My journey into the depths of Tom Bethell’s “Politically Incorrect Guide to Science” continues with a review of Chapter 6: “Biodiversity and Endangered Species.” Chapters 4 and 5 provided some useful discussion about how we should regulate and debate the use of chemicals with uncertain toxicity or unmatched utility, though the DDT science in Chapter 5 was highly selective, and where present, highly misleading. Chapter 6 offers up one, and only one, useful point for discussion while engaging in obfuscation and deliberate misdirection. With that introduction, in we go!
Summary of Bethell’s Points:
Chapter 6: Biodiversity and Endangered Species
He begins by making unsourced judgments on the accuracy of Edward O. Wilson’s work. Then, he talks about how many species are continually being added to the taxonomic rosters every year. Next, Bethell makes the following argument: since we don’t know how many species exist, and more are being added to the rolls continually, we can’t know how many are going extinct. He then states that “a case could be made” for the involvement of human activity in the extinction of the passenger pigeon and that the wooly mammoth was surely not extincted by humans because that was 4,000 years ago. Then, he launches into an attack on the wildly speculative claims of 50,000 species going extinct each year made by prominent biologists. Next, he says that only 4 birds have gone extinct east of the Mississippi. Bethell follows this with some (unsourced) numbers on how many new species are catalogued each year. Finally, he makes his one reliable claim: because the Endagered Species Act requires federal oversight of private property with known endagered species inhabitation, this encourages a policy of “shoot, shovel, and shut up.” Also, private property owners are able to truly protect species, such as the American Bison, whereas species inhabiting common areas are protected by no one (except the government, which he doesn’t mention).
My Response:
This chapter can be succinctly summarized as an attack on Edward O. Wilson, filled with a couple of really shabby numbers on extinctions, followed by a grossly illogical bit of reasoning about more species equaling less extinctions, capped with one reasonable argument tacked on the end. Note, Bethell uses the Rush Limbaugh derogatory term “enviros” repeatedly in this chapter, further degrading any authority that he may have obtained in this matter.
First, Bethell makes absolutely no mention of extinction rates globally. In a few minutes of searching the internet, I found two sites that list extinction numbers for animals since 1500, Peter Maas’ Extinct Animals site lists 903 extinctions, while the IUCN’s Redlist.org lists 784. For plants, the numbers are much more poorly known but the IUCN officially lists 86 plant species as extinct, though there are probably several hundred more than are still under the review process. Thus the known rate of extinction just in the last 500 years is almost 2/year. However, this number applies only to the larger and more noticeable mammals and fish, many of which we have tried our hardest to protect and save. We really have no good idea of how many insects, for instance, go extinct every year. And as each acre of rainforest is burned to the ground, untold numbers of plants, fungi, bacteria, etc. are completely destroyed before having been catalogued by science.
Second, Bethell’s criticisms of Edward O. Wilson are based on his estimates of as much as 10,000 species extinctions per year, per million species. Bethell has no grounds for his criticisms other than contempt for what he views to be alarmist estimates. But, where Wilson has spent his life studying that about which he estimates, Bethell feels comfortable attacking this accumulated expertise via unsourced claims and a few over-stretched expert opinions. This baseless smearing of a distinguished individual does not help the aim of this chapter, but instead points once more to the partisan hackery that has permeated this work.
Third, Bethell’s primary argument, that we cannot know how many extinctions have occurred when we haven’t even counted all of the animals yet, is complete fallacy. We can, and do, observe individual species extinctions. These are the ones listed in the links above. The ones we haven’t counted are where the really high estimates of extinction rates come in. So, rather than making his point Bethell makes the opposite, because we have such massive ignorance about the number and variety of species sharing the Earth with us, we are undoubtedly destroying many species before they can ever be counted or conserved.
Finally, for all of the terrible misleading science Bethell does (or doesn’t, as the case often is) present, he makes one good point: the Endagered Species Act could be rewritten to increase its effectiveness. Incentives for conservation of species on private land could be offered rather than mandatory oversight, for instance. But unfortunately, this one salient point is sullied by the mound of dishonest science journalism under which it is buried.
Here’s what’s on tap for next time: Why Those Millions of African’s Don’t Really Have AIDS, or, Constantly Pregnant African Women Fool Clinicians. Should be some fun!
