Jump to content

New Yorker Article About Tarbosaurus Smuggler Eric Prokopi


Boesse

Recommended Posts

Pretty good (albeit long) read about Eric Prokopi and Mongolian dinosaur smuggling in the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/28/130128fa_fact_williams

My favorite quote: “One thing I was wondering is if any of these paleontologists you’ve talked to have given their argument of why paleontology is important.” Fossils are “just basically rocks,” [Prokopi] said. “It’s not like antiquities, where it’s somebody’s heritage and culture and all that.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Why is paleontology important? I thought the answer to that question was obvious to everybody truly interested in paleontology. It's a shame that anybody knowledgeable about this stuff could say fossils are "just basically rocks". I thought it was only the people that knew nothing about paleontology that felt that way.

I really hope this doesn't reflect too badly on the community (it already has, I suppose). Hopefully people will realize that the vast majority of serious amateurs aren't breaking laws and do care a great deal about science.

youtube-logo-png-46031.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing less than willful disregard of reality. Good article though, one of the best I've read on this story, thanks for the link.

"They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things."

-- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see any point attacking what he's said, as I don't imagine that he or anyone here sincerely believes it. The mans looking at jail time, it's not surprising if he seems a little churlish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't disagree-fossils are "just basically rocks". However, it's sort of like saying that humans are just basically animals. It was a cold, ignorant and somewhat childish statement by EP. Unfortunately, I guess it's condition of our times--just make another dollar by whatever means. Too bad for all concerned. This issue sure has the capacity to make all fossil people-scientists, dealers and collectors look suspicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad, on so many levels. I especially feel bad for his kids, and perhaps the wife as well - not sure how culpable she is in all of this. On one hand I would hope for his family's sake that he can avoid jail-time; but if he gets off with just a fine, what message does that send to folks in the black-market dealing with illegal sale/transport of fossils like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Why is paleontology important? I thought the answer to that question was obvious to everybody truly interested in paleontology. It's a shame that anybody knowledgeable about this stuff could say fossils are "just basically rocks". I thought it was only the people that knew nothing about paleontology that felt that way.

I really hope this doesn't reflect too badly on the community (it already has, I suppose). Hopefully people will realize that the vast majority of serious amateurs aren't breaking laws and do care a great deal about science.

Well, Cris, you seem to have had a strong reaction to this idea. Can you tell us why paleontology is important? . . . That is, important beyond satisfying the very subjective need for discovery or ownership of ancient fossils. . . . And, beyond the economics of those actively involved.

Not all science is equally important, and paleontology ranks now as a backwater endeavor compared to other fields of science. Paleontology has matured. I am reminded of that old saw about a Ph.D. being all about 'learning more and more about less and less.' Paleontology's best contribution to humanity at this point is to discourage the 'young-earthers.'

Of course, professional paleontologists may disagree (let's hear it!). But then, professionals have an economic interest in paleontology -- their careers. They have family to feed, bills to pay, so you would expect from them a defense of their contribution to the sum of human knowledge.

So, I argue that paleontology today is analogous to highly-specialized rock-collecting, interesting to very few professionals and amateurs (I am here discounting curio-collectors) for economic or ideosyncratic reasons, contributing - at this time - little that has significant impact on humanity today or in the future.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand I would hope for his family's sake that he can avoid jail-time; but if he gets off with just a fine, what message does that send to folks in the black-market dealing with illegal sale/transport of fossils like this?

It means he will be treated like a banker.

From the New York Times December 10, 2012

State and federal authorities decided against indicting HSBC in a money-laundering case over concerns that criminal charges could jeopardize one of the world’s largest banks and ultimately destabilize the global financial system.

Instead, HSBC announced on Tuesday that it had agreed to a record $1.92 billion settlement with authorities. The bank, which is based in Britain, faces accusations that it transferred billions of dollars for nations like Iran and enabled Mexican drug cartels to move money illegally through its American subsidiaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was it that once said the 'hard sciences' like physics and chemistry are the real sciences, everything else is just stamp-collecting? I certainly understand that point - Maybe that's why there is so much crossover between us collectors to amateur to professional paleontologists. It's hard to see any practical use to a paper describing a new bivalve other than for us collectors to have something new to add to our collections, but I like to think paleontology is closer to the 'hard sciences' than most other things that end in -ology, with its potential to reveal things about climate change and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was it that once said the 'hard sciences' like physics and chemistry are the real sciences, everything else is just stamp-collecting? I certainly understand that point - Maybe that's why there is so much crossover between us collectors to amateur to professional paleontologists. It's hard to see any practical use to a paper describing a new bivalve other than for us collectors to have something new to add to our collections, but I like to think paleontology is closer to the 'hard sciences' than most other things that end in -ology, with its potential to reveal things about climate change and such.

