Re: NANFA-- biological bombs detonating everywhere

Jeffrey Fullerton (
Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:58:30 -0400

Christopher Scharpf wrote:

> It's the Golden Rule. He who has the gold, rules.
> By comparison, there is only a relative handful of native fish keepers in the
> country. We don't bring in much economically. Therefore we have no political
> clout. Several months back, various members from NANFA met with lawyers and
> officials of one state re: their collecting laws. The officials listened. They
> nodded their heads. They said, basically, we're not going to change anything.
> Why? Because it's too much work to change a law when that change will have
> little or no economic, social, or political impact.

Governments will always protect industries that provide a revinue stream
for them
to feed off of. That's what unfortunately drives our foreign policy as
well. A good
parasite is one that takes care of its host.
But the winds of change are is the air. Technologies are increasingly enabling
production and empowerment at a progessivly smaller and smaller scale.
At the same
time people of diverse and obscure interests isolated by geography are
able to get
together. We are going from a world dominated by nation states to
network nations.
Native fish hobbyists are sort of a network nation - as are horticulturalists,
reptile hobbyists etc. We may be few in number but like traditional
nation states
network nations can form alliances with each other in order to muster enough
electorial power to push for change or defend their interests.
Also he who has the gold may still rule, but money was the source of
power in
yesterdays world but it is giving way to knowledge.
Matereial wealth will always remain important to material beings but
secondary to
knowledge in the future.

> The problems run deeper than idiot pet owners, unforunately. Essentially, it all
> comes down to values. What does one value more? Short-term economic gain and
> comfort? Or long-term ecosystem integrity? As long as it's man calling the
> shots, it will always be the former.

Both are important to the well being of people. In the context of a
prosperous post
industrial society ecosystem services have more value than they did in
the older
industrial diven economy. Also the power to squeeze more value out of less
resources means the ability to provide for human need with less impact
on the
natural world. The best hope for the planet is rising affluence that
gives more
people the luxury of being concerned about the consequences of their own actions
and things like rainforests and native fishes - as opposed to a
population mired in
poverty, illiteracy and ignorance that runs on inefficient and obsolete
As in the infamous words of a Brazillian mayor - "If the people cannot
be provided
with jobs, housing and food - then they will eat the rain forest -
whether it is
sustainable or not"!


/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,