With my question, I wanted the community to become aware of the initiative to fight back the dangerous and erroneous arguments published in the Washington Post and to gather more signatories. I like when commenters make arguments against the Washington Post piece, but I honestly find unhelpful to make comments about Pyron. Let's focus on ideas/arguments and ways to push back those arguments in the WP article that could be used by insane governments and corporations to continue devastating biodiversity.

I don't like that article :( We should try to save endangered species imo :)

More efforts are requires to conserve the endangered species.

Ok, call me. But did you see this: http://evol-eco.blogspot.gr/2017/11/of-course-we-need-to-save-endangered.html

This article by Pyron is just an opinion. Most of what is mentioned in the article is not supported by references.

For example, Pyron sais: 'But both the planet and humanity can probably survive or even thrive in a world with fewer species. We don’t depend on polar bears for our survival, and even if their eradication has a domino effect that eventually affects us, we will find a way to adapt. The species that we rely on for food and shelter are a tiny proportion of total biodiversity.'

He makes four statements without any reference. How could he possibly know all this?

A rebuttal may be ok but since it is not a scientific article, it would be like rebutting someone who claims that reincarnation is real. Maybe it is, maybe not...

Yes! I agree with Alexander Pyron! What Alexander says could be true. Unfortunately he forgets that the causes of the most extinctions are not a natural procedure but due to MAN

" It is entirely possible that Alex Pyron has not read much literature about ecology even though he is an evolutionary biologist who normally should be able to make such elementary distinctions. This is a man who started out as a child prodigy, entering college at the age of 12 and earning a Ph.D. by the time he was 22. Maybe he was too busy studying snakes in the field to read Plato, Leo Tolstoy, Immanuel Kant, William Blake or Henry David Thoreau. "

From: https://louisproyect.org/2017/11/27/alex-pyron-the-evolutionary-biologist-indifferent-to-extinction/

If any species is in the process of evolution it cannot be stopped by human, but present day extinction is not an evolutionary process that triggered by human activities. That should be conserved through providing their welfare resources and protection. In natural ecosystem, every organisms including human has equal right to survive through growth and propagation in nature. Endangered species is not a taxonomic group of species. I thought the author has no conception regarding why a termed as an endangered species. Endangered species has been created by Human activity only, but not by the nature, so it is not a process of evolution. The authors conception is not clear in this regard. Human must have provide space for all the organisms in nature for survive. Thus, there is no question for supporting the views of the article.

I really think that the WP "article" is way more a political point of view on where effort (money) should be allocated. The authors biased and anthropocentric point of view is worrying and only justifies the human impact as a mean of survival of our own species.Completely selfish, unethical and misleading.

" Completely selfish, unethical and misleading." I pefectly agree! I will sign the rebuttal.

Why the scientist would even read the papers at all, when he barely gets to read the scientific work of his field?

It seems that the author of the article does not even know the basic principles concerning complex systems. The Gaia complex system includes the man, the butterfly Papilio machaon, the nettle, the brewer's yeast and so on. Each of them with its more or less specific role. To speak of protecting only the species useful to man is a non-sense from every point of view, and is part of a more or less broad spatial and ecological context, which in turn interacts with the rest of the biosphere. I absolutely agree to reject the article with the utmost firmness

SORRY, there was a mistake in my previous rext. right:

It seems that the author of the article does not even know the basic principles concerning complex systems. The Gaia complex system includes the man, the butterfly Papilio machaon, the nettle, the brewer's yeast and so on. Each of them with its more or less specific role and is part of a more or less broad spatial and ecological context, which in turn interacts with the rest of the biosphere. To speak of protecting only the species useful to man is a non-sense from every point of view, I absolutely agree to reject the article with the utmost firmness

With my question, I wanted the community to become aware of the initiative to fight back the dangerous and erroneous arguments published in the Washington Post and to gather more signatories. I like when commenters make arguments against the Washington Post piece, but I honestly find unhelpful to make comments about Pyron. Let's focus on ideas/arguments and ways to push back those arguments in the WP article that could be used by insane governments and corporations to continue devastating biodiversity.

As much as i appreciate Pyron's carreer in herpetology, i can't help but see this piece of argument as fuel for anti-conservationist agenda.

A good thought provking question. A colleague of mine who is a nutritional ecologist says that "humnas are just another species," no different fr

Apologies about last post; computer shut down. My point is that a level of conservation triage or "prioritisation" is required to invest resources in species that have a high likelihood of survival in the long term to establish self-sustaining populations and continue to supply/support ecosystem services that all biodiversity benefits. Resources for conservation and species recovery is limited in all countries. Unfortuneately, dedicated threatened species legislation such as the ESA 1973 (USA) & SARA (Canada) is having its effectiveness eroded by political interferance.

