[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Fw: the future is wild, review



Whoops! I meant this to go to the list. Sorry Jaime.

Rita

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rita D Miller" <blackholesnbones@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: the future is wild, review


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
> To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Cc: <blackholesnbones@sbcglobal.net>
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: the future is wild, review
>
>
> > Rita Miller (blackholesnbones@sbcglobal.net) wrote:
> >
> > <There isn't a place on earth where humankind hasn't stuck its fingers
> > into the gene pool and interfered with natural evolution one way or
> > another. It's always active interference, never passive.>
> >
> >   While I understand the emotion behind this, I must respectfully
disagree
> > and would point out that conservation has prevented damage in many
places,
> > preserved large stretches of natural habitat, made reparations to what
we
> > have done, as well as pointed out areas of the earth not molested by
man,
> > including the deeper stretches of the ocean, Antarctica, the alpine
> > reaches, nearly all of the Galápagos Is., and many other albeit remote
> > places on the planet.
> >
> >   Cheers,
>
> That may well be true, but it is a very limited view. Our attempts at
> "conservation" are still OUR attempts to fix what we mucked with in the
> first place. More often than not, well-meaning conservation attempts do
just
> as much damage as the previous destruction. We humans are arrogant enough
to
> believe we can know and understand all the permutations of genetic
evolution
> and the ecologies involved in natural selection, but we haven't a clue.
>
> It is STILL a matter of humans selecting for those species WE want to
> survive and destroying those we see no "use" for. My point about that show
> is that all the species that now exist on earth have been selected for by
> man one way or another. They might still evolve without our presence to
muck
> with them, but WOULD they evolve in a survivable direction now? Maybe,
maybe
> not, but we humans have messed with the gene pools of all animals and
plants
> to such an extent (often through conservation efforts as well as active
> destruction) that these creatures and plants aren't predictable as
> evolutionary models. If this were a natural world sans human intervention
of
> any sort, those creatures and plants might have evolved naturally. Now
they
> won't.
>
> Don't get me wrong -- I'm selfish and self-centered enough to LIKE beef
and
> to love my cats as though they were human beings, but I am also aware that
> cattle that provide us with beef and these lovely fur people that purr on
my
> lap are MAN'S creations and not the creation of natural evolution. We did
> that. Whether we should have or not is a matter for the highest
speculation.
> Meanwhile, I will enjoy a good, juicy steak and I will enjoy my companion
> animals -- and I will be a hypocrite in that sense. Can't help it -- I'm
> only human.
>
> Rita
>