From: ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: VERY PROVOCATIVE QUESTION.
Summary: Stop watching TV
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:52:00 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec9.171206.25306@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes...
>In article <4032@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>>

[original question deleted]

>>          All species are vital to the ecosystem, except mankind.
> 
>Give me a break!
>Do you have scientific evidence that mankind is not vital to the ecosystem?
>If the "top" of the food change is deemed to be vital, then we're at the
>very top - since we can/do make use of virtually all of the other predators.
> 

While I've never seen any good arguments that mankind is not vital to
the global ecosystem, I've never seen any good arguments that we are.  While we
do make use of virtually all other predators, those that we concentrate on we
slaughter, eliminating their role in ecosystems which existed prior to our
arrival.

Even non-industrial societies widely regarded as having internalized
environmental protection, ie native peoples, have made their impacts.  Of
course, no indigenous people have made quite the impacts we in the Western
world have, but every species that plays by the pre-civilization rules has a
displacive and a contributive effect.

>Over the millions of years of Earth's existence, many organisms have come
>and gone.  Yet, the Earth is still here.  Just because we may be able to
>destroy life as we know it, in a few million years there could well be other
>life.

Please give _me_ a break here.  I'm typing on a computer.  If I destroy it, my
University would probably replace it in a few weeks.  Does that mean I should
destroy it, even if it would serve me by venting my frustration?  Additionally,
I might be prohibited from using it again if I destroyed it intentionally. 
If it was an accident, the University would probably be lenient.  Nature
doesn't play by lenient human rules.

There is no way we could destroy life on Earth.  Even if we used all our nukes,
some life would still persist.  Perhaps it would repopulate Earth, perhaps not. 
The process would be limited by the Sun's lifetime though.  In any case, I like
Earth the old fashioned way.

> 
>Also, consider that it _may_ be WRONG for us to prevent the extinction of
>any species.  Is it possible that we're preventing the evolution of even
>grander species by not allowing others to die-off?
> 

Sure it's possible.  But, given that the timescale for speciation lies
somewhere between geologic and human time, that is a useless argument.  While I
think it's clear we haven't affected speciation rates (at least I've never
heard anyone mention it), we have increased extinction rates by orders of
magnitude.

>I'm not proposing that we allow for the whole-scale extinction of all
>species,

But that's what we're doing.  The species most popular for being endangered are
only a very tiny few of the tens of thousands destroyed in the rain forests of
the world, where no one has documented their existence, not to mention their
demise.

>however this does occur in nature quite often (ie., over the
>millions of years).  It strikes me as not at all obvious that we're
>doing the right thing by protecting species.  Perhaps mankind is not the
>final destination of evolution, and that we too should eventually die-off.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You betray a false assumption here, that evolution has a final destination. 
It seems more like the comings and goings of species are like eddies, with
cascading energy forcing speciations and radiations.

Besides, our protection of species is superficial.  Of the hundreds of species
on the list, how many have recovered?  I think the number is 2, although I'm
not sure.  Even given the enormous political will necessary, it would
 be absolutely
impossible to fully fund and implement the Endangered Species Act.  Even if we
did, the ESA is yet another stop-gap measure that is destined to fail if we
rely on it for too long.  The environmental movement has to move beyond
piecemeal attempts to halt degradation, focusing on ecosystems and the global
system rather than species and even habitats.

> 
>-- 
>-----
>Jeff Sue   
> - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                   I suppose you'd say you're just
                                   kidding, but sometimes I wonder about
                                   people like you.


Daniel Deocampo                          Undergrad (I have an excuse for    
ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu                            any silly comments.)
                                         Department of Geology
---------------------|                   Environmental Studies Program
"I just blew a       |                   Tufts University
 peltic schist       |
 out my sphene."     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment