My basic answer is no, and there are some reasons for this:
In the ITN framework, the N is very bad for biodiversity loss. Many organizations and a lot of money is done for this problem. There is a lot of attention given to it already, we don’t need to do more work.
Similarly, for the I condition to be anything other than very little, it requires essentially stagnation right now for tens of thousands of years in order to be import. Evolution is slow with multicellular organisms, and environments change slowly unless perturbed. Needless to say, that’s not impossible, but very unlikely, even if you don’t agree on the most important century series by Holden Karnofsky (I do.)
Finally, the tractability is actually medium, so won’t talk about that much.
Thus biodiversity loss has very low priority, and the only thing we should do is own a gene bank and try to get species endangered in the gene bank, similar to seed banks nowadays.
My basic answer is no, and there are some reasons for this:
In the ITN framework, the N is very bad for biodiversity loss. Many organizations and a lot of money is done for this problem. There is a lot of attention given to it already, we don’t need to do more work.
Similarly, for the I condition to be anything other than very little, it requires essentially stagnation right now for tens of thousands of years in order to be import. Evolution is slow with multicellular organisms, and environments change slowly unless perturbed. Needless to say, that’s not impossible, but very unlikely, even if you don’t agree on the most important century series by Holden Karnofsky (I do.)
Finally, the tractability is actually medium, so won’t talk about that much.
Thus biodiversity loss has very low priority, and the only thing we should do is own a gene bank and try to get species endangered in the gene bank, similar to seed banks nowadays.
But they’re perturbed by humans all the time. That’s half the issue (with the other half being climate change).