AND "... thought to be a prime
>>>
> cause ..."  THIS PASSES FOR SCIENCE?
>
> Red or dead
>
> Species get put on the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List when they are
> formally identified as being close to extinction.  But this excludes
> unidentified or poorly studied plants.
>
>
>>>>    WELL, ONE WOULD HOPE SO, PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE "unidentified".
>>>
>
> "There are thousands of plants in the tropics that deserve red-listing but no
> one's got around to checking if they qualify," says Pitman.
>
>
>>>>    WELL THEN HOW THE HELL DOES THIS ..... KNOW THEY DESERVE TO BE
>>>
> RED-LISTED? AFTER ALL, NO ONE CHECKED TO SEE IF THEY QUALIFY. AND THIS PASSES
> FOR SCIENCE?
>
> Working in tropical countries, Pitman and his colleague Peter Jorgensen found
> that the number of species unique to each country is a rough guide to the number
> that is threatened.
>
> Ecuador, for example, has 4,000 species that are found nowhere else.  Nearly
> 3,500 are under threat, because they often grow in small regions, where a
> landslide or fire can wipe them out.
>
>
>>>>    HMMMM. SINCE LANDSLIDES AND FIRES HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR MILLIONS OF
>>>
> YEARS, WITHOUT INTERVENTION FROM MAN, WHAT IS THE POINT? DO THEY WANT TO ADD
> THEM TO THE LIST BECAUSE A LANDSLIDE OR FIRE MIGHT SOMEDAY OCCUR? WHY DON'T THEY
> ADD ALL PLANT SPECIES TO THEIR LIST, AFTER ALL, IF A LARGE METEOR COLLIDED WITH
> EARTH THERE COULD BE MASSIVE PLANT EXTINCTIONS.
>
> To find the global proportion of plants under threat, Pitman and Jorgensen
> pooled the numbers of species unique to each country.  The exact number is hard
> to pin down because estimates of the number of plant species range between
> 310,000 and 422,000.
>
> "It's an interesting attempt to connect the dots of our picture of global plant
> extinctions," comments ecologist Hal Mooney of Stanford University in
> California.  "The numbers they calculate should add to growing concern about
> irreversible species loss."
>
>
>>>>    THE ONLY THING THAT SEEMS TO BE IRREVERSIBLY LOST IS HEALTHY SCIENTIFIC
>>>
> SKEPTICISM.
>
> AND THIS PASSES FOR SCIENCE??
>
> Chuck Dolci
>
>
>