Dilemma for environmentalists

[The Mad Monk]

"The Chiemsee is the only lake in Germany that has pearl fish," Lex said. "They have died out in the lake, but we're trying to raise them now."

In other words, there are other lakes with pearl fish.

Anyone know the scientific name? I'm having the damndest time getting a handle on this using "pearl fish" in searches.

[Urban Ranger]

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."

Yes and no. Extinction usually occurs during times of change in external conditions, not during a period that is generally stable. This is the reason for environmentalism, because humans are such an overwhelming external influence we upset balances inside niches.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
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?

The question being "what makes you better than them?"

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin


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.

Hey, your average post quality is going up!

[Combat Ingrid]

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

[Urban Ranger]

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

Then you better recheck your data on the whitetail deer populations in northeastern United States during the mid twentieth century. After nearly being overhunted out of the area, a hunting ban was put in place in the early part of the century, and more whitetails brought in; it was a success, and the herd populations came back up to pre-colonial days, and beyond.

Unfortunately, without natural predators, and the hunting ban unrecinded, the deer gradually ate all the regualar forage and unprotected crops, and when that was gone, completely stripped the trees of several areas of all bark within reach, which (as any botanist can tell you) kills the trees.

Then they starved. Those that didn't die a lingering death were horrifically underweight and malnourished, and their born, when they didn't miscarry, were born underweight and malnourished, and doomed to a short, painful existance.

I suppose there would eventually been a balance formed between starving deer and stripped trees, and it would be "natural", but is it preferable?

[The Mad Monk]

I believe that there is no such thing as "natural balance", as it goes against everything I have observed about life.

Life is about flux, not equilibrium.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

Another "optimistic" Leftist ala Provost, I see.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I believe that there is no such thing as "natural balance", as it goes against everything I have observed about life.

Life is about flux, not equilibrium.

Balance doesn't imply an unchanging state, it can be a dynamic balance created by multiple elements.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I suppose there would eventually been a balance formed between starving deer and stripped trees, and it would be "natural", but is it preferable?

That system is already out of wack because we killed off the predators such as wolves that can keep the deer population in check.

[The Mad Monk]

Yet we have already seen instances where species have been nearly or totally wiped out by vectors that left the rest of the ecosystem untouched -- dutch elm disease, for example, very nearly eradicated elms from this continent. What's to keep a virus, for example, from removing wolves (the major deer predator -- bears never really were) from a region, and how would that affect your answer?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Balance doesn't imply an unchanging state, it can be a dynamic balance created by multiple elements.

Then we are one of elements, and we are not disrupting the balance -- just adding our own piece of it.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by JohnT




Another "optimistic" Leftist ala Provost, I see.

No, just a big fan of Agent Smith

[The Mad Monk]

I knew it!

I knew you'd ignore the reasoned posts and go straight for the lazy smiley!