2 ms·
>economically valuable. Is that solely because of their rarity, or is there some other reason?
by breischl 7y ago
>economically valuable.
Is that solely because of their rarity, or is there some other reason?
- pvaldes 7y agoSome of this trees, still alive, were born when Europe was in the Middle Age. The genus is monotypic and exists since the last 200 millions of years or so. Those are invaluable comprehensive reviews about australian climate and history registering each single, warm, hot and cold year, each volcanic eruption. In a place of the planet without written documents and mostly unknown before the arrival of the white men. We can infer from here if something happened with the macrofauna (when), if people migrations match some harsh decade and dry spell, if it was an equivalent to a small ice age or not, etc. Is a treasure of data.
- breischl 7y agoOK, so they're scientifically valuable, historically valuable, perhaps emotionally or culturally valuable. That's plenty good enough reason to save them - I'm not trying to argue they shouldn't have been saved. But I'm still not seeing that they have any current economic value. Which is fine, not everything needs to have economic value, I was just curious if there is some that I was missing.