It's not Eric's call to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Harry pretty much shows how out of touch he is with current advances and research fronts in paleontology. Vertebrate paleontologists at the moment are making serious contributions to the fields of "evo-devo", phylogenetics and macroevolution, and studies of quaternary paleoecology and the emergence of modern faunas which bear directly on conservation issues. Vertebrate paleontology has matured, but it has matured to the point where it is more interdisciplinary than ever before and relevant to modern biologists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was it that once said the 'hard sciences' like physics and chemistry are the real sciences, everything else is just stamp-collecting? I certainly understand that point - Maybe that's why there is so much crossover between us collectors to amateur to professional paleontologists.

I think physicists may argue that chemistry is stamp-collecting as well. :)

As Boesse touched on above, paleontology is an interdisciplinary science. It's a synthesis of biology and geology, with ecology, climatology, etc. thrown in, depending on the goals of the specialist.

Also, microfossils are extremely important scientifically and economically, but no one complains if you dig up a bunch of conodonts or Globigerina.

Context is critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was it that once said the 'hard sciences' like physics and chemistry are the real sciences, everything else is just stamp-collecting? I certainly understand that point - Maybe that's why there is so much crossover between us collectors to amateur to professional paleontologists. It's hard to see any practical use to a paper describing a new bivalve other than for us collectors to have something new to add to our collections, but I like to think paleontology is closer to the 'hard sciences' than most other things that end in -ology, with its potential to reveal things about climate change and such.

It was Rutherford to the exclusion of every branch but Physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Harry pretty much shows how out of touch he is with current advances and research fronts in paleontology. Vertebrate paleontologists at the moment are making serious contributions to the fields of "evo-devo", phylogenetics and macroevolution, and studies of quaternary paleoecology and the emergence of modern faunas which bear directly on conservation issues. Vertebrate paleontology has matured, but it has matured to the point where it is more interdisciplinary than ever before and relevant to modern biologists.

Let's agree to avoid personal attacks, Bobby, and let's stick to my premise:

I argue that paleontology today is analogous to highly-specialized rock-collecting, interesting to very few professionals and amateurs (I am here discounting curio-collectors) for economic or ideosyncratic reasons, contributing - at this time - little that has significant impact on humanity today or in the future.

Merely asserting that vertebrate paleontologists are making serious contributions to various avenues of research does not prove that those contributions have significant impact on humanity. What you describe sounds more like a search for relevance. Perhaps you can give us an example of a big-impact contribution.

(Evo-devo is the latest attempt at a synthesis of evolutionary theory and develomental biology. DNA molecular biology is, I suspect, beyond the ken of many paleontologists. But, it's good that some paleontologists are cross-training into another field of science.)

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Cris, you seem to have had a strong reaction to this idea. Can you tell us why paleontology is important? . . . That is, important beyond satisfying the very subjective need for discovery or ownership of ancient fossils. . . . And, beyond the economics of those actively involved.

Paleontology is the study of the history of life on the planet to better understand evolution, ecology and biodiversity. In understanding more about paleontology, we understand more about ourselves and the world around us... We can understand mass extinction events, why they happen and be prepared if anything similar were to happen in the future to the human race. Through paleontology, there's a better understanding of paleoclimatology and we, as a race, can better understand the effects we're having on the planet (such as global warming, for example) through the destroying of rain forests, pollution, etc.

The majority of sciences tie together. Where would "earth science" be without paleontology? Think of all the unanswered questions. For me personally, since learning a bit about paleontology, I have grown a much deeper understanding and respect for the planet and its life. When I talk a walk, I'm no longer baffled by thousands of unanswered questions everywhere I look. That's important...

PS: If there's paleontologists out there that got into their field for the money, that was a horrible decision on their part. There are countless professions that require less training, pay more and have 100x more job openings. The paleontologists that I personally know got into it because they were interested in being able to devote their life to increasing out understanding of past life...They drive around beat up mid 90s cars and mini-vans even though they're an authority in their specific field.

