[Taxacom] Priorities in Funding
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Mar 9 15:57:05 CDT 2020
I know I'm jumping in a bit late to this game (been travelling), but I did want to comment on a couple of things (and, perhaps, shift the direction of the conversation a bit; hence the new subject line).
> And lets not forget the zillions spent on war, space exploration etc.
(the second half puts your point in perspective)
> by way of diverting what in the long run will be $trillions away
> from healthcare, welfare, etc., thereby helping to keep much
> of the world locked in poverty.
That's a pretty LLLLOONNNGGGG run for the OA publishing price tag to add up to $trillions; but what the hell -- I'll bite.
Stephen: you got it backwards, mate. With just a *tiny fraction* of the $trillions already spent on healthcare, welfare, etc. (more like $quadrillions by the time OA costs add up to $trillions) -- which probably saves only a few tens of millions of lives -- we could make MAJOR progress on documenting, understanding and perpetuating global biodiversity -- something of profound importance to the entire future of humanity (i.e., many **billions** of lives). And because we'd be siphoning only a *tiny fraction*, we'd *both* be able to save tens of millions of lives *and* give the future of humanity a fighting chance. Let's have our cake and eat it too!
Oh, and we don't even need to siphon a tiny fraction away from healthcare, welfare, etc. -- we can instead take a tiny fraction away from military, political campaigns, etc., who won't even notice that it's missing.
Donat clearly has the right of this, in my opinion. This may be a bit overly provocative, but entire civilizations have come and gone within the tiny window of time humans have roamed the planet, but global biodiversity is a nearly 4-billion-year old legacy that demands WAY more of our attention (compared to other luxuries we currently spend our time and resources on) than it has ever received. OA is an admittedly small(ish) part of this, but it is an important part nonetheless.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but our perpetual problem is that the choir of taxonomy/biodiversity has been *horribly* out of harmony, so there's no wonder hardly anyone has been listening. It's great that the issue of Climate Change has reached the heights that it has, but it's inexcusable that the associated loss of biodiversity has been little more than a footnote on the large-scale global conversation about climate change. The loss of biodiversity wasn't even mentioned in the film "An Inconvenient Truth" (except in the extended features on the DVD). I know we've been gradually getting better, and stories about the impact of climate change on biodiversity have been gradually making their way into the public consciousness. But it's still a bit of the tail wagging the dog, in my opinion. I think a STRONG case can be made that biodiversity loss should be **THE** major issue in the climate change conversation, because of it's potential impacts on the *entirety* of future human civilization (not just the measly few million years that we've been around so far, let alone the few decades of any particular human life, or more trivially, a political cycle). We in the biodiversity community are WAY underselling both the value and the urgency of this issue. The CBD and the like are all great steps in the right direction, but I fear those efforts are being seriously held back by our insatiable desire to bicker with each other about trivial issues. The physicists and astronomers figured this out decades ago, which I think is largely why their funding levels are *five orders of magnitude* more than ours (reference the above-linked video). Judging by the banality of what I often see on Taxacom and elsewhere, I'm not holding out a lot of hope.
More information about the Taxacom