For those of you who do not wish to be bothered by reading this off-shoot
discussion from fish...... Please pass it by and delete the message.
Martin's thought provoking statements had me wanting to comment..... Below
are the statements I am replying to.
> >the process... this is where humans differ, as the earth could thrive
>>without human life.
> The earth could thrive without any particular species- we are not unique
> in that respect
>>We are the only species that goes way above and beyond what we actually
>>to be comfortable and to live a healthy and quality of life, because we
>>driven by greed, and not need
> I disagree again - all species are driven by "greed", to the extent that
> they would propagate themselves as much as possible, even-in-the expense
> of some poor "lesser" species. Eventually the system's carrying
> capacity is reached, and neither need nor greed becomes relevant.
> My take, and I have said this many times before, is that it doesn't
> really matter how badly we "mess" things up. Unless we kill every
> single organism on the planet, nature will rebound. A new ecology will
> emerge. This is a natural process. Glaciers, volcanoes, etc. have
> driven such events in the past. Mankind is no different. Our motives
> are irrelevant. Humans are a part of (and, as most here believe, a
> product of) nature, therefore environmental destruction (or you may call
> it alteration) caused by our activities is natural.
> What makes me a conservationist (let us not mention the e-word) is that
> I enjoy the animals we have now, and I don't wish to see them disappear
> in my lifetime. This is strictly a selfish motive - driven by greed, if
> you will :-) Nothing new here that I've never said before - just want
> to give this thread a little grounding in reality, Irate-style.
> The bottom line is, THEY'RE ALL GONNA DIE. Except for maybe ganoids and
> coelacanths. Sooner or later.
I disagree with you eluding to the idea that "our destruction of the world
is natural" I have heard this argument a thousand times and still feel that
it's a complete cop out that excuses our responsibilities, and one which
places our own personal comfort and satisfaction before anything else.
Is it "natural" that we have in the last ohhh... say 150 years or so, AKA
"The Industrial Revolution" invented a host of chemicals to release into the
world through manufacturing processes, etc.. driven by the insatiable
appetite for "stuff", that nature, by itself, would have NEVER produced on
it's own, doing all kinds of toxic things to rivers and such, for example,
that nature would have never unleashed? Yes, nature has ways of destroying
herself, but would she have invented 24-D, Diazinon, and DDT, and then
sprayed it all over the land to meet some kind of production quota driven by
Wall Street and shareholders? I don't think so.
All things may act out of "greed" to survive and proliferate, sure, but how
many other species of this planet do you see driving gas guzzler, or playing
the latest version of playstation or eating a happy meal? If you are a
"conservationist" Prefix "Concserve"...Don't you think something is a bit
off balance here as to the ammount another species may take from the planet,
vs. what we take, to the point that it is not sustainable? I am thinking
of the kinds of activity that accelerates destruction.
Point being, is that we produce "stuff" that is not required to sustain
quality and healthy life, which results in a total explosion of population,
and through it's process of manufacture, creates chemicals that who's raw
ingredients are derived from nature, but not something nature would have
produced on it's own. A host of petro chemicals are examples.
The difference in other species acting out of greed to survive and
proliferate their species, vs. how we are doing what you say is the same
basically the same thing.... is that we are well aware of the adverse
effects of these things and yet, as supposed superior species of the planet
wave away the responsibility to establish and live in a balance with other
species, and continue to live well out of balance by taking far more than
our share of the pie.
Yes, a "new ecology" will evolve, but how do you know that the activity we
are doing right now, is not somehow denying another species to evolve that
may be 'better than us" If one subscribes to the evolution theory, then how
do we know that it reaches it's climax with human life?
Peace Out! :-)
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
/ visit http://www.nanfa.org Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ http://www.nanfa.org/guidelines.shtml To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get
/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at