Re: Musings on ancient/modern

Halla wrote:
>>> Not at an extinction-of-species level, generally.
>>
>> Nope, but things go die... and extinction of species has been
going
>> on since there *were* species.
>
> Yes. Some things adapt better than others. An unusually cold or
wet
> winter can create havoc too. But they *died* out, I don't believe
> there were as many *killed* off before we started taking an
interest
> in the world around us.
>
Hmmm - don't know. Didn't anything die due to over predatation
before humans were around?

> I remember hearing something about cheetahs potentially being in
> trouble because they are highly specialised hunters, and need a
lot of
> space to hunt in. Because of encroachment on their territory, they
may
> not always have the space they need. Is this their problem alone
or
> ours too? Bears who like picanic baskets? Alligators who like
small
> fluffy poodles? (Can't see the problem there meself but ETTO...
;-)

Grin...
>
>> I'm not at all convinced that we'd
>> be in a better ecological state if smallpox was still rampant,
for
>> instance.
>
> Not us, as a species. Some may have been resistant. Humans are not
> noted for their naturally selective abilities though, unless
placed
> under great pressure. <eg>

Well, there is a theory that the strain of it in South America was
far less virulent, but I've no idea if there is any science to
actually back that up.

However, I'm still happy it's pretty much under control.

>
>>>
>>>> For another - yes the Saraha is not good for trees. It is,
>>>> however, very good indeed for the sorts of animals and plants
that
>>>> live there now.
>>>
>>> Who only came into existence after the environment, really.
>>>
>> Or moved there, perhaps.
>
> And had to adapt, no doubt.
>
Yup. Just like we did when we came away from the water. (1)
>>
>> But my point is, why is it "bad" when it houses them, and "good"
>> when it did not? From their POV, it's "good" now...
>
> Well yes... I don't know that anyone was suggesting changing it
> though, so it can be an example of bad habitat management and a
good
> habitat (for desert animals), at the same time. We can't say 'ah,
> let's carry on with landfilling the raised peat bogs, so we'll
lose
> some butterflies and plants and things, but just *think* of the
> animals we'll begin to see in a few hundred years time on the
*new*
> habitat!' What we *can* say is 'Don't let goats (or red deer) roam
> about unchecked if you want new trees to grow'.

Nodding.. but what if those goats are needed for human survival?
>
[ ]
>
> <sniplet>
>>>> Well, what I'm getting at is that there seems to be some idea
of
>>>> what a "nondegraded" eco system would be, and that this is
somehow
>>>> "better" than what we have now. I'm after the standards by
which
>>>> this judgement is made, really...
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Stop killing everything" seems to be much of the point now. <g>
>>
>> No go - I need to eat. To do that, SOMETHING has to die, as I
don't
>> do well on a diet of rocks...
>>
>
> I do not believe you need to kill EVERYTHING to eat, though. <g>

Nope, but I do have to kill something - and like I say, is there
really a difference between the death of one and the death of many?
(2)
>
>>>
>>>> I don't have an issue with any such standards, I'm just trying
to
>>>> forground their existence. :)
>>>
>>> My lecturers would be ever so cross talking to you. <eg>
>>
>> I can imagine - I know plenty of lecturers who get cross not only
at
>> me but in inheriting students of mine... >:>
>
> Can't think why. <innocent g>

You don't do that any better'n what I do. :)
>
>>
>> I should probably own up that I don't actually have a stance in
>> this, I'm just niggling at the standards of "good" "bad" and so
on
>> that were being used...
>
> Well produce some them! I dunno, these unrepentant nigglers...
> tchuh... ;-)

I'm not sure such standards CAN be produced, to be honest...

(1) Yup, it's controversial, no, I'm not backing it as a theory, but
it's fun to play with. :)
(2) Yeah, well, we'd not had a ST reference for a good number of
posts...
--
janet
texestentialist


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where is the evolution when you need it the most.
    ... end-Cretaceous and one other major extinction ... it's unlikely humans would cause such a sudden ... Most species simply cannot adapt quickly enough to ... except for intelligent species with good access to global ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Where is the evolution when you need it the most.
    ... It's because change is happening too quickly to adapt to. ... That's why species are going extinct - it's not that they can't adapt, ... > environment caused by the abuse and pollution of Humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Survival of the fittest
    ... good reason for cell to die at a given time during development. ... Selection is effectively blind to the post-reproductive years and the ... Women could be fertile all their lives with some gradual decline in function as they senesced, like men, instead they have a distinct cutting-off point halfway through their natural lifespan. ... But even in animal species that senesce immediately after reproducing or generally remain more-or-less fertile until they die, most have a definite upper bound on their lifespans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Tai Chi can make you Immortal.
    ... should, someday, die. ... as good for the survival of the whole species. ... we know that our aging and dying process kicks in at about ... If Adam was made in His image, that means God ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Survival of the fittest
    ... Why do you assume a species would have a much higher change of survival ... Why would you assume that an individual that is programmed to die is ... That hypothetical state has a bootstrapping problem - meiosis is a derived trait absent from bacteria and archaea. ... occurs exclusively in the germ cells which are involved in sexual ...
    (talk.origins)