Re: NANFA-L-- Good Quote Earth Attacked!

Hold The Cow! (
Fri, 19 May 2006 11:12:20 -0400

> what does natural mean? I think that's the whole basis of the
> discussion, but I don't think that both of you see that. You're using
> the same word to have a different meaning.
> Bob-
> I do have to ask - if we're not natural, what are we? Does awareness
> take us out of the natural realm and into something else? I think
> that Martin's main point is that it does not and so whatever we do
> remains part of the natural world, subject to natural laws.
> I also see that Martin is not advocating rampant ecodesctruction and
> irresponsibility, but mainly out of selfish reasons.
I never stated that WE were not "natural" My point was directed-in-our
activities which may not be "natural"... and that we make conscious
decisions to do things that can have blatant negative impacts on the
environment that are not natural, even though what drives us to do such
things may be of natural urges........because they are the types of things
nature would have not unleashed on itself.

To draw the attention to volcanoes, glaciers, etc... as wiping out
environments to "destroy" things vs. industrial age poisoning with chemicals
never before existing, is not the same thing.

It appears that when Martin indicated that volcanoes, glaciers and such
drive events of wiping something out, that it was being equated to disaster,
and the same thing as us polluting an environment, which drives a change. I
was just noting the difference between conscious human activity in
industrial revolution era that he dismissed as "natural" harming the world
we live in, vs. geological activity that drives change. it's not the same
thing....was my point. 2 types of change here, both having a catalyst of
driving them, and one not being quite the same as another.

Actually, in the long run, if I remember my basic geology lessons well,
historically, volcanic activity and glaciers nourish the environment and
sculpt the wonderful landscapes we look-in-today...... I don't look-in-these
things as disaster, but what we may be doing that could exacerbate natural
occurrences like this, in the future, just may have disaster implications,
like building cities below sea level, and paving over every bit of natural
flood control wetlands, and excessive greenhouse gasses many scientists
believe contribute to driving more and more storms like Katrina, so many..
so frequent. We cannot ignore these possible links.

On the other hand, while in the past, volcanoes, glaciers, etc helped shape
the world we live in today.......what does something like contaminating our
rivers with industrial discharge do to shape and benefit the environment in
the long run? 2 headed frogs? Finless fish. Is this "natural?" Are we saying
that change is change, no mater what and we can do whatever we want today,
because it's "natural?" How about infants in Bhopal India deformed courtesy
of Dow Chemical? Oh wait.. "It's natural"

The ideology expressed, appeared to have somewhat of very slight hint to a
bible thumping tone. "It's God's will, etc" , as well as one which relives
humans of their responsibility as the so called "intelligent species" to
take proper care of this world for generations, no matter what species, yet
unborn....especially our own children whom we say we love so much.

Why is what I am trying to articulate here so hard to understand?
/ 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 Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get
/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at