alien butterfly in my garden

[Ron Gatrelle]

It may seem inconsistent to some - but ironically, I agree with the argument presented by Mike below.  We all live in two worlds. One is the way we see things and would like for them to be - all arguments from this perspective are subjective. The other is the way things really are and will be - that "world" is beyond our horizon and thus our understanding. I myself could argue that the "reason" we make things extinct is so that we will one day feel guilty and find a way to bring them all back to life. Or, that in the end bacteria will once again rule the world and that that is the way it is actually meant to be. 

All in all the number one thing I find that rings true in Mike's statement is the bottom line that so many of us, consciously or not, end up treating ourselves (man) as though we are not a part of this organic scheme.  We are very much a part of the natural world. So, if they let the wild fires burn Yellowstone because it was a "natural" disaster, why not let man cause extinctions and changes?  The argument against this is that Ice Ages etc. worked slowly so that things had a chance to evolve. Well, they didn't have a chance via time when the meteors struck did they. 

I don't like a lot of things (including exotic organic introductions and a misplaced TV remote control), but intellectually one has to consider "it all" from much vaster perspectives. 
RG
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike Soukup 
  To: Ron Gatrelle 
  Cc: Leps-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 7:56 PM
  Subject: Re: alien butterfly in my garden


  This is not necessarily my view...but I thought I would put it out here to liven up the discussion.  And, it ain't gonna go over too well in some circles but - here it goes.... 
  Throughout history, many, many plants, insects, and other critters have been dispersed by birds, mammals, storms, and many other "natural" phenomenon.  I think we would all agree to that.   Now, here comes man.  How do we know that "mother nature" didn't put us here for just that purpose?   Why do we separate man from nature? 
  Maybe "nature" wasn't working quickly enough.....so man came along to speed up the process.  Maybe the entire future of the planet - thru some fantastic quirk - hinges on the fact that the Gypsy moth needs to have global distribution.  Mother nature would gladly sacrifice some forests - hell, she'd sacrifice the entire planet - if it met her final goals.  What makes us think that "we know better" than Mother Nature???  The "damage to science" argument is irrelevant.  Science is our creation - not natures.  It couldn't give a hoot about what we want or where we expect to find a "Queen".  The USDA - for all it's "good intentions" - could end up being - inadvertantly - the impetus for our destruction (aside from the personal freedoms they destroy in the process).  The bottom line is.....we are clueless.  And furthermore, we will always be clueless about the goals of the universe.  Any "controls" we place on this planet are an illusion that can be swept away in the blink of an eye. 

  Ron said: "Human's are the world's best creatures for introducing exotics and ruining environments." 

  It's the terminology.   I would agree that: 
  Human's are the world's best creatures for introducing exotics and changing environments. 

  But, it is only "ruined" in our eyes - from a certain viewpoint.  To the new creatures inhabiting and utilizing this "new environment" - whether we think they should be there or not - it means life, existence, a possibility of a future for them and thier "familes"..... 

  The universe laughs at our petty attempts to keep it in stasis. 
    


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20010814/f166d6e3/attachment.html