The Conde Nast Publications
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I am not an alarmist by nature, so just consider this letter a pleasant
contrast to your April editorial, which seemed to incite nothing but
indifference to a problem that is in drastic need of public concern.
The purpose of your editorial was hard to determine. You seemed to say
that Earth is a tough old girl and we really don't have to worry too
much about saving her. After all, if 99% of life is destroyed,
"ecology" will still prevail. Above all, don't listen to a bunch of
fanatical loonies. Your continual reference to anyone deeply concerned
with the pollution problem as "crackpots" or "fanatics" is unworthy of
a man of your position. The nation's concern for the environment is a
healthy one, and should be encouraged.
Though there are slogans such as "Ban Powerplants" in any such
movement, you should not look to them as the ecologist' sole point of
view. These short answers to complex problems are, most likely, the
result of the invention of the bumper sticker. Although it is
hypocritical to put such a sticker on your car, many who do so are
engaged in anti-pollution programs, which are compensating for their
hypocrisy. It is better, I think, to be a hypocrite in a small way than
to ignore our environment altogether, or to slight the public's
anti-pollution concern.
Your argument is not concerned with the survival of mankind, but with
the survival of "ecology" as a working system, with or without homo
sapiens. Although the absence of the above species would probably
benefit the ecology in the long run, it's just not what most people
have in mind when they try to help the environment.
It is hard to believe that someone could be so unconcerned for the
preservation of endangered species. I admit that you said the
extinction of birds is a shame, yet your editorial hardly would prompt
anyone to try to save them. Your reaction to the irradication of animal
species in general is, "So what? That' new maybe?" Who cares how many
generations of humans will miss the simple pleasure of watching certain
wild birds, for example, after they have become extinct? A hundred
million years would pass before anything resembling a bird could
possibly reappear, and the future generations will have us to thank for
the skies, empty of all but pollutant. You hit an encouraging note
about the DDT resistant strains of birds that have already evolved.
There is absolutely no evidence to support such a statement. I don't
know to what birds you refer, but the Brown Pelican, The Duck Hawk, and
I would like to know the species that, since the recent invention of
DDT, have produced resistant strains through natural selection.
I would also like to know what fossil evidence supports you contention
that life on earth nearly disappeared during the Precambrian. At this
time there were two main types of prokaryotes, bluegreen algae and
bacteria. These organism, some of which are capable of
photosynthesising in an anerobic environment, persist to the present.
When the first holophytic forms evolved, 02 was released into the
atmosphere.s Many organisms, of course, were forced to change to meet
the altering atmospheric conditions, but there is absolutely no
evidence to indicate the occurrence of any great annilation of life,
much less that this change happened, as you suggest, in only 1,000
years, in which case I would suspect the end of all life would indeed
have occurred.
The extinction of the great reptiles was, of course, another matter.
There is excellent fossil evidence that the dinosaurs perished at the
end of the Mesozoic. I still failed to see your point, however, for
when I came to the end of your editorial I still felt that the humans
race would be better off never witnessing any such a devastating
change, despite the fact that "ecology" survived.
I have placed the word "ecology" in quotations at times because you
poorly defined the word. Good ecology, by your standrads, could be
pictured as the aftermath of a million atom bomb explosions: a pile of
dirt and two healthy bugs.
You admit that thermal pollution can exterminate a species of fish.
Your only answer is that not all fish in that area would die from heat.
I'm sure it has occurred to you, however, that they could die from the
absence of the other species. The elimination of one species can lead
to the downfall of many, for the mere fact that an ecological niche is
left unattended. In spite of you editorial, this niche is not likely to
be filled by another species. If, by chance, it is, the inadequate,
substitute species will have left his niche vacant, and damage will be
done that may even affect the livelihood of a fish eating species on
land, namely man.
This is precisely the point many "fanatical" conservationists are
trying to illustrate. We all had better hope that the next trivial and
insignificant species exterminated doesn't turn out to be the ocean's
phytoplankton, particularly diatoms, which, incidentally, supply us
with about 70% of our oxygen. Much of this comes from artic water and,
therefore, one might expect thermal pollution could endanger it. I
don't, however, rule out the possibility that an oil tanker will put an
end to photosynthesis in that productive area. In either case, the
total collapse of all life would not be an unlikely result, though some
anerobic organisms could still survive.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Tom Cole