Base Behavior of Butterflies...

[Dale Roberts/Bill Yule]

While making no claim to be any less anthropocentric than the next guy or
gal I would ask the question, "Who among us can quantify the value of
beauty?"
        We ignore the necrophilia of Mantids because they are stately
predators.  We overlook the regurgitation into the mouths of babes by mother
birds because they can do what we never can: Fly like the wind.  We ignore
the scatological predilections of butterflies because they're beautiful.
    Of course if you're trying to raise money for research or write a grant
to fund study a whole new dynamic comes into play about what's important,
IMHO.

                                       Bill Yule
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Walker" <MWalker at gensym.com>
To: <ento at satx.rr.com>; <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: Base Behavior of Butterflies...


> Mike Quinn wrote:
>
> <snippage>
>
> > No matter how many leps land on a turd, they just don't compare in my
mind
> > to mosquitoes and other insects of medical importance.
>
> "They just don't compare..."
>
> Hmmmm.  This is an interesting thread with some interesting statements.
> Mike's statement above is most interesting.  First of all, I would argue
> that at any given time there will be a completely different set of insects
> that possess the highest degree of significance to humankind - relative to
> the many factors that can play a role (i.e. disease, crop damage,
epidemics,
> conservation, etc.).  Generalizations don't seem appropriate, in my
opinion.
>
> Incidentally, I suspect that if lep hordes (adults or larvae) had been
> chosen as one of the seven plagues, they would have been just as
destructive
> and horrific as flies or locusts (or frogs).
>
> Beyond this, I'm a bit confused concerning the implicit value of organisms
> (or lack thereof) being suggested by the various statements in this
thread.
> Are we saying that butterflies are less important - and therefore less
> deserving of study - because they hold a lower position with regards to
> importance to man?  On the other hand, certainly no one is suggesting by
> these statements that butterflies should be held at a higher position on
> account of their being less harmful to humankind.  Such a suggestion is
akin
> to statements like, "Save butterflies because they are beautiful.  I don't
> care what happens to moths, because they are ugly", which have passed over
> the ether on recent occasion.
>
> I suppose we could rank each organism based on its value to humankind -
> negative values for harmful organisms, and positive values for helpful or
> aesthetically pleasing organisms.  Then we could justify both the willful
> destruction of the "losers", and aggressively promote conservation for the
> "winners".
>
> Of course, this would eliminate about 90% of wildlife - which would likely
> result in turning our planet into another Mars.
>
> Nope - I think butterflies are on even par with mosquitoes.  Along with
> cockroaches, fire ants, tuna fish, cows, chickens, and cats.
>
> JMHO.
>
> Mark Walker.
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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