Posted by john on April 20, 2002 at 18:33:34:
In Reply to: Re: see post below on unnamed bird posted by kat on April 20, 2002 at 09:24:39:
: Then humans are not natural factors anywhere? If so that doesn't make sense. Aren't we classified as animals, and if so then we are part of the ecosystem, natural or otherwise, for better or worse, right? And cats, well even if they are domestic, if they are out there hunting and killing, are part of the system.
yes we are animals biologically, but in the western framework of ecolgical science human actions and structures are not considered natural. Now in the asian context everything that happens in this universe is natural, because natural is defined as just that...natural, whereas here we distnguish between nature and us. See the difference? Of course in the other context, even pollution is considered natural because it is a product of natural beings (us). But we have to understand that they don't see the same dichotomy between nature that we do. This means that environmental concerns are more a matter of stewardship and balance to them, rather than a good/evil battle like everything in the western context. There are many environmentalists who think this way inthe west, but they are the more radical groups and not the people doing the real day-to-day work of prottecting/ maintaining/ restoring the environment. (but we're starting to infiltrate ;)
As for the cat thing, they are natural, but they are out of place. Because of this the things they hunt are not adapted to them and are no match. Plus we ensure the survival of our cats by vets and hoousing and feeding them. Things that wild cats would have to compete for,thus limiting their numbers. So we have a choice, let the cats (and here please understand this is just an example of the invasive species problem simplified for discussion, cats are only a small part of a much bigger issue) do their own thing and wipe out the few remaining native mice, lizards, and birds that are already stressed by loss of habitat and competition by other exotic species, or stop them and try to restore the balance of the wild ecosystem before the cats arrived. Sure in a few thousand years the system may reach another balance, but at what expense, and do we have that long to wait? We know the current system works and can support us, but who knows about the new one? Whose to say that some crucial service isn't being performed right now that we never dreamed was necessary to our survival. Remember we are dealing with an immensely complex system that we don't even know how all of it works, there are nearly infinite interactions that all play a part. Suppose a native bird is stressed because it only lives in undisturbed scrub habitat, the very habitat that is prime development area in Florida. Now there are very small patches of this habitat left and they are split apart by roads, and urban areas, so the birds can just barely have enough genetics to survive and are becoming inbred. Then suppose a cat starts hunting them. They decrease to the point that they are essentially mating with their own brothers and sisters, then a disease comes through and kills off all of them without a certain natural resistance. Since they are all now related, most die and there are not enough to reproduce, so they go extinct. Now suppose that when this bird feeds it makes small scratches in the bark of a tree to get at insects. Well these scratches are used by a certain epiphyte, or air plant, to let them get a foothold. Without these scratches the epiphytes die off because they can't take root. These epiphytes may contain a compound that will cure a disease that hasn't mutated up yet, but they are gone now. Or even more so, suppose that these epiphytes are the prime habitat for a species of insect that preys on a certain catapillar. Without these insects the catapillar multiplies uncontrolled and causes the destruction of billions of dollars worth of food crops. I'm not making these things up, both types of incidents have actually happened.
This opens up a discussion of biodiversity. The more functioning systems we have, the more species we have, the more species we have the stronger the system is because it's strength is in it's variability. If part suffers other parts adapt and pick up the slack. But if we keep taking out this variability, eventually the system can't survive a natural stressing. Now if you consider that everything on this planet is built on a series of simple systems that make up more complex systems, like cells forming organs, forming organisms, forming ecosystems, forming regions, forming the biosphere. This loss of diversity can chain react and crash the system. Now you may say so what.
But do you really want to face the billions of people in underdeveloped countries without sanitation and clean water as they start flooding away from the famished and crashing, disease ridden areas that they have destroyed to the point that they are uninhabitable? Where do you think they will go? You think the cubans and haitians crossing the straits are bad? Imagine 2.8 billion Indians bound for California, or rioting across Asia? Not pretty.
: Here's another question for ya. I realize that humans destroy the natural habitat of some creatures, but in some cases isn't extinction just a 'natural' part of the whole circle of life?
: (I put natural in quotes because I think the natural world is not as God intended it to be)
Now as for this question, extinction can be a natural cycle. But in nature, according to fossil records species go extinct something like less than a dozen per millenium, except in the case of mass extinctions, like what killed the dinosaurs. Well we are currently losing over 12 species A YEAR! due to human related factors, mainly habitat loss. Humans are now responsible for the newest mass extinction event, and it isn't over yet. If you want to call this unnatural, then it needs to be stopped, and if you want to call it natural, then that's fine, but it will likely end in the MASSIVE destruction of the stressing factor... that being us. Do you want to see billions of souls die because we refused to work within the system that God gave us? now you alluded to the fact that this is not the nature God intended and you are right. Everything is spinning toward entropy, meaning it decays and falls apart. If you want to call this the curse of human sin, I wouldn't argue. But should we allow it to accelerate? Are we really so certain of God's plan that we would neglect our responsiblities to tend the garden, even in it's fallen state? Is this good stewardship? Just rhetorical questions, but these are the issues of environmental philosophy.
And one last question to think about. Assuming the system does crash, will you survive? Do you want to live in the chaos that follows? And even if you do live, can you bear the knowledge that this is the highest resource consuming nation in the world? That means Americans are indirectly sending lesser developed nations with far more people and countless species that God gave life to their end by consuming the limited resources available. Treading lightly is far more than a concept to protect pretty flowers.