The News & Observer


January 19, 2004


By Phillip Manning


________________________________________

Natural wonder
Look Who's Coming - E.O. Wilson, Scientist

Edward O. Wilson has loved animals all his life. As a boy growing up in Alabama, he would scour the Gulf Coast beaches for stingrays, crabs and jellyfish. His reverence for the natural world has never wavered.

Today Wilson, 74, is a scientist, a biology professor at Harvard University, the author of nine books and the winner of two Pulitzer Prizes. He's known for his graceful writing and solid science -- and as America's most influential advocate for preserving the world's remaining biodiversity.

AT UNC-CHAPEL HILL: Tuesday, 8 p.m., George Watts Hill Alumni Center, off Stadium Drive near Ridge Road, Chapel Hill. Free; call 962-1236 to reserve a seat.

AT NCSU: Wednesday, 7:30 p.m., McKimmon Center, Western Boulevard at Gorman Street, Raleigh. Free.

This week Wilson will be in the Triangle to discuss his most recent book, "The Future of Life" (Knopf, $22). He spoke by phone from his home in Lexington, Mass.

Q - The title of your most recent book is "The Future of Life." Let's turn that into a question: What is the future of life?

A - It's in the hands of humanity. Human beings are affecting the rest of life in two important ways: The first is the destruction of diversity, especially from habitat loss, including the indirect effects of global warming; the second way we are affecting life is by genetic engineering, and that is an accelerating trend with unknown effects.

Q - In many ways, "The Future of Life" revisits the themes you developed in your 1992 book "The Diversity of Life." How has your thinking about the Earth's diminishing natural areas changed in the last 12 years?

A - My feelings are mixed. There is a growing awareness around the world that the loss of biodiversity through extinctions is a huge problem, but I've been personally discouraged, as I know many other conservationists have, of how little action has been taken on this new awareness, especially by governments in the industrialized world, which have the means to do something about it.

Q - You give a great deal of credit to the conservation efforts of nongovernmental organizations but say little about the role of government in preserving natural areas. How can we encourage our government and other governments to participate more fully in protecting natural areas?

A - The major global conservation organizations are effective. Some have operating budgets of $100 million. They are imaginative; they are bold, and they are able to work with great effectiveness outside of government in developing countries where most of the biological diversity is being lost.

Ultimately, though, the governments will have to do the heavy lifting, because the salvage of the world's biodiversity is going to require billions of dollars. Even so, the total cost will be less than people might imagine. For example, one estimate puts the cost of casting an umbrella of protection over the most threatened ecosystems on land with the largest number of species at risk of extinction at $28 billion. The conservation organizations don't have that kind of money. It's going to have to come from governments, and it will happen only when people understand what's at stake.

Q - In the chapter on "How Much is the Biosphere Worth?" you enumerate the ways humans benefit from natural areas, such as new drugs derived from wild plants and animals, but you seem to believe that our responsibilities toward the natural world go deeper than that. Why?

A - There are very few ethical issues in human existence that are as clear cut as this one. Should we preserve nonhuman life for future generations and for its own sake or let a large part of it slide into extinction?

I believe we should preserve the rest of life, but the counter argument is that we need to sacrifice our remaining natural areas to keep the economy going. The national forest system statistics are typical of this error. The latest estimate we have -- 1997 -- is that the national forests contribute $35 billion to the economy. About 80 percent came from recreation; 13 percent came from logging. Jobs break down in roughly the same way.

Q - After you wrote "Sociobiology" -- a book that claimed that some aspects of human nature are innate rather than learned -- some of your colleagues attacked the book as biological determinism and accused you of being racist, sexist and worse. How do you feel about the book today?

A - It's over. In the '70s, when the book came out, the dispute was over whether the human mind is a blank slate or whether it is strongly influenced by biologically based instinct and that therefore there is a human nature. The evidence from neuroscience and genetics, a great deal of which existed in the '70s but was ignored by the critics, is unequivocal. Today, it is no longer a dispute. There is hardly anyone anymore who would deny that sociobiology was essentially correct. In fact, even in the '70s it was rather hard to find anyone who had any significant resistance to it outside of the Harvard faculty.

Q - You told the story in your autobiography, "Naturalist," of losing much of the sight in one eye when you yanked a pinfish from the water and the spine of its dorsal fin pierced your eye. Have you forgiven the species?

A - Not entirely. You could say that it was part of the fish world's revenge, but it was a little harsh from my point of view.

Q - On a local issue, the Navy wants to build a landing strip on the Albemarle peninsula in Eastern North Carolina, which is home to four large national wildlife refuges and is the wintering ground for 100,000 tundra swans, snow geese, Canada geese and ducks. Based on similar battles you have fought, what advice can you give those of us who oppose the Navy's plans?

A - Stand firm!
####