Kelly, Thanks for your speedy reply. I agree that actions based on fear are often futile and rash, however I don't thing that conservation should only be applied to cases where something of "value" is in danger--unless you consider unique and variable ecosystems to all have value, which I do, and thus it always applies. I agree, human introductions do not outnumber "natural ones"--all introductions before we evolved are obviously "natural"-- what I was referencing is the frequency with which these introductions occur. Human introductions occur at a higher rate than "natural" ones. I agree that without change there is stagnation, but evolution works at a rate that sometimes cannot handle the effects of our "snapshot in time." To argue that all change is good simply puts you in a position of defending anyone's right to do whatever...why stop pollution, urban sprawl, or strip mining? They're all just change... I agree that conservation efforts are "dependent" on our heartstrings--that is why red wolves and pandas adorn our calenders. However, is there any point to conservation, does anything have any "value," except from an emotional point of view? Is human utilitarianism a valid method of ascribing "value" to anything?
*-*Peter P.S. I think tardigrades are so freakin' cute! On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Kelly Stettner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, Peter, thanks for the reply! You're right, just because the Nazis did > something it is bad. That would be a blanket statement. I'm saying that > trying to exterminate any "non-native" is not only a practice usually based > on fear but is often an effort in futility. Now, if we accept that an > introduced species is causing damage to something of value, let's be honest > about that and look at possible management of the newcomer. And, no, zebra > mussels aren't 'hunky dory' just because a duck dropped some...you picked up > on that, as well. I'd be extremely surprised if human introductions > actually outnumbered 'natural' ones. Theodoropoulos simply suggests that > humans are an agent of change in this world, and that nature, diversity, and > life in general thrives and depends upon change. There are serious things > to consider, but there are other scientists out there who agree with this. > > I'll get the citations you asked for, about 'invasion' and biodiversity. > Happy to provide those, just am at work and don't have them in front of me. > > I think sometimes we humans get caught up in the microcosm of the immediate > landscape and the snapshot in time we occupy that we don't think about > geologic history and how nature often depends upon disturbance and change. > Yes, I do think that conservation in many cases is dependent upon our > heart-strings; you don't see anyone running a campaign to save the > tardigrades, do you? ;-) Polar bears are much cuter. See the recent > article in ESA's Frontiers in Ecology. I can look up the citation...all > about how science and conservation issues are based largely on personal and > cultural biases and not so much on facts. > > Respectfully, > Kelly > > -- Peter Coffey UNC Asheville 828.773.8138
