Glassberg's public statement on collecting.

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

One more observation to stir the pot some more on this topic. Has to do with
the issue of scientific evidence. At the risk of being accused of being
anti-science - which I am not - I should point out that there are invariably
a number of views on what constitutes "scientific evidence". So far I have
not seen any such evidence, scientific or otherwise. Also the world and what
people view as evidence is much bigger than science. Many people are quite
comfortable in making decisions without any scientific evidence to 'support'
their decision. Further, science is not limited to numbers and the
biological sciences. Social and behavioral sciences are used frequently by
many people in dealing with topics where many views exist in society --
which just happens to be most if not all topics :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Soukup [mailto:mikayak3 at home.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:44 AM
To: stanlep at extremezone.com
Cc: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Glassberg's public statement on collecting.


"From what I've been reading on this site there appears to be sound
scientific evidence to justify not releasing butterflies not native to an
area. " 

   Stan, the trouble with this logic is: "There is sound scientific evidence
to justify not doing just about every human activity".    We know driving
cars is bad - but we allow it - so people can make money and feed thier
kids.  We know that building office buildings destroys habitat (and does
more environmental damage  than any "release") - but we allow it and don't
think twice about it.  Why, it's always  been that way.  And, we need the
jobs and the money. 


    So, why is raising and releasing butterflies any different??? 


    I think it is looked on so disparigingly due, in many case to,
"intellectual snobbery".  Most lep people are "scientists" and
"profesionals" and feel that they "are above such activities".  Which is
fine.  We all understand the attitude.  All of us are good at something and
tend to think of the "amateurs" as well "amateurs".  I have no problem with
that. 


    The trouble comes when they try to a) make publically perjorative
comments.  And b) When they try to control thier activities. 


    As long as we exist on this planet, we are going to have an
environmental impact.  Period.  Even if we all collectively killed ourselves
- we would have an environmental impact.  I keep repeating this on this
list. We are part of the environment - we are NOT in charge of it. 


    So, we collectors, breeders, smokers, capitalists, gun owners, and
whoever else the fascists seek to demonize in order to marginalize thier
public opinions and gain control over are starting to get a little pissed at
the hypocrites who drive, live in houses, go shopping at malls and work in
offices - telling US we are causing an "environmental problem".  As the
saying goes - look in your own back yard and fix the problems there first.
After you've done that - then mind your own business. 


My 6AM rant! 
  
  


Stan Gorodenski wrote: 


Paul Cherubini wrote: 
> 
> them, the anti-release group is trying to impose their beliefs on
everyone. 

Could you elaborate on these so called 'beliefs', and who composes this 
'group', Glassberg and NABA excluded - we already know about that. Are 
we talking about Nazis here (I recall seeing a photo somewhere that had 
a Nazi symbol on the underwing)? It almost sounds like we're getting 
into religion here with all this talk of 'beliefs'. From what I've been 
reading on this site there appears to be sound scientific evidence to 
justify not releasing butterflies not native to an area. Were it 
necessary to do so to save a population, that would be one thing, but 
from what I've read the sole motivation appears to be the greed for 
money an any social or environmental cost. 


This release practice reminds me of a company who has suckered people 
into paying to have a star named after them, or whatever person they 
choose. They get a fancy document making them believe the star name has 
been recorded in the archives of science, little knowing the name has no 
scientific value whatsoever, or any other kind of posthumous value. It 
sure makes money for the company, though, in fact so much so that they 
have threatened to sue astronomers for attempting to reveal the fraud it 
is. 


As much as some would like to think we should and can have the freedom 
to do whatever we want, in reality this is not feasible, or else we 
would live in anarchy. Interjecting the 'release' issue in the context 
of the debate on collectors vs. non-collectors does not make it any more 
acceptable to me. Were it to stop (i.e., the releases at weddings, 
funerals, etc.), there would not be any significant negative impact on 
human society at all. The only negative impact, which would actually be 
a good one, is that owners and employees of companies involved in 
promoting this practice would have get a 'real' job and make a 'real' 
contribution to society. 
Stan 
  


 ------------------------------------------------------------ 


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 


   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
<http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl>  
 


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl