Message from discussion Natural vs Evolved Species (was: Better to be...)

From: dh...@yahoo.com (David N. Harrison)
Subject: Re: Natural vs Evolved Species (was: Better to be...)
Date: 1999/10/15
Message-ID: <3806d3d1.123751470@news.mindspring.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 536979284
References: <37d3859e.2103889@news.mindspring.com> <3801F0CE.76ED074C@email.unc.edu> <7tv7un$hhn$1@panix2.panix.com> <380339B9.AFC9BD8A@email.unc.edu> <7tvo5l$pmt$1@panix7.panix.com> <380388B9.EF83DAC9@email.unc.edu> <3803E52C.55E3@albany.net> <3803c212.1000369259@news.mindspring.com> <3804161B.28C7@albany.net> <3804fb21.2725610@news.mindspring.com> <38053ED0.764A@albany.net>
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
X-Server-Date: 15 Oct 1999 07:29:53 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals

Michael Cerkowski <m...@albany.net> wrote:

>David N. Harrison wrote:
>> 
>> Michael Cerkowski <m...@albany.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >David N. Harrison wrote:
>(...)
>
>.> >.> >.> Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a
>.> >species
>.> >.> >.> while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? 
>Are
>.> >.> >they
>.> >.> >.> not all equal?
>.> >.> >
>.> >.> >   Because wild species have evolved to fill niches in the
>.> >.> >environment; they are both necessary parts of the ecosystem
>.> >.> >and, in the case of endangered species, warnings that the
>.> >.> >system is getting out of balance. Domestic breeds of
>.> >.> >animals are neither evolved parts of a given ecosystem nor
>.> >.> >indicators of its health, except in incidental ways.
>.> >.>
>.> >.>     Humans are evolving our ecosystem, and the animals we
>.> >.> make use of are evolving with us. It's as natural as anything
>.> >.> else. What else could it be?
>.> >
>.> >   Natural evolution is more or less self-correcting: if a
>.> >species doesn't work out in a given environment, either it
>.> >dies out, or the environment changes to regain a balance
>.> >that includes the new species.
>.> 
>.>     Beavers no doubt. Ants. Humans. What else?
>
>   The new organism doesn't have to practice physical
>engineering to have a profound effect.

    If you mean that it wouldn't have to  consciously change its 
habitat, I agree with what you are saying.
 
>.> >                                                   Human-controlled
>.changes
>.> >are usually too quick, and too extensive, for the ecosystem
>.> >to adapt in a way that allows it to maintain diversity and,
>.> >for want of a better word, health. A typical human experiment
>.> >in "evolution" seems to have an effect more like a rare
>.> >cataclysmic mistake in natural evolution. I guess that you
>.> >can argue that we are agents of evolution - of the worst sort.
>.> 
>.>     We are infants. The plus is that we are already thinking
>.> about and discussing such things. There are a lot more
>.> people thinking about the future than there were 50 years
>.> ago. Much less 100...or a few thousand.... "Evolution"
>.> doesn't think about the future, but humans can, and some
>.> do. Humans can think about future animals also.
>
>   The fact that we are finally thinking about the consequences
>(some of us, anyway) doesn't mean that we aren't still making
>things worse for the environment as a whole. We are.

    IMO it is still way too early in the game to feel that humans
are going to screw it all up. Things could always be better.
Encouraging better lives for animals instead of no life, is
better IMO. Isn't it a natural part of the cycle that humans
are still making things worse? We haven't figured out all
of the solutions, and as we do figure some out, they lead
to new problems, etc. But we haven't even been civilized
for any real period of time yet, so it's a bit early to be looking
for expert control of our surroundings, wouldn't you agree?