Dilemma for environmentalists

[Neutrino]

Fowler and Rikleffs have classified people's motives for preserving biodiversity (conservation) :
1. ethical/moral
2. direct economic benefits (e.g. save rainforests to provide us w/ medicines, ecotourism)
3. indirect economic benefits - maintenance of ecosystems
4. indicators of environmental quality - can use a species to benchmark its habitat's quality (e.g. DDT in birds indicated that DDT levels in its prey and lower trophics levels were drastically high)
5. aesthetic - save it because it's pretty

[mrmitchell]

Given that over 95% of all species that existed have died out, I don't think nature is at all about "balance." Punctuated equilibrium, maybe, but not an interminable balance.

An estimate that I pulled out of my ass but I remember was within 250B is that 50B humans have lived. (Or was it 300B?) 6B right now is only 10%. Does that mean humanity is at a low point?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by JohnT


But "conservation" is a human conceit, one that is in direct opposition to what actually happens in the world - strong animals and plants act to the detriment of weak ones, even to the point of extinction. Odd, that: the placing of a human value on something to keep it "natural."

"Strong" and "weak" should also be in quotes. This has nothing to do with physical strength or even ambition.

After all, sloths are strong by evolutionary standards.

[Immortal Wombat]

or replaced by "fit" and "unfit" (without "quotes")

[Verto]

Just let the birds feast upon environmentalists.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Verto
Just let the birds feast upon environmentalists.

Sounds like a typical response from Texas, where all birds were succesfully extincted four years ago

[Odin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Precisely. Punctuated equilibria is a part of Darwinism, not a challenge to it. Gould was disingenuous for the sake of publicity.

Actually, Gould was just pointing out geologic evidence that shows that the old guard of evolutionary biology had circular reasoning when it came to the old "slow and steady" dogma; The fossil record is much more well known now then in Darwin's day.

[Theben]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Sounds like a typical response from Texas, where all birds were succesfully extincted four years ago

They have a new state bird; the killer bee.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Unless an animal has a direct, beneficial use to humans - I don't see the point in conservation.

Looking at Neutrino's list, one could list any species "asthetic" quality as making it "useful to humans."

So that means you must save 'em all- you tree-hugging enviro wacko you.

[Verto]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Sounds like a typical response from Texas, where all birds were succesfully extincted four years ago

Keep it up, and you'll be next!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What's the dilemma? Environmentalist groups aren't just kneejerk pro-animal (except PETA, perhaps.

Yeah, only 9 out of 10

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Caligastia
And everything in nature should stay exactly as we see it today because that is the way nature intended it.

If this wasn't sarcasm, it'd be PERFECT sig material

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Neutrino
Humans are altering the selective pressures of many species and populations, and in some cases are artificially selecting in such a way that organisms with the artificially selected trait(s) disrupt the existing biological community structure.

So? What is sacred about the "existing biological community structure"? Humans are here, and the animals are either going to figure out how to live with it or not

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JohnT
follow the same assumptions as that expressed by Calistaga, but with an extra clause added to it: "the animals are here for our benefit, the poor things."

Not true. The animals exist for no particular purpose; they just are. Why not make use of them as we feel? Why bother "conserving" them?

[Neutrino]

Because if we disrupt the environment faster than we can adapt, we will be gone.