[Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon

[Chuck Vaughn]

Chip, Jim,

I'd like to start out by saying I am not a "denier," a term I dislike because of its obvious connection to the Holocaust, but used exactly because of that. Humans have made huge land use changes and this has led to the decline of some species largely through habitat loss. Although I'm sure you can find some people who would not agree with that, I'll bet the majority would agree.

Further though and here's the difference and my key point, I'll bet that there is a much larger group of people, perhaps the majority even, that would disagree with you that this is a problem. I know you think it is a problem and you probably think anyone who disagrees with you are crazy, nuts, head in the sand, can't see the big picture or whatever term you care to apply to them. But they probably think the same of you. People have different priorities in their lives. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle. I think anyone who thinks there are no changes or that those changes have no impact at all are extreme in their views. I also think that those that hold the view that anything environment should take precedence over human needs in all cases are extreme in their views.

I reject Jim's anti-human views as extreme. I also reject anyone who dreams up catastrophic scenarios to advance their cause, whether it be pure motives or the profit motive (Al Gore comes to mind here), makes dire predictions that scare people, and then the predictions never come to pass and they're never held accountable.

There have been some pretty major predictions made by some in the environmental movement in the past 50 years that have turned out to be completely wrong. I don't see how this helps your cause. It turns people against you and it's really easy, true or not, to conclude that it's done to generate donations to fund continuing research. The big environmental organizations are multi million dollar businesses that employ a lot people and support some pretty high lifestyles for those that run them. They come across as hypocritical. They certainly have a stake in keeping the dollars flowing that extends beyond just funding research and they use alarmist language to do it.

I love science and I'm a huge science advocate but I don't like it when science and advocacy become joined. In my ideal world scientists would do science and leave the advocacy to someone else. I don't like it when scientists become advocates for a cause. I think it's a conflict of interest that does a disservice to science.

Chuck

ps. Hey Roger! Are you happy now? I answered your question. 




> Well said. I drove through central IL after Thanksgiving in 2011 and 
> took lots of back roads through the farmland. You are right, the 
> narrow margins from the edge of the road to the edge of the field (as 
> narrow as 6ft in some places) contained virtually nothing for 
> pollinators, ground nesting birds and rodents that in turn might be 
> food for raptors and other predators. Aside from the crops and the 
> grasses, microbes and nematodes, these areas are nearly devoid of 
> life.
> 
> In my lectures, which are joyfully cited out of context, I make the 
> point that what is happening to monarchs is happening to all the 
> other organisms that occupy the same habitats and that these changes 
> are symbolic of larger landscape changes that are underway in the US 
> and across the planet. That there is resistance to the idea that the 
> planet is changing or that a once abundant species could decline to 
> insignificance relative to its past is not surprising. Those who draw 
> attention to these changes and advocate that we do something to 
> mitigate the perceived problems are attacked. It goes with the 
> territory. Negative reviews tend to fall into two categories. The 
> most common is denial of the problem, an easy position to take and 
> hold on to fiercely, as long as you can justify not looking at the 
> data. The second is to declare that the issue is too big to address 
> and that we can't do anything about it. Quite honestly, this position 
> is harder to refute. Should we passively accept our fate - one which 
> we ourselves are contributing to (as Jim points out) - or should we 
> attempt to do something about it? Should we hedonistically finish our 
> lives and leave the problems we (and past generations) have created 
> to the next generation or should we accept some responsibility for 
> what is happening and try to address the many problems we have 
> created? From my perspective it is better to fail than to do nothing 
> at all. And, what will it cost? It's always the cost isn't it? But, 
> what will it cost to do nothing? What will we loose if we do nothing?
> 
> Saving the monarch migration is only partially about this species. 
> The larger message is that it is in our best interest to save the 
> habitats used by this species as well as those of all the pollinators 
> that that provide the services that support the production of the 
> fruits, nuts, berries, seeds and foliage that support all the other 
> wildlife - including the leps that most of us find of interest. 
> Nature has an infrastructure (e.g. 70% of the plants in most 
> temperate communities require the services of pollinators). Is it in 
> our best interest to ignore the fact that we are destroying this 
> infrastructure? I think not.
> 
> 
>> In the 1880's they said the same thing about Passenger Pigeons. It 
>> has been estimated that they (only 50 years earlier) were in numbers 
>> so large that there were as many of them as there were all other 
>> birds combined. I will wager green money if we were not here, they 
>> still would be. Anyone that believes we cannot possibly cause they 
>> extinction of any butterfly is probably never going to be swayed 
>> otherwise, I would rather err on the side of caution. And, speaking 
>> from one of the most farmed states in the U.S., I can tell you there 
>> is quite a drop in weeds of all kinds, nothing but rank grasses grow 
>> in our ditches now......nothing, no color at all. If it were not for 
>> a few shielded natural areas and the efforts of some diligent 
>> individuals to save something, they would have no where or reason to 
>> be here (Monarchs). We've lost several species of other butterflies 
>> over the last 15 years here in Illinois for "no apparent reason". We 
>> need the other forms of life on this planet to survive, nothing 
>> needs us. We really should evaluate our perception of self worth as 
>> a species, as a whole we are pretty pathetic and of no benefit to 
>> the natural world that I can see. Greed, power and money, that's 
>> what makes (our perception) of the world go around, and everything 
>> else be damned. It is a shame so many things have to suffer to 
>> accommodate our convenience and comfort.....and, I am as guilty as 
>> anyone else in perpetuating the problems.
>> Jim Wiker
>> Greenview, Illinois
>> 
>> PS - I don't want to hear that the analogy about is "different", 
>> it's not different at all, if you desire to live with your head in 
>> the sand and show your ignorance.....be my guest.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leps-l mailing list
>> Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
>> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leps-l mailing list
> Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l
>