sounds fishy

fish make noise

the value of biodiversity

Occasionally, I find myself stunned to speechlessness. For those looking for the secret of inducing this state, try something like the following by Tyler Cowen over at Marginal Revolution:

[Jeffrey Sachs'] new book Common Wealth devotes an entire chapter to this important topic. Sachs writes:

The main lesson of ecology is the interconnectedness of the various parts of an ecosystem and the dangers of abrupt, nonlinear, and even catastrophic changes caused by modest forcings...It is a basic finding that biological diversity increases the productivity and resilience of ecosystems. With more species filling more niches in a given location, a biodiverse ecosystem is better buffered against external shocks in is more adept at cycling nutrients, capturing solar radiation, utilizing water resources, and preventing the takeover of the system by single predators, weeds, or pathogens. In other words, preserving biodiversity helps to preserve all aspects of ecosystem functions. Removing one or more species from an ecosystem, for example, by selective harvesting of trees or fish or hunted animals, can lead to a cascade of ecological changes with large, adverse, and nonlinear effects on the functioning of the ecosystem.

Now, loyal MR readers may remember that I am genuinely uncertain how much we should worry about the loss of biodiversity. I do know the following:

1. Many smart people who know much more science than I do are very worried about the loss of biodiversity.

2. Given that the human population has ballooned for the foreseeable future, massive losses in biodiversity are inevitable. The question is how bad the marginal losses will be, if we do not adapt policy accordingly.

3. If I had to conduct a debate and argue that the marginal loss of biodiversity was going to be a tragedy for human beings (obviously, I can see the loss to animals, and yes I do count that for something), I would not do very well.

What is there to say at this point? I can expand on what Sachs says. I can clarify or give examples. But ultimately, the logic is what it is. To me, it looks profoundly sound. To Cowen, it doesn't.

Is there anything else to say?

briefs: peer review

passing peer review is better understood as saying a paper is not obviously wrong, not obviously redundant and not obviously boring, rather than as saying it's correct, innovative and important

three-toed sloth

you can die from that -- UPDATE UPDATE

Blogging as the new sweatshop? Methinks the NYT is a little shrill. Yes, two bloggers have died of heart attacks, presumably brought on by stress, unhealthy eating, and the extreme sedentary behavior that comes with blogging for a living (when you work from home, it's always there, and as a result, so are you).

Fortunately for you, dear reader, I don't get paid for my blog, so there's no stress, and I just came back from a run, so I don't think I'll be one of the statistics. I just hope my health insurance premiums don't go up as a result of my dangerous pastimes (oh wait, that's right... I live in Canada now).

For the record, tech bloggers sometimes earn $30-70k/year, and even the 'self-employed' can sometimes pull in $1000/month. But science bloggers aren't quite as popular as tech bloggers. I'd wager philosophy of science blogs are less popular still. That doesn't mean I'm not jealous.

(hat tip Pure Pedantry)

See my previous posts on death and dying.

genetically modified foods at the farm stand?

In continuing my clear obsession with food:

I'm looking forward to hearing more about Lauren Doucette's project which aims to measure the total energy expended in getting food from field to fork.

It takes as much energy to run the farmer's market for a day as it does to run a household for a year. The newspaper latched onto that stat, though, as Lauren stated but the reporter did not include, such a figure is meaningless until it is compared with other markets. How much does Kroger use? Food Lion? The Kwik-E-Mart? (For a start, consider consumers getting there, producers delivering products, the energy to operate the facility itself, and so on...)

More from World's Fair.

I'm also delighted to hear that for at least some people the organic food movement is more than luddite ideology.

To meet the appetites of the world's population without drastically hurting the environment requires a visionary new approach: combining genetic engineering and organic farming.

This idea is anathema to many people, especially the advocates who have helped build organic farming into a major industry in richer countries.... Most organic farming trade organizations are deeply, viscerally opposed to genetically engineered crops and seeds....

But ultimately, this resistance hurts farmers, consumers, and the planet. Without the use of genetically engineered seed, the beneficial effects of organic farming - a thoughtful, ecologically minded approach to growing food - will likely remain small.

Organic farming alone is too resource intensive--lower yields mean more acreage devoted to agriculture. On the other hand, genetic engineering alone is only a temporary solution in the arms race against insects.

After seven years of pesticide reductions in Bt cotton fields in China, populations of other insects increased so much that farmers had to resume spraying certain insecticides. Organic farmers, by contrast, control these secondary pests by introducing beneficial insects that feed on the pests and by rotating crops to reduce the overall pest populations.

More from Boston.com.

ye of little faith

Today we sat down with an inter-faith network of Liberian religious leaders to talk about their peace building plans. They are a truly inspiring organization, building local capacity to resolve conflicts, and training mediators to resolve disputes in the community. The countryside is, to some extent, a powder keg, and they are building local early warning systems and rapid response capability to potentially serious conflicts.

Moreover, to reduce tensions in conflict-prone places, these religious leaders--principally Muslims and Christians--do not just aspire to a new social contract, they sit down with ethnic and religious leaders in each village and coax them to actually write one, specifying norms and sanctions.

And they want to know if it's working.

I hum and haw about comparison groups, going through my impact evaluation 101 schpiel. I have serious concerns that one would or could develop a control group, let alone randomize, for such a program. So I dance delicately around the subject.

"Wait a minute," interrupts the Imam, "Are you talking about a randomized control trial?"

I gape.

"Oh I see!" says one Reverend Minister, "We need a control group! This is a good idea."

It turns out his holiness was once an agronomist. "This is just like our control plots for fertilizer. But how are we going to control for spillover effects?"

An older Methodist leader frowns sitting in the corner glowers. "Please, a moment," he says. "I see a real problem here."

Here it comes. Here is the doubt and questioning I expected. We're talking about a peace building exercise, not fertilizer on a farm plot. Even I have my reservations. This man, of an older generation, clearly has other priorities.

"How," he asks "are we going to select a proper sample?"

via Marginal Revolution

water balloon fight!

from.