Yes, the title is inflammatory so let me explain. My young friend (she is eight) has a lot of questions and this was one posed to me the other day. I am paraphrasing so I’ll try to explain our conversation a bit more.This young friend (S-Little Patience) has a lot of questions and tries to connect ideas. We once spent an afternoon discussing the ethical dilemmas of ‘A Sister’s Keeper’ and she was catching nuances often missed by adults. Her older sister is interested in scientific ideas and experiments and it’s always fun to geek out with them. Yes, I’m corrupting our youth.
I think S-Little learned about evolution at school a few months ago but it was brought to the front of her mind by a Simpsons cartoon [Update: cartoon removed]. S-Little explained to me that evolution happens all the time but it can happen in bursts when there is a big change (a good review of punctuated equilibrium?). She said that evolution is a way for animals to work better in new places – it was important for me to understand that humans are animals – and if animals can’t live and have babies in new places, they die.
Recently in school, S-Little has been learning about conservation efforts and all the animals going extinct. She was wondering if we are seeing a burst of evolution and are conservation efforts harmful?
I did have an answer for her and I’ll share it in the next few days once I’ve stop travelling. In the meantime, can you let me know your response?
We did go on a tangent on some possible new animals. She would like to see puppies that don’t shed.
Lisa says
I think the dramatic habitat changes caused by humans are an unnatural source of change. What would the habitat be like if we had not destroyed or modified it? If human-made changes are causing bursts of evolution are they natural? Would they have occurred anyway? If the answer to these questions is no, then I would have to say that conservation efforts are not harmful, but simply trying to salvage some of the natural balance that may have existed if humans weren’t so invasive.
Lisa says
sorry, one more comment – S-Little has some great questions!
Catherine Anderson says
Doesn’t she?
Catherine Anderson says
Similar to what I said – she had some follow-up questions. I’ll detail in a post – but basically, she said aren’t natural disasters invasive? Why are humans different?
Jane de Lartigue says
That’s a pretty badass question from an 8 year old! A scientist in the making? Tough one to answer as well. I’m inclined to agree with Lisa, that the changes we have caused are unnatural. It is a valid argument to say that we are just outcompeting a lot of other organisms and they will have to evolve to adapt or go extinct. But regardless of what the answer actually is, I don’t think we should let it cloud our judgement in determining whether to help protect these animals or not. You can throw a whole bunch of other stuff at this argument like our higher intelligence and the fact that we are aware of the effect that we are having, this isn’t a primal instinct kind of thing anymore. But I’m interested to see what other people’s takes are on this issue!
Hannah Waters says
WOW! What a ballsy 8-year old! This is a question I think about a lot and for which I haven’t really come up with a good answer. On the one hand, we are just another species! “Invasive species,” for example, have been doing their invading throughout the entire history of life. What we consider “invasive” is simply something that we brought that changes the environment from our current baseline of what is “natural.” And, of course, “nature” is a human construction. I’m sure plenty of species throughout history have taken over, driving many others to extinction, and thus creating the baseline we have now. Extinction is an enormous part of the evolution of life.
But, on the other hand, we are conscious and cannot help but feel guilty for wiping something that we value, whether for beauty or its value as a resource to us, by our own fault. And this is a really good feeling to encourage! Because, of course, if humans just lived entirely unconsciously, we could really do a great deal of damage to the ecosystems we depend upon. This could cause our own extinction. And if we really are just another species, we need to preserve our resources so that we can continue to proliferate! And if we have the foresight to encourage the preservation of our resources, more power to us.
This is a lengthy rambling response outlining the basic battles I fight out in my head. But overall, my answer is: No. Simplified, conservation does impede natural selection to an extent. But while we humans are just animals, we are animals with the power to control our environment to our own benefit. And this is a trait we evolved. And we will keep trying to preserve our resources for our own benefit: to keep our species alive. So it’s also just part of natural selection.
I cannot wait to see what you have to write. This is really a fascinating topic and something that people don’t think about enough, especially those stuck on the idea of “humans as overlords.”
-Hannah, who is seemingly incapable of being truly concise
zoologirl says
Wow! What a great question from an eight year old! Having grown up in a household and attended a school that didn’t accept evolution, it often amazes me when kids think like this.
I guess I don’t like to think of humans and most of the changes we are causing as unnatural. I think this gives the impression that we are separate from or even above nature. After all, we and how we interact with our environment evolved through natural selection just like other animals. We are ecosystem engineers and have novel weapons, but we are not the first organisms to radically change the environment or outcompete multiple other species.
However, we recognize what are doing, and we (or at least many of us) don’t want to cause mass extinctions. We also realize that some of the changes we are causing can be harmful to ourselves. So, yes conservation does harm some species like the invasives we are actively trying to eliminate. But we are also helping other species through conservation. Whether we are active in conservation efforts or not, we will be helping some species while hurting others. Though we may be bending the rules of evolution, I think the only we can really stop evolution in a species is to cause its extinction. And the only way to eliminate our effect on the evolution of other organisms is for us to disappear… Sorry for the really long answer.
zoologirl says
After I hit submit, I saw Hannah’s comment that hit many of the points I tried to make, only better. 🙂
AlexFromOmaha says
This one’s actually pretty easy.
The most important point to make is that there’s nothing we can do about evolution, either positively or negatively, short of direct genetic manipulation. Humans live in real places, and the animals that can adapt do adapt to live in cities. Passiformes is a great example of an order that does well because of, not in spite of, human environments. With or without conservation efforts, there’s a real advantage to being able to live in food-rich urban areas without annoying its apex predator.
The big issue, however, is time. That’s a great understanding of punctuated equilibrium, with the caveat that I’m not sure she understands what “quick bursts” means in that context. You can get genetic drift in a few generations, and moth coloration is a textbook example of how humanity can induce that sort of change, but genetic drift relies on genes that already exist and are being expressed. Real evolution happens on a much broader timescale. 10,000 years is pretty quick for a real evolutionary change, but human cities and their accompanying environmental changes were very different 10,000 years ago, and will be very different in the future. In the case of Passiformes, the birds thrive because they’re smart, fast, unobtrusive omnivores. Insects thrive by escaping notice. If you weren’t fortunate enough to already have characteristics ideal for surviving in an urban environment, it’s not likely that you’re going to evolve to hit a constantly shifting target.
Since it isn’t a fair game, if we don’t pay attention to biodiversity, we’ll lose some. It’s a fair question, why we care about biodiversity at all, but that’s the subject for a book, not a post.
david winter says
Other commenters have said much the same as I would have. So here are a few brief thoughts.
To the extent that any action humans take interferes with evolution, every act does. We are sort of like time travellers in a pulp sci-f noveli, any action we take will change conditions a little and, because evolution has not in-built goal it will change the end results
People often make arguments about retaining “ecosytem functions” and saving tropical frogs because they might have the cure for cancer. That’s all true enough, but I think it’s easier than that. Conservation is a moral issue, humans are alone in the world in understanding the consequences of our actions (individually and as a species) and we should act accordingly. Simply saying extinction is part of the “natural order” holds no weight because “natural” is not the same as “right” and because the balance has been tipped so far from the natural position already.
By stepping in to conserve endangered species we prevent one evolutionary future from occurring, but there isn’t anything more “natural” in letting a species die because we want, for instance to turn their mountain into coal, than there is eradicating pests that endanger another.
(That, and I should join the chorus in saying that’s a pretty awesome 8 year old!)
Catherine Anderson says
OK, I’ve placed my initial response here: http://www.science3point0.com/genegeek/2010/11/24/my-response-conservation-holding-back-evolution/
I would love to create a *best* response and have started a page where everyone can add info/comments.