I often get a tad territorial when scientists of other professions start pontificating on biology matters - especially when it's evolution, or game management. It's like when a plumber tries to much with the wiring in the house - they've brought the wrong set of tools. So when I saw Arctic Economics' post on the future of the polar bear, I was instantly leery.
Turns out, I shouldn't have been. Ben handles the issue quite properly by discussion the authors quite evenly, by giving the people who've spent years studying the system the benefit of the doubt that - hey - maybe they know something about Polar Bears, ice, and ice trends. While he does delve into some personal navel gazing, he keeps it at a minimum. This was a very good post, and I recommend you give it a skim.
To veer off course for a moment, part of the reason soap boxing annoys me is the implicit assumption that game management, population genetics, and other important bits of conservation biology are and easy enough to pick up by the laity in a weekend of reading magazine articles. Just about everyone who's ever peed in the brush thinks they know how to do it, and won't hesitate to tell you how things really are.
Anyhow. Arctic Economics. Good blog, for a free-trader's perspective on things. It's good to have some diversity in your reading diet.
No comments:
Post a Comment