Base Behavior of Butterflies...

[mbpi at juno.com]

As I recall, this thread started with the implication by someone who was
trying to "convince himself" that if the unassuming general public
actually KNEW about the filthy predilections of butterflies, they would
no more hold them in "great esteem," than a cockroach...

Of course, this is like comparing apples with oranges, and even less
convincing.  It had nothing to do with their "importance" in the overall
web of biodiversity, much less in their own existence.  "Importance" is a
fabrication of humans, based on what they "know," as opposed to what they
DON'T.  We can't possibly even imagine the "importance" of every organism
in the context of its reality (i.e. interrelationships).  We go by what
we know... and yes, by what we "like."  Whether we want to admit it or
not, esthetics ARE important to us.  Just turn on the TV or flip through
a magazine...

As for apples and oranges:  I don't particularly like either...I prefer
grapefruits and pears! ;-)

Mary Beth Prondzinski


On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:48:49 -0400 Mark Walker <MWalker at gensym.com>
writes:
> 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 
>  
> 
> 
> 

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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