Washington Post is yellow press. They They lied about Pyron's position. He did not say such words, phrases, etc. Here is his refutation:

https://biology.columbian.gwu.edu/r-alexander-pyron

For my mind this discussion was necessary and I thank A.Pyron for his open letter. Since nothing is clearly black or white in our world, also in this case we have a natural selection (which can lead to extinction of a species) and man-caused extinction. Even without addressing to any statistics I intuitively feel the number of taxa driven to the brink of extinction due to human activities is huge. I do not know, have in mind or would accept and recognized any “institution” which will “judge and decide” which taxa is worth of existence and which is not.

This is why I decided to join the international team of scientists and citizens and sign for the rebuttal.

I just read the professors refutation. Not convinced that the magazine "lied"; I have made mistakes myself with the press - and I have paid for that. So, the damage is done. The professor cannot undue what is in print and will be used against us. And why must I have to bare the cost of this "tool" in the hands of people who want to damage biodiversity conservation. I am frustrated and upset about this. Its not over. ''endure

Sometimes there are things changed, mistakes of interpretation, etc. etc. in this case of press notes. So, a rebuttal is absolutely necessary, since our beloved politicians use that as argument for even the most unexpected things.

It is puzzling that the debate continues without any acceptance by politicians and big business that biodiversity decline will impact upon human survival. The old potato that we can engineer ourselves out of the "environmental tipping points" of species extinction, water pollution, coral bleaching, deforestation, ice sheet melting, glacier retreat....need I carry on, has no currency with the corrective powers of nature. SEcuring the ecosystem services that are required for our survival is of paramount importance, not worrying about the media stamping on our academic egos.

I do not agree with the essence of Pyron's message in his newspaper article; ofcourse, he may have or others may have different opionion on the species extinction- the extinction at evolution is very differnt aspect than that of today's global context where human being is the biggest factor for species extinction. Undoubtedly, ignoring a newspaper article is justified in general terms, but in larger context, a newspaper coverage will have greater influence on the masses and specially on the politicians. therefore, an appropriate rebuttal on the article would be good idea. And that too should be offered with well authentic scientific supports. I would be joining any such compaign which may wipe out regid approaches. -Hemant K Badolaopinionsand biassed level pshyche of a

The article is very cynical and deserves a rebuttal. Comparing the anthropogenic threat to global biodiversity to a beaver dam, shows how ignorant and unsympathetic the author is. It seems he was just trying to get attention for all the wrong reason.

The quote of Ed Wilson's statement (1998) in the rebuttal letter could also be read to support Pyron's view.

Besides of rebuttal to WP, it may be a good idea to do it on a scientific way to, sending a letter with the corresponding support and well referenced to a journal. I think it may be useful for different purposes.

Please read the authors rebuttal His work was rewritten by the Post apparently. Https://biology.columbian.gwu.edu/r-alexander-pyron

That's ridiculous. There is no scientific basis

Cheers

Cesar

We can recognize the good faith and good intentions of A.R. Pyron, but good intentions are paved the streets of hell ... I think Pyron himself should demand that the Washington Post publish a rectification and admit to have misunderstood the words of the interviewee.

We must protect biodiversity https://buff.ly/2CA80jU

"Our joint effort together with over 3700 co-signatories around the world has just been published! Thanks everyone for your participation and fantastic input, biodiversity is worth fighting for!!"—@antonelli_lab

Alexander Pyron is completely wrong and out of focus. The author does not understand the meaning of evolution and believes that natural selection and evolution are the same thing. He speaks as politician without scientific support following the interests of multinational companies to justify the use and destruction of natural resources for private benefit. The author should understand that we humans are part of the planet, the planet does not belong to us, in such a way that if the planet is destroyed, we humans also become extinct.

I have no relationship to Alexander Pyron and a different opinion. But the latter does not really matter here. I am against the way Alexander Pyron is treated in this thread, and this is enough to not sign the rebuttal letter, although I believe that its essence is right (I will explain later why I just believe). My answer to Pyron is my work in a developing country with one of the highest deforestation rates, I am field biologist, ecologist and biology teacher in Bolivia for seven years now. Currently I am trying to save a primary forest fragment where I discovered (together with my little son) a species richness hotspot of ant mimicking spiders and several new insect species. I cant explain why I am doing this. Maybe its a sentimental thing.

Pyron has expressed his opinion and the newspaper has decided to publish it, apparently altering the original statements. Anyway, his argument is worth to discuss (when following his argumentation, his shortfall is that we simply dont know how much diversity we need). The scientific community is strong enough to discuss such points of view without starting a witch hunting. Furthermore, it is just speculation that this newspaper article has any impact.

I was always interested in strong arguments why to protect biological diversity. After reading this thread I thought, well, when these guys attack a single person in publicity for that reason, I finally will get the arguments I was waiting for, being able to shine in front of my students.

After reading the rebuttal letter by Antonelli, I still dont know any killer arguments.

