Asperger's Syndrome

[harlequin]

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 09:40:06AM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
>     --
> On 8 May 2003 at 18:47, harlequin wrote:
> > I think that this is the whole point. It's impossible to tell
> > what effect removing a species from an ecosystem will have
> > due to the phenomenal complexity of the system.
> 
> In any one area, species come and go all the time, usually
> without much consequence.  Attempting to stop nature from
> changing is also an interference in nature.   Ten thousand
> years ago, the natural environment in California was different
> in almost every way.  Who is to say that one was better than
> the other? 

I agree up to a point. Species do disappear all the time, as a natural process of elimination. The difference in this scenario is a deliberate and fast genocide, not the extinction of a species which is not viable. An artificial interference rather than a natural progression.

Stopping nature from changing is definitely an interference, and one with which I disagree. This isn't the case here, though. We're not talking about preventing the mosquito from becoming extinct through natural causes, we're talking about not wiping it out.

Which environment is better? Well, it's impossible to compare. I think that the current drive is generally to have as little impact on the "natural" evolution of a landscape as is possible. It all depends where you draw the line. It's certainly possible to argue that any species should try as hard as possible to survive, and so we should wipe out everything that threatens us in any way and create a homogenized and safe environment for humans. I don't think that many people would agree with that viewpoint, however.

... and so another delightfully off-topic message ends.

	H

-- 
"He who controls the past controls the future;  | We are at war with Iraq,
he who controls the present controls the past." | We have always been at war
   -- O'Brien in Orwell's "1984"                | with Iraq.