[leps-talk] RE: Fwd: Monarch saviors

[Jonathan Sylvestre]

I think you just dont understand what i said, I will try to explain you

First, i will ignore this :

"But for what does "nature" exist, for what was it created? Or for
> what specifically has Man been created? Man was created to be the Steward,
> the Caretaker of nature, he was called to KNOW it, to study it, even to
> enter into Communion with it...They were created actually, for each
> other...Now, of course, Man was NOT created to destroy nature "

because i dont think that man was CREATED for something and NATURE was
created for something....  Religion have no place in scientific discutions
Just the fact that you splitted man and nature tell me that you cansider man
as not a part of nature..
By the way, I dont think this is the subject.

First, I said that "virgin" place should be kept with limited access. That
mean that we should keep "original ecosystems" so that we can study it, and
preserve it for the next generations. Only the nature can take care of
nature. The man can't take care of nature, the man can't take care of its
own species.. so how he can take care of million of species ??? we just
begin to understand how complex is the life.

Secondly, i never said that collector cause butterflies extinctions. I meant
that in some place, butterflies collecting should be limited only for study.
Collecting butterflies help knowing them and then protect them and educate
people.

I agree you with one point, you said :

"I hope that Jonathan is NOT saying that man
> must be consigned, perhaps as "sub-humans" to the cities, because it seems
> to me that this is precisely part of the problem...People are losing
contact
> with, the knowledge of, and the intimacy with, nature...People are more
and
> more being herded into, consigned to the (ugly) cities, where youth see
> little more day after day than concrete, ugly buildings, and everything
else
> that goes along with this drudgery.."

Yes, man should keep contact with nature to know it and protect it... but
how can 7 billion of people can have contact with nature ?  in many "Parc"
(the parc was created for that), they have problem with to too great density
of visitor... just imagine if everyone decide to go into forest tomorrow ???

Im sorry, my egnlish is not very well.. so maybe i dont choose the rigths
word

I have a question for you, do you live in a city ?

Jo


"Grkovich, Alex" <agrkovich at tmpeng.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:D10E57119AA2D511A61800902773FBE5012C9487 at NTFS2...
> Well, I was going to just ignore this post from Jonathan (I answered him
> off-line) as I myself am sick of this thread and also sick of certain
> perhaps baseless remarks that I myself have regrettably made in it, but...
>
> Jonathan, perhaps unknowingly, makes a couple of statements which to me
> appear to be in keeping with that of which Ayn Rand wrote...
>
> For example, Jonathan states that "virgin" places should be kept with
"very
> limited access"...in other words, man should be kept out of the forests,
> away from "nature" (so that "nature", presumably should be "saved" from
> man?)...But for what does "nature" exist, for what was it created? Or for
> what specifically has Man been created? Man was created to be the Steward,
> the Caretaker of nature, he was called to KNOW it, to study it, even to
> enter into Communion with it...They were created actually, for each
> other...Now, of course, Man was NOT created to destroy nature ( and I
> emphasize that I DO NOT want to see it destroyed...what a terrible life it
> would be without it), and in part having so done, he is in fact also in
part
> rejecting that high calling...I hope that Jonathan is NOT saying that man
> must be consigned, perhaps as "sub-humans" to the cities, because it seems
> to me that this is precisely part of the problem...People are losing
contact
> with, the knowledge of, and the intimacy with, nature...People are more
and
> more being herded into, consigned to the (ugly) cities, where youth see
> little more day after day than concrete, ugly buildings, and everything
else
> that goes along with this drudgery...Man was NOT called to a "sub-human"
> life of city drudgery; he has a higher calling in which he is to KNOW the
> Creation, and to UNDERSTAND it (as it was written, "...you shall name
> them...")
>
> And...of course, if man is to study nature, well, then of course he has to
> continue to collect specimens for scientific study, doesn't he? Has the
> taxonomic study of Lepidoptera in recent years declined, or expanded? I
> would definitely say the latter...It seems to me that we are in fact at
the
> present time only SCRATCHING at the taxonomic study of our Butterflies and
> Skippers, and even less than that on our Moths...
>
> And...as far as "collectors" causing butterfly extinctions are concerned,
we
> all know that numerous studies have been made by scientists including Paul
> Opler, Paul Ehrlich etc. in which experiments were made, where deliberate
> attempts to wipe out a butterfly colony by overcollecting in the colony
> proved impossible...The idea of "collectors" causing extinctions of
> butterfly species/subspecies has never been documented anywhere and must
be
> considered as a total myth...And the truth of the extinction of Mitchell's
> Satyr in NJ is now becoming widely known..."Collectors" did not cause the
> butterfly to disappear in NJ as "someone" wrote (and it probably still
> exists there unknown to us)...it was loss of habitat resulting from
> excessive development, and in at least one case, a colony was destroyed by
> overgrowth of sedges caused by the cessation of mowing of the vegetation
> where the colony existed (under a power line - and there is another
rumored
> cause of this extinction)...As it has been pointed out, "collectors" have
> collected for decades in Michigan's Mitchell's colonies, without the loss
of
> a single colony, and I also hear that more colonies have been discovered
in
> Michigan, as well as in several other states (so just WHY is the species
> "endangered"???)...But a freeway is NOW being planned in Michigan that
would
> extend RIGHT THROUGH a major colony...
>
> I also have the text of an interesting editorial by Dr. James A. Scott,
> which deals with a number of these very sensitive topics...I will forward
it
> off-line according to request...
>
> Alex
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Sylvestre [SMTP:josylvestre at sympatico.ca]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:59 AM
> > To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> > Subject: Re: [leps-talk] RE: Fwd: Monarch saviors
> >
> >
> > "Grkovich, Alex" <agrkovich at tmpeng.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news:D10E57119AA2D511A61800902773FBE5C8B3BF at NTFS2...
> >
> > "why is there so much pressure from groups like the Sierra Club to deny
> > people access to forests?
> > Why in Yosemite Valle, for example, do pamphlets state that "butterfly
> > collecting" is "ILLEGAL"? Who's behind this? You know, I agree with
> > President Bush on selective logging...selective loggings and fire
> > management
> > are despeately needed...don't "orgs" such as the one we've been
discussing
> > know this? Why would I be denied access to and colleting of butterflies
in
> > a
> > National Forest?  "
> >
> > Its the same everywhere... the problem is not can we collect butterflies
> > or
> > not ? or can we go in the forests ?  The problem is how many people can
> > collect butterflies before making all species endangered or extinct ?
And
> > How many people can have access to the forest before making it like a
> > ctity
> > park on cutted grass with undred of trails everywhere etc...
> >
> > I think that we must keep "virgin" place with a very limited access...
> > its
> > the price to pay for overpopulation, if we want to keep the biodiversity
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> >
> >    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> >    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
> >
> >
> CAUTION PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is
> intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission. If
the
> reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended
> recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that we do not intend to waive
> any privilege that might ordinarily be attached to this communication. Any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of the information contained in
this
> transmission is therefore prohibited. You are further asked to notify us
of
> any such error in transmission as soon as possible at the telephone
> number/email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>
>    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