The letter says that my grandchildren may know several large mammals only from picture books. I am father of two sons and planning a trip to Africa because they may never see a lion or elephant in the wild when they grow up, but this is, again, sentimental. Well, humanity knows large dinos only from picture books. Its better that way.

"Today, species are disappearing up to 1,000 times faster than pre-human rates."

Still no argument why the disappearance is a problem.

"Extinction so fast, that there may be no immediate replacements."

Why is this a problem?

"It is dangerous to think that we are “no better or worse” without a large proportion of the species alive today. Biodiversity has extensive unknown and untapped potential. No one would have argued for the conservation of a simple fungus 100 years ago, yet today who among us would argue against the value of penicillin?"

These sentences follow the logic of Pyron, and I think this is the most problematic part of the rebuttal letter. Potential for whom? Us? Our survival?

What is when biodiversity does not have such an extensive potential? Eliminate what we dont need?

I am really disappointed with the letter, I think to convince decision makers and newspaper readers, some new approaches are needed. We are stuck in the middle of nowhere, and there is a reason for this.

My efforts to save the primary forest fragment , which is 500 m away from a village, will probably fail, as the people have a good reason to cut the forest: they will build a hospital (the perfect place to administer Penicillin) and other useful things.

Well, I am happy that Researchgate disabled the dislike button, my profile would look great after getting 3700 dislikes.

Robert, the only thing in your text with which I agree is the fact that some of the commenters seemed to have preferred make statements about Pyron rather than debating his arguments with arguments. Same as you, I dislike that. I disagree with everything else you said. Unfortunately, I lack the time to engage in a discussion online with you. Thank you, though, for expressing your opinion in this thread.

Thank you very much for your evaluation, Eliecer. Apart from the only thing you like and some major things you certainly dislike, there are some little points that no reasonable person would dislike. Although neither I do have time for this, I have read the thread you started and also the letter by Antonelli. Would be great to get some arguments, in case you have time.

Cheers,

Robert

You are welcome.

True, small points. I should have said "essentially" after "with" and before "everything", but I imagined you would understand I referred to your main arguments. Best.

Great, got it. Would be nice to get your meaning regarding main arguments. Disagreeing and disliking is not really the scientific exchange I was looking for.

Respectfully, Robert

"Today, species are disappearing up to 1,000 times faster than pre-human rates."

About which you commented '"Still no argument why the disappearance is a problem"

And then you expect people to spend time explaining you why this is a problem? More efficient ways to get the message across exist—like multiple rebuttals to Pyron's text.

Eliecer, you are trying to convince me to sign "this rebuttal to Pyron's article in the Washington Post" and not other, multiple rebuttals to Pyron's text.

Yes, while spending time in your thread, I am hopefully expecting that people here have the time to explain me why this is a problem. Why else exists your thread? It was extensively used to make comments about Pyron.

Where is your argument? Is there any short point or reference you can give me?

Thank you,

Robert

NO, I am not trying to convince You of anything. It was an open, public invitation.

Eliecer, I thought convincing people is important to protect our environment. It was an open, public invitation to a rebuttal letter that should include some convincing arguments why Pyron is wrong (from my subjective point of view).

Pyron presents his idea that mass extinctions occurred several times and are not a big deal, one of Antonelli's counter arguments is that the disappearance occurs fast. I need some help here, I dont get the point. How should the Washington post reader get the point - by reading multiple rebuttal letters?

As already mentioned, I think that Antonelli (unintentionally) partly supports Pyron by following his logic that nature should serve human.

To give an argument that does not follow Pyron's and Antonelli's logic:

"In December 2014, Argentina became the first country to recognize a non-human primate as having legal rights when it ruled that an orangutan named Sandra at the Buenos Aires Zoo must be moved to a sanctuary in Brazil in order to provide her "partial or controlled freedom".

This implies that nature should not be protected because it has "extensive unknown and untapped potential", it should be protected because we are (or pretend to be) empathic, bright, intelligent primates that dont need to terrorize and torture, or to kill if not necessary (to meet metabolic requirements).

While Antonelli's approach has the same goal, to preserve live, Pyron seems to suggest that human is something like a 007 of evolution. Indeed not sympathic.

Maybe my arguments are less convincing for Washington post readers, but at least something that may be mentioned as an alternative explanation in this context.

I had a short look at Pyrons Facebook account, where he is apologizing for his article. Many people refer to the big damage he caused. If this is really the case (which I dont hope), it would be shocking, as it shows that society is much less convinced of the importance of nature conservation (than I expected).

Thanks for your attention and patience.

