Dilemma for environmentalists

[Caligastia]

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

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

The rationale is one of conservation. It's not just a simple matter of the birds and fish. If the fish die out, it may negatively effect other species as well. If the fish are the primary source of food for these birds, allowing them to die would then kill the birds, so wildlife conservation has a vested interested in making sure there is some sort of "balance," artificial as it may be.

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."

[Mercator]

Anything's fine by me... As long as they don't get the bright idea to introduce some exotic species to balance the situation.

[Neutrino]

Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria is as accepted in evolutionary biology as phyletic gradualism. Most cases of speciation occur between these 2 extremes.

What's alarming now is that species are becoming extinct at a rate faster than what has been estimated maximum in the past. Because of the ecology of our biosphere, one or a few keystone species may start or facilitate trophic cascades in ecosystens' energy webs.

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.

[Boris Godunov]

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."

No argument with it being a human conceit--that's why I called it conservation. Environmentalism doesn't ascribe to letting nature run its course, it ascribes to maintaining the status quo and preventing human damage to the current environment.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Neutrino
Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria is as accepted in evolutionary biology as phyletic gradualism. Most cases of speciation occur between these 2 extremes.

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

[Japher]

Hey Boris, long time no see... how's life?

I remember several years ago when the Fish and Wildlife guys killed a bunch stealhead in some lake up north of here. All the protestors went up to protest not realizing that they were killing 'em to protect endangered species. Stealhead were suppose to spawn and leave, but they didn't. Because of which there were too many fish in the pond for more salmon or whatever the other endangered fish was to spawn. There was actually no reduction in the amount of the fish (on either side) just no increase.

Since, they have been generating spawning basins down stream of this lake to give plenty of room for sex.

If the fish are too stupid to live, they will die.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
A lot of modern environmentalism definitely takes a "zoo" approach to the planet - Here's the people, here's the animals, let's keep them separate and please, do not feed.

That's pretend environmentalism. It's the same outlook on the world that's gotten us where we are today - we're the stewards/masters of the world and it's our job to manage it and do with it what we like. But forget managing ourselves - afterall, we have the whole world at our disposal.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Osweld


That's pretend environmentalism. It's the same outlook on the world that's gotten us where we are today - we're the stewards/masters of the world and it's our job to manage it and do with it what we like. But forget managing ourselves - afterall, we have the whole world at our disposal.

Precisely. Which is why comments like this

No argument with it being a human conceit--that's why I called it conservation. Environmentalism doesn't ascribe to letting nature run its course, it ascribes to maintaining the status quo and preventing human damage to the current environment.

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."

[General Ludd]

I hope you're not lumping me in with Boris.

I agree with the 'preventing human damage' part of his post, but the 'maintaining the status quo' part is contraditive to that.

[JohnT]

I'm not. I'm just making sure that you and I are talking about the same attitude/assumptions.

[Caligastia]

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."

wait...some of the things I said were jokes...which assumptions are you talking about?

[MrFun]

It seems like natural selection at work that does not call for human intervention.

[JohnT]

I was referring this one: "Unless an animal has a direct, beneficial use to humans - I don't see the point in conservation."

Being the straight man, I gotta take you at your word.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by JohnT
I was referring this one: "Unless an animal has a direct, beneficial use to humans - I don't see the point in conservation."

Being the straight man, I gotta take you at your word.

Actually I was serious when I said that...carry on.