[Avodah] The halakhos of ecology

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:
>>From Areivim (the authors can take credit if they choose, but I'm too
> lazy to ask):

>: I can't think of anything in any Torah source that even suggests we should
>: care about the extinction of species with no known use.  Useful species,
>: of course, are subject to bal tashchit, but they're rarely in danger,
>: because people cultivate them or take other measures to preserve them.

> "No known use"? Or "no use" -- which would be the contrapositive of your
> next sentence.
> 
> Bal tashchis gives priority to sacing fruit trees over non-fruit bearing
> ones. But can we say that any part of the beri'ah is really unnecessary?
> Didn't David haMelekh ask this about spiders, only to be proven wrong?

Bal tashchis doesn't just give priority to fruit trees over others,
it doesn't assign any importance at all to the others.  There's no
injunction not to cut down more barren trees than necessary, or to
choose cheaper ones over more expensive ones.

The way it comes down lahalacha, though, is that it's a simple economic
calculation, and if the tree's economic value if left standing is less
than the value one would get by cutting it down then one may do so.
Indeed, one is allowed to destroy ones property just for the sheer joy
of destruction, if the subjective value of that enjoyment is greater
than the value of the property.

The way I understand the difference between the Torah's version and
the one in the halacha sources, is that the Torah is talking about a
situation where you're cutting down trees that don't belong to you.
To you, the soldier who's been sent out to fetch timber, the trees'
economic value is of no importance.  Given your choice, you'll cut
down the nearest tree, even if the tree just a few metres away is
much less valuable.  After all, why should you care?  The tree you
don't cut will produce no benefit to you.  So the Torah steps in and
tells you not to be wasteful of a common resource, even one you
personally will never benefit from because you'll never be this way
again, but rather to treat it as you would your own property, which
you manage prudently because you know it will continue to be yours.
But at the same time, you can't be expected to do a whole study and
impact statement every time you go out to get wood.  So the Torah
gives a rule of thumb - fruit trees are valuable, and non-fruit trees
are not, and that's good enough for this sort of exercise.

As far as unknown benefits from species, you're ignoring the cost of
*not* allowing them to become extinct.  After all, we're not talking
about senseless destruction, we're talking about allowing or preventing
useful activity, because it might have an impact on a species's
survival.  Refraining from that activity has a real and measurable
cost, while the supposed benefit is unknown and may not even exist.

As for the argument that Hashem didn't create anything for no purpose,
the same argument applies to foreskins, and to the weeds a farmer must
eradicate and the swamps (excuse me, "wetlands") he must drain.
We are supposed to improve the world, because it is *not* perfect, and
every improvement we make involves destroying something that was there
before.  A world without the smallpox virus is a better one than a
world with it.  And probably the same applies to disease-spreading
mosquitoes and fleas.  If Hashem had a purpose in creating them, for
all we know it may have been to give us the opportunity to wipe them out.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas