The American Conservative and the Hurdle of Endangered Species

I have frequently read complaints online by American commentators, usually conservative or libertarian, about the way government administrations handle issues regarding endangered species, and blocking projects to save them. The most frequent examples over the last few years is a tiny kind of fish in the desert of the American southwest, and a frog. Currently, Texas seeks to block the addition of a lizard to the Endangered Species List in fear it would threaten oil exploration and development there.

Having studied for a biology degree, and being pretty darn conservative, there is an aspect I should add that conservatives would appreciate. The scorn heaped upon "liberals" and statists blocking projects over nigh inconsequential species is due to the religiosity of "environuts", or environmentalists, and essentially being willing to harm humanity in the name of some minor animal. But those familiar with scientific matters in biology know that there are unimaginable benefits to preserving the genetic (and now, epigenetic), protein, and physiological libraries we call "species".

And it is not an abstract ideal, form of utopianism, or mere hope for finding benefits buried in a genome or body, but a prejudice grown of already reaping billions, per year, in quantifiable terms alone--far more in unquantified benefit, of learning from biology and implementing it wherever a creative mind happens to stumble. Here is an example, where researchers just discovered a potent chemical in the blood of pandas, and because of the study of pandas, it was not only found but found to act as an antibacterial and antifungal agent, one that kills both normal and drug-resistant strains. For the many ignorant of the facts, microbes are becoming resistant to every known and currently usable kind of "antibiotics", for overuse (such as on cattle and plants) and underuse (such as when people stop taking them too early), meaning that the most important discoveries are new methods of treatment; this because the current happy estate of mankind where most live beyond childhood, survive infections, and beyond thirty, is one we don't want to become a recollection, but persist.

Meanwhile, the mere cocooned state of a certain critter in China was discovered as the source of a new anti-inflammatory compound, already used (at great expense) by the natives, now under development for use in fighting a myriad of diseases, including cancer.

Because elements and molecules recombine infinitely, and those involved in biology (i.e. most important to us) are more complicated than nearly anyone can imagine, the loss of species is a grave loss to humanity: we can't just produce molecules to do what we desire within an organism--such as our own body--. Species loss will surely happen, but we don't want to be the cause of it. Texas is worried, for instance, about loss of immediate revenues*, about "the economy", about "jobs", but within any given species are many treasuries worth more billions than can yet be dreamed . I am on the side of drilling...just taking extreme measures to prevent destruction of the species in the area.

As far as learning from biological organisms, the difficulties are in figuring out "how", what there is to be learned, doing so without destroying them (while some discoveries require killing and organism, many of the benefits are found only in living things), and how to apply it, that is difficult.


* And perhaps some Americans about threats to "energy independence" (or less energy dependence).