14-11-2003 03:03									#31
	Put an end to popups!

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

	14-11-2003 03:13									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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?

	14-11-2003 05:04									#33
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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.

	14-11-2003 05:24									#34
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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

	14-11-2003 05:42									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Just let the birds feast upon environmentalists.

	14-11-2003 05:50									#36
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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

	14-11-2003 06:11									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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.

	14-11-2003 06:16									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: 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.

	14-11-2003 06:18									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

	14-11-2003 06:44									#40
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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!

	14-11-2003 08:42									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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

	14-11-2003 08:43									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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

	14-11-2003 08:44									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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

	14-11-2003 08:46									#44
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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?

	14-11-2003 09:29									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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

	14-11-2003 10:12									#46
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: "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.

	14-11-2003 11:50									#47
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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.

	14-11-2003 11:51									#48
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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?"

	14-11-2003 14:44									#49
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: 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!

	14-11-2003 15:07									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	14-11-2003 15:40									#52
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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?

	14-11-2003 15:43									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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.

	14-11-2003 15:48									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	14-11-2003 15:56									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	14-11-2003 15:59									#56
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

	14-11-2003 16:09									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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?

	14-11-2003 16:10									#58
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

	14-11-2003 18:02									#59
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Another "optimistic" Leftist ala Provost, I see.

No, just a big fan of Agent Smith

	14-11-2003 19:19									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I knew it!

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