Finger on the spot

Economist | Apr. 14, 2008 (Opinion)

Your correspondent is all for scientific progress, but biologists have spent about 15 years trying to determine how best to set conservation priorities. Although the science has improved over the years, the continued emphasis on what to save, rather than how to do it, seems like cataloguing deck chairs on the Titanic. Biologists are still running modelling experiments to determine whether to save the Wedgwood or leaded crystal as the house smoulders and ... Full Story »

Posted by Subramanya Sastry

More Info

4.3

by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008

This opinion piece discusses as issue I did not know about. Undoubtedly the hotspot scientists would have something to say about the author's conclusions, but this makes for a great starting point on this issue. The 'house on fire' analogy helped explain the issue well.

See Full Review » (12 answers)

3.6

by Gary Clark - Oct. 1, 2008

It's interesting that an environmental article appears in The Economist! Prioritizing which species to save, or conversely which to allow extinction, is largely an economic decision, as the author points out at the end. It doesn't address the complexity of inter-dependency of species within an ecosystem, which would mean detailing what eats what and how habitat is created that is necessary for all to survive.

See Full Review » (7 answers)