TED Community » Mitchell Babbitt

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: Do zoos help biodiversity conservation?

  Jun 8 2012: I disagree completely. Mainly because to NOT invest in conservation efforts is a terrible business decision by any zoo. This is one of those instances where economic and ecological interests are congruent. From the economic perspective of the zoo, its a winning marketing decision. Zoo = exotic animals = efforts to save those animals. Having people associate strong conservation efforts with your zoo is a great thing, and since those efforts are preserving biodiversity, its a win-win. Zoos are certainly not the best at conservation, but any effort is a useful effort.

• A reply on Conversation: Do zoos help biodiversity conservation?

  Jun 8 2012: I agree that this is probably the best way zoos can contribute most meaningfully. Partnering with or creating a conservation organization as a zoo is not only a great way to build a brand image but also to bolster conservation efforts. It all falls in line with the mission of a zoo, and in that way is an appropriate environmentally excellent way to do business.

• A comment on Conversation: Do zoos help biodiversity conservation?

  Jun 8 2012: It is certainly the role of any high level or developed zoo to be a focal point for the general public in terms of conservation efforts around the world. It is a logical extension of the services zoos provide to make meaningful contributions to biodiversity conservation efforts.
  
  One does run into the problem of charismatic prioritization when dealing with zoos, however. It is in a zoo's interest, for instance, to take in and focus efforts on interesting, big, and unique animals instead of looking at merely species that are endangered but may not make a great show.
  
  In this way zoos may fall short of the purely categorical and scientific approach to analyzing and preserving species based exclusively on their need. Yet zoos are an economically organic/business sustainable channel through which conservation efforts should an are brought to the fore- and important function, even if they may not be the best institution there is for preserving biodiverstity.

• A reply on Conversation: From ivory tower to prison cell: How can we bring conservation efforts to the public?

  Jun 8 2012: "In order to make as big as an impact as possible, environmentalism needs to become part of every day life and habit."
  
  This describes it extremely aptly I think. But the most effective place to focus our energy I think is in education. Its is much more straight forward to raise a conservation-aware generation (one that takes environmentalism as part of every day life) than to try to reteach or re-alight hard set old habits in the current generation (though that is a worthy effort, too, just a much more difficult and expensive one that may yield weaker results). We should have conservation class offered in high schools, and recycling and biodiversity lessons before that. It should be required the same way that English and history are. This is the best and most sure fire way to produce a conservation-wise society.

• A reply on Conversation: From ivory tower to prison cell: How can we bring conservation efforts to the public?

  Jun 8 2012: Its been done with the 3 Rs of recycling, but it could be done in a more pervasive way and with greater scope, in my opinion. Especially if we are looking to keep it away from being an actual class.
  The best way to expand upon the success that Washington State has seen here is almost certainly to bring it to other institutions, like many have said, to schools.
  
  I don't necessarily agree that we should keep the subject away from its own course or subject though.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Do extremist tactics push environmentalism forwards or backwards?

  Jun 4 2012: No extremist action moves any cause forward in the long run. An extremist approach tries to play billiards when the game you need to win is chess. Smart, common sense, clear communications on a subject will always be more effective than extremism, because people can react positively to such media more easily, and in this way a cause can gain supporters more quickly. Persistence is important, but shock and awe tactics, especially extremist ones, cannot solve long term problems.

• A reply on Conversation: Do extremist tactics push environmentalism forwards or backwards?

  Jun 4 2012: "Usually right about the problem but wrong about the solution." Love that saying. And it fits in perfectly my thoughts on the subject. Yet I would suggest that there are far more instances of extremism on the right than on the left, just as a result of the nature of the worldviews. Its interesting to think though, given this, that we see more extremism on the left in the world of "eco-terrorism". This might be reflective of the way that conservation has typically not been a subject critically close to the conservative heart, traditionally.

• A comment on Conversation: Should Cannabis be legalized as a medicine?

  May 23 2012: By any consistent standard of substance hazard, cannabis is FAR less dangerous than many legal substances- for example, alcohol.
  The number of deaths in the history of humanity due to marijuana overdose? Still a whopping none, zero, nada.
  So if we as a society were looking to hold all substances to a consistent standard of control, of COURSE cannabis should be allowable as an alternative medicine, and should be treated with similar or less regulation than alcohol in every other sphere!
  But unfortunately we don't hold all substances to a consistent standard, because there is money to be made transforming the medicinal properties of this plant into a pill!

• A comment on Conversation: Given that chimpanzees are endangered, is it ethical to use them in biomedical research?

  May 14 2012: I'm certain it has been said before, but I don't have a problem with using Chimps in biomedical research (as long as they are being treated humanely, of course). I do believe, though, that chimps should not be taken from the wild for use in research for precisely the reason the original post outlined. We shouldn't contribute to endangerment of this species, especially one so useful to us. Instead, only chimps bred in captivity or that would otherwise not survive in the wild should be used in research in these fields.

• A comment on Conversation: What are ecosystem services that you rely on everyday? Are you willing to pay for them?

  May 2 2012: I too take issue with the assumption that organic or local farming is inherently a practice that has favorable environmental impact as compared to high-yield or industrial farming. It has to due with efficiency. Organic farms are terribly inefficient, and our demand for food wont be decreasing anytime soon. Adding millions of acres of farmland just to move away from high-yield farming is an approach that might end up causing more problems than it solves. Instead focusing on isolating our ecosystems from the toxic effects of industrial farming. Humans alone now industrially fix more nitrogen than all of the rest of the tree of life. The need to contain N, toxics, and pesticide runoff should be much more pressing, closer to how we treat radioactive waste.
  
  LOCAL products, however, are always a good buy if you have the opportunity. Eliminating the environmental cost of shipping as much as possible is a HUGE step everybody can take.
  
  I would also say that the actual cost of a high-yield product when compared to an organic product is probably much closer than the dollar value attached to each. The missing price of the high-yield product is just expensed as environmental damage, so we are instead paying for that ear of corn with environmental security.