-Cris

youtube-logo-png-46031.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a balance that has to be struck, not everything is scientifically important, in fact I suspect most things aren't, and if so then who cares really if it ends up in private hands. On the flip side, if something truly is of value to humanity, then maybe it does belong in a museum But I don't think the answer is to make blanket rules banning commercial fossil exploration that just discourage discovery. I mean otherwise what is the intended end result? For instance, is every single Meg tooth meant to be handed over to the govt? For what? So it can sit unseen in some museum bunker? The whole planet is not a giant museum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We study paleontology because it adds richness and texture to or lives. Because of paleontology we see how the earth has changed, how organisms have evolved, and how this may affect our futures.

Ultimately however, when the next asteroid crushes the earth, or gamma ray burst fries us, or ocean belches carbon dioxide and suffocates us, it won't make much difference what we know. We will follow the trilobites, gorgons, triceratops, and neanderthal into oblivion, replaced by something else that may or may not care about the remains we leave behind.

Don't even get me started on the sun getting hotter, the sun going nova, or the universe itself ultimately dieing as fusion runs out.

Brent Ashcraft

ashcraft, brent allen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add to Harry's comments... How important is anything? Really... I mean, beyond hunting and farming and staying warm, Nothing Really Matters. Others have answered this qustion much better than I could.

Oh and this-- it was a paleontologist (Cuvier) who first came up with the notion of extinction. Before paleontology, we were all so stupid as to believe that God could not create something that he would later decide to extinctenize. The concept of extinction is critical to much of modern environmentalism, of which I am a big fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paleontology is the study of the history of life on the planet to better understand evolution, ecology and biodiversity. In understanding more about paleontology, we understand more about ourselves and the world around us... We can understand mass extinction events, why they happen and be prepared if anything similar were to happen in the future to the human race. Through paleontology, there's a better understanding of paleoclimatology and we, as a race, can better understand the effects we're having on the planet (such as global warming, for example) through the destroying of rain forests, pollution, etc.

The majority of sciences tie together. Where would "earth science" be without paleontology? Think of all the unanswered questions. For me personally, since learning a bit about paleontology, I have grown a much deeper understanding and respect for the planet and its life. When I talk a walk, I'm no longer baffled by thousands of unanswered questions everywhere I look. That's important...

PS: If there's paleontologists out there that got into their field for the money, that was a horrible decision on their part. There are countless professions that require less training, pay more and have 100x more job openings. The paleontologists that I personally know got into it because they were interested in being able to devote their life to increasing out understanding of past life...They drive around beat up mid 90s cars and mini-vans even though they're an authority in their specific field.

-Cris

If we are prepared to withstand an extinction event, by definition, it won't be an extinction event for humans. The fact is, we are not certain (and may never be certain) what caused past extinction events. "Climate scientists are paleontologists" . . . perhaps . . . if they are cross-trained. You can see for yourself the significant impact that climate science has had on humanity . . . it takes freak weather like 'Sandy' to convince us that climate change is not a hoax.

I like Brent Ashcraft's words: "We study paleontology because it adds richness and texture to our lives". The highly subjective appeal that Brent describes is what motivates the vast majority of amateur paleontologists. No doubt, it motivates professionals as well, though economics plays a substantial part in their motivation. Cris puts the same idea another way: "[Paleontology promotes] a much deeper understanding and respect for the planet and its life."

But this is all very personal - ideosyncratic - for amateurs and professionals alike. Paleontology is currently making no significant impact on humanity; paleontology is not finding an immunization against HIV, it is not discovering the Higgs boson, it is not finding planets around other stars. Paleontology is backwater science. Paleontology currently diverts us, broadens our horizons, and disciplines minds . . . for just a few of us.

All this is not to say that there have not been big-impact contributions by some biologists working with the concept of extinction or evolution. 'jpc' mentions Cuvier, and there's Darwin. Of course, there are other contributors in the past; we needn't name them here. I argued that paleontology has matured . . . the house is built, and now we're doing some decorating and housekeeping.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's agree to avoid personal attacks, Bobby, and let's stick to my premise:

I argue that paleontology today is analogous to highly-specialized rock-collecting, interesting to very few professionals and amateurs (I am here discounting curio-collectors) for economic or ideosyncratic reasons, contributing - at this time - little that has significant impact on humanity today or in the future.

Merely asserting that vertebrate paleontologists are making serious contributions to various avenues of research does not prove that those contributions have significant impact on humanity. What you describe sounds more like a search for relevance. Perhaps you can give us an example of a big-impact contribution.

(Evo-devo is the latest attempt at a synthesis of evolutionary theory and develomental biology. DNA molecular biology is, I suspect, beyond the ken of many paleontologists. But, it's good that some paleontologists are cross-training into another field of science.)

