Focus on small-scale “efficiency” over-prioritizes species that need limited ranges, while killing off species requiring large ranges – perverts evolution
Kareiva and Marvier 3 (Peter, Lead Scientist for The Nature Conservancy, affiliated with the Bren School of the University of California, Santa Barbara and the Environmental Studies Institute at Santa Clara University, Michelle, assistant professor of biology at Santa Clara University, Ph.D. in bio from UC Santa Cruz, American Scientist, http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=869&y=2003&no=4&content=true&page=2&css=print, accessed 7-8-11, JMB)
Another shortcoming of the hotspot methodology becomes apparent when one looks carefully at how it is often applied. Although Myers and his colleagues initially proposed hotspots as a means of setting conservation priorities at a very large scale and in a coarse manner, the notion of getting the most species per unit area of land protected ("efficiency") has been translated to much smaller spatial scales with potentially unfortunate consequences. For example, in the past few years two influential analyses of biodiversity within the U.S. have been used to show how conservationists might efficiently protect species by focusing on just a few small clusters of critical counties. This strategy would, however, fail to protect adequately those species that require large tracts of relatively undisturbed habitat. An added worry surfaces when you take a long-term, evolutionary perspective on the problem. By focusing on conserving the most species in the smallest possible area (for the sake of cost-effectiveness), conservationists may inadvertently be altering the course of evolution. How? Protecting hotspots at small scales favors species that can live in relatively restricted areas. Thus we might expect rodents to enjoy high speciation rates relative to extinction rates. At the other extreme, species that require vast territories, and thus cannot be contained in cost-effective hotspots, will suffer disproportionate extinction relative to speciation. Hence primates and large carnivores would be expected to wane relative to their smaller mammalian counterparts. Recent analyses of vertebrate extinction and speciation rates suggest that this is exactly what is happening. Thus, as Donald A. Levin (of the University of Texas at Austin) and Phillip S. Levin (of the National Marine Fisheries Service) argued in these pages not too long ago (Macroscope, January–February 2002), the Earth may well end up with a paucity of primates and rhinoceroses, and a surplus of rodents.
AT: Famine – Alt Cause – Maldistribution
The problem isn't the amount of food in the world, it's the distribution that matters.
Barrett 2 (Christopher B., http://dyson.cornell.edu/special_programs /AFSNRM/Parima /Papers%20from %20Cbb2/Papers/BarrettFoodSecurityandFood%20AssistancePrograms.pdf, Dept. Agri. Res. Mgmt. @ Cornell, accessed 7/8/11) CJQ
The second broad pattern is that, despite indisputable progress, hunger and food insecurity remain distressingly widespread. The absolute number of people suffering food insecurity has not fallen appreciably, as widespread poverty and increasingly unequal asset and income distributions conspire to counteract increased per capita food availability and falling food prices [International Conference on Nutrition (1992), Bread for the World Institute (1995)]. A large plurality of the world’s hungry and food insecure reside in South Asia; despite a falling rate of prevalence, absolute numbers of malnourished people have risen there. The best available estimates suggest that 800– 1300 million people in the world – about the same number as are classified as “poor” – suffer chronic PEM [International Conference on Nutrition (1992), Bread for the World Institute (1995)]. Another 2 billion people are affected by micronutrient deficiencies related to insufficient intake of iodine, iron, or vitamin A [International Conference on Nutrition (1992)]. The distributional challenge is highlighted by the fact that a large proportion of these people – indeed, the great majority of food-insecure children – live in homes where others have enough to eat [United Nations Children’s Fund (1995)]. The distressing prevalence of macronutrient and micronutrient deficiency despite ample food availability highlights the now widely accepted fact that food availability is not the primary cause of food insecurity, the problem is in the distribution of available food.
AT: Famine – Alt Cause – Inaction
Increasing efficiency won't solve—people are too selfish and they'll never help others.
Zenit 11 (Roman Reporting Service, http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-32994, accessed 7/8/11) CJQ
VATICAN CITY, JULY 1, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is citing the United Nations and other experts in affirming that global food production is capable of feeding the world population. But, he says, millions "do not have their daily bread" because of egotism. The Pope stated this today when he received in audience participants of the 37th session of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. The session concludes Saturday. "Poverty, underdevelopment and hence, hunger, are often the result of egoistic behavior that, coming from man's heart, is manifested in social action, in economic exchanges, in the market conditions, in the lack of access to food, and is translated in the negation of the primary right of all persons to nourish themselves and, therefore, to be free from hunger," the Holy Father stated. He decried that "even food has become an object of speculations or is linked to changes in a financial market that, deprived of certain laws and poor in moral principles, seems anchored only in the goal of profit."
Share with your friends: |