At 03:26 PM 4/9/98 -0400, maggie coleman wrote:
>I am not disputing that many plant species are dieing. However (not really
>knowing shit about botany) it was my understanding that new species are also
>created on a regular basis. Is this true? ALSO, is the current RATE of
>specie disappearance greater than it was say 10-20-30 years ago? If species
>constantly disappear and get created, then the bad thing is species
>disappearing at an increasing rate.
I have another question: why is the disappearance of species more sinister
than that of the individual? Suppose that the salamander or the tree frog
cannot find breeding grounds anymore because wetlands have been transformed
into suburbs, malls and parking lots (yuk!!!). Consequently, their species
become extinct.
But the salamander or the frog may not even know about it since they do not
track the well being of their eggs they laid last year. They might be
nonplussed by seeing less and less salamenders or tree froggs around every
year, they may say to themselves "Hmm... I wonder what happened to the
folks I used to know, I do not see them around anymore" or even get
nostalgic.
But contrast that to other capitalistic practices that not only do not
threaten the extinction of a species, but on the contrary, guranatee their
survival, of a sort -- industrial breeding.
Is subjecting animal breeding to 'rational control' in the form of force
feeding, geometric cages and kindred products of ECONOMIC RATIONALITY of
which every individual animal is painfully conscious (Rene Descartes
notwithstanding) until its miserable death, but guranteeing their survival
as a species because of their utility, is less or more reprehensible than
the extinction of a species described above?
Just wondering.... but fuck capitalism and its rationality anyway.
Regards,
Wojtek Sokolowski