Ethical arguments concerning biodiversity conservation were first presented by Italian zoologist Oscar de Beaux in a booklet titled "Etica biologica" (1930). However, I think that these ethical aspects - toward species conservation, not toward each individual - should not let us forget that biodiversity is essential for human communities, particularly the poorer, as argued recently by Pope Francis. I must add that I find some scientific reading of current biodiversity loss severly biased; this has also been the case about an Extinction exhibit here in Italy. It seems that scientists cannot be advocate, a things I do not agree if they arguments are based on science.

Some arguments in favor of protecting and conserving biodiversity:

Biodiversity is the biosphere as a whole, that means environment (nature) and life forms that populate it. The components of biodiversity are not autonomous elements, independent of each other, nor aligned or juxtaposed but are interdependent elements, all interacting. The survival of each element is important for the survival of others.

it is therefore the totality of the relationships between the different species in their physical and chemical environment that ensures the development of each of the components of biodiversity. Thus, the reduction of biodiversity affects the entire system because the elements are interdependent. There are no unnecessary species. All species have a role to play in ecosystems.

It is interesting to raise the issue of the shake-up of evolutionary theories that are taking place now. I like the simple theory that "chance" drives evolution. Without the diversity and complexity of biota, chance has a diminished ability to occur.

A rebuttal (we must protect biodiversity; a little over 200 words) with over 3700 signatories of Pyron's article (We don’t need to save endangered species; about 2000 words) is one of the best debates on the biodiversity conservation. Largely, like this, such debates are confined amongst scholars and scientists; rebuttal either in the form of small paragraph in Washington Post for common people, or as a proposed full-length potential article in a journal for scholars will have its own importance, but the message going deep in the psyche and knowledge base of the people is something different and is necessary to understand. The Pyron's article is relatively big and attractive to common readership and might have already received by huge numbers of people.

At this juncture, I suggest, how many of us (out of over 3700 signatories) may develop a popular article (better pictorial) each and publish in the local, regional or global magazines/news papers- an initiative really matters for the Masses. Of course those independent popular article, preferably published within one month or so can be shared amongst us through Research Gate, a forum for wider importance.

When preparing a popular article, you should not forget mentioning this relationship. Will be interesting discussing terms like "moral" and "penicillin" in this context.

Cheers,

Robert

Certainly Robert, human population growth and species extinction has significant relationships. The resource use pattern strongly linked to species conservation threat and these need to be highlighted in our popular articles.

The elephant in the room. Humanity in a petri dish.

It would be a pleasure to sign.

Thank you Mario Zunino for posting this to ResearchGate and thereby bringing it to our attention. I keep it simple:

The Extinctions are happening on our Watch. Humans for the most part are causing these. We are therefore responsible for arresting the sad declines. It's our mess, we should clean it up. I will sign.

Even if the origin of human beings is not on the same planet as other species, there is no reason to destroy such beautiful composition.

You can add me to the list, we must protect all the natural enviorment , from the negative impact of humans.

We are so easily moved by the sight of playful otters or a fuzzy squirrels, so easily seduced by these charismatic megafauna, that we forget that herpes is also part of nature’s majesty… I’m adopting a tapeworm to support biodiversity: what’s are your contribution?

But seriously, for a non-ecologist, like me, Pyron raises some interesting points. For example, say build a platinum mine would cause the extinction of a particular species. Should we perhaps allow the mine to be opened if we could use some of the revenue generated by the mine to fund projects aimed at saving five other species? (Are all biodiversity equal? Why do biodiversity matter: what is our motive for saving some species and not others?)

Gustav, a lot of debate has already appeared in this forum on your questions; you may like to read them. However, it is not the question of simply one species extinction but why and how that species being extinct is more vital concern. Above all, the habitats of a particular species are further more important to understand if we wish to justify our intension of conservation targeting a species under lens.

Pyron’s statements derive from the following wrong premise: past mass extinctions have affected biodiversity worldwide and the life in the planet has flourished more than once under such unfavorable conditions. We don´t have certainty for that, because the fossil record is enough incomplete and because the stratigraphic sections that show one extinction event are just represented in a few geographic regions that were closer than they are today. Summed to that, some sections that may contain the evidence for the extinction in the marine realm are very difficult to calibrate to continental sections of apparently the same age. Thus, it is not right, and would be very inconvenient comparing the gradual lack of diversity triggered by the Big Five in the past to the demonically rapid extinction (in land and seas, from vertebrates to invertebrates; from plants to protists) produced by man today. Moreover, along to many other uncertainties, Pyron argument about how much unnecessary polar bears can be to continue easily with our lives, denotes a big ignorance about how much important to life is the trophic chain equilibrium to avoid plague expansion, which surely will be a very bad company for man in the future (for sure he would prefer to see the bears in the poles). Besides, how Pyron expect that life can resurge in a world where freshwater is scarce and poisoned? In sum, scientists will have to work hard to shoot down thoughts like these from Alexander Pyron, and I congratulate this initiative of scientists worried to this kind of troubles that may generate an unreal vision of the future encouraging man to continue devastating nature.