Hi Harry,

For me, a better analogy for paleontology is modern taxonomy but with extinct organisms. I agree there are differences but only to the extent that some technology available to modern taxonomists, such as molecular biology, does not transfer to paleontology (only because of limitations in the technology though, not the researchers). Is modern taxonomy akin to a hobby as well? As for a serious contribution to the future of science I would argue that no other branch of science has the potential to better understand the evolution of life on this planet, or other planets, than paleontology. Physics and chemistry (the hard sciences) cannot answer the 'fuzzy' questions about complex extinction events, the development of higher thinking, or patterns in evolutionary change.

One of the youngest branches of science is astrobiology, heck by many it is still considered fringe science even though NASA and JPL both employ astrobiologists. Do you not see the potential for better understanding the origin, the evolution, and the extinction of life on this planet when studying life elsewhere? I realize this is the cart essentially mowing down the horse. Still, if we want to discuss the future of science, ignoring the potential for these types of questions elsewhere, and ignoring the value of Earth's history to help answer them seems foolhardy.

"They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things."

-- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Harry,

Sorry, one more thought. You say that paleontology has matured. Consider the influx of new technology into paleontology such as high-resolution x-ray computed tomography. The use of new technology to examine small fossils is still in its infancy. As it progresses it has the potential to change large parts of paleontology forever. I feel mature is a poor way to describe a science that is actively adapting, actively changing. I would label paleontology as rapidly radiating, like many modern sciences. Where paleontology goes from here, or if it even remains a distinct science cannot be determined; however, as a tool to better answer deep questions about patterns in life paleontology is invaluable. Would a physicist dismiss CERN as a useful tool now that the Higgs has been confirmed? No. Paleontology, like most sciences, is a tool we use to better understand the world we live in. Does it build new modes of transportation, or cure cancer? No. But that does not make it less valuable as you assert.

"They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things."

-- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AgrilusHunter,

All excellent points and because there is no way to accurately predict what scientific endeavor or when and where significant future discoveries will arise we leave no stones unturned (pun intended). The superfluous sciences get sorted out like quack medical devices. That is our remarkable legacy of exploration, be it deep space or deep time and everything else in between.

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Harry,

For me, a better analogy for palaeontology is modern taxonomy but with extinct organisms. I agree there are differences but only to the extent that some technology available to modern taxonomists, such as molecular biology, does not transfer to palaeontology (only because of limitations in the technology though, not the researchers). Is modern taxonomy akin to a hobby as well? As for a serious contribution to the future of science I would argue that no other branch of science has the potential to better understand the evolution of life on this planet, or other planets, than palaeontology. Physics and chemistry (the hard sciences) cannot answer the 'fuzzy' questions about complex extinction events, the development of higher thinking, or patterns in evolutionary change.

One of the youngest branches of science is astrobiology, heck by many it is still considered fringe science even though NASA and JPL both employ astrobiologists. Do you not see the potential for better understanding the origin, the evolution, and the extinction of life on this planet when studying life elsewhere? I realize this is the cart essentially mowing down the horse. Still, if we want to discuss the future of science, ignoring the potential for these types of questions elsewhere, and ignoring the value of Earth's history to help answer them seems foolhardy.

I am not certain that I understand your point, A'hunter. I guess that modern taxonomists may to be doing something related to the evo-devo thing -- sorting out what happened before there is a genetic record by looking at modern genetic evidence. I haven't given it much thought. The question that might pertain to this thread is: What significant impact on humanity does modern taxonomy contribute? Taxonomy is one of those housekeeping functions of modern paleontology.

I am fully in favor of cross-training paleontologists as exobiologists. But, there is so little economic support (jobs) for exobiologists we won't see much of that for a while.

With regard to the new technology being used by paleontologists, A'hunter supports my case with this revealing statement: "The use of this technology to examine small fossils is still in its infancy. As it progresses it has the potential to change large parts of palaeontology forever." Sooo . . . What if parts of modern paleontology are changed forever? Who cares! Where's the impact on humanity? The only people who will care, again, are the amateur paleontologists for their personal reasons and the professionals for their personal and economic reasons.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paleontology is history, deep history. It is no less important in understanding our path on *this rock* than thinking about the causes and ideologies that led to WWII. We are still animals. We can now transcend our original nature by shaping our own evolutionary path through our technologies, but there is no proof that any of that science will "save us" either or benefit "humanity" in any way in the long run. No one knows.... But maybe understanding, appreciating, and being in awe of the things that came before us, and still share our world in different forms is the only way we will figure out how to do that. ....

---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...