[Taxacom] Extrapolation

[Richard Pyle]

So the main question I have for you is whether you see this (very plausible)
future scenario as a "good" thing, or a "bad" thing?  Is it the utopian
dream, or the unfortunate but inevitable result of our past, current, and
future failings?

I can see legitimate arguments on both sides. Not sure which side I'm on.

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Mesibov
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:06 PM
> To: TAXACOM
> Subject: [Taxacom] Extrapolation
> 
> Excerpts from keynote address,  'Reflections on the first 
> quarter-century of the IUS', International Union of 
> Systematists distributed conference, 5 April 2035:
> 
> 'I know some of you will smile when I say this, but the 
> communication and data storage capabilities we had when the 
> ISU was founded weren't bad, really. They were adequate for 
> what we then understood to be the tasks of systematics. When 
> the archiving of past systematic efforts was completed, some 
> 15 years ago, the global data infrastructure was ready to 
> receive it in a dedicated layer, accessible to historians of 
> science and to those interested in the minutiae of character 
> expression. I doubt that many in this audience, today, spend 
> much time in that layer, either individually or in groups, 
> but that isn't simply because the information kept there is 
> frozen. It's because as systematists we're more interested in 
> living, breathing generalities than in dead specifics. Once 
> you understand the principle, why clutter your mind with a 
> thousand instances? As an entomologist, I can at any time 
> join a layer evidencing in real time the evolutionary 
> mechanisms by which antennal setae become specialised, by 
> which eggs are protected from fungi, or by which plant hosts 
> can be switched. Why would I go to a silent layer containing 
> only scattered evidence that these processes have evolved?'
> 
> 'Some may argue, but to me the most significant shift in 
> systematics over the past 25 years has been the move away 
> from mere description of species after species, to a much 
> more productive focus on exactly how organisms are related. 
> As the number of so-called taxonomists declined, the number 
> of developmental and phylogenetic generalists grew 
> spectacularly. In a very literal sense, age made room for 
> youth in our museums and universities. Where once there were 
> tiny rooms, each occupied by a white-haired specialist 
> surrounded by paper books and dusty specimens, there's now a 
> large, bustling laboratory full of young people. Where once 
> there were dry arguments over whether one fly specimen should 
> be given the same name as another fly specimen, there are now 
> lusty debates on whether real or synthetic genomes are better 
> for modelling speciation events in particular fly lineages. I 
> can think of no single fact more emblematic of the change in 
> systematics than
> this: in the absence of fossils, we still know, plus or minus 
> one hundred thousand years, just when Micrognathozoa first 
> appeared on Earth, and how.'
> 
> 'And, of course, systematics is much more manageable than it 
> was 25 years ago, because there are fewer taxa to deal with. 
> I can well remember how depressed I was, back then, to think 
> of all those millions of species yet to be classified. Well, 
> for better or worse, the picture has changed dramatically. 
> Sustainable living initiatives have allowed mankind to extend 
> small-scale agriculture, light industry and people-friendly 
> cities into formerly inhospitable environments worldwide. 
> Yes, today there are fewer species in total, but we 
> understand far better than we could ever have imagined the 
> biology and relationships of those resilient species that 
> share our farms, our parks and our gardens. And hasn't that 
> been our goal all along, to better know Life? What's more, 
> salvage genomics has rescued for future study the essence of 
> many of those species we no longer have with us. Their place 
> in the Tree of Life is secure; we know where they fit in.'
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate, Queen Victoria Museum and Art 
> Gallery and School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html
> ---
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom