Mike,
your recent arguments against me show an impressive inability to conduct thought experiments, to
understand reasoning, and a remarkable ability to ignore what i am actually saying. by attempting to
produce reasoned arguments and to provide methodologies you could use to test your case i have
received nothing but the inane ramblings of an arrogant and, it would appear, ignorant, tyro.
particularly worrying is your lack of understanding of statistics - i have not at any point in these
messages conducted statistics, thus i have not made statistical assumptions. you are supposedly a
mathematician, something which is not in evidence in your comments. removal is not necessary: FOR
EXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM, clear? examining the effects of known human usage on cougars to predict
unknown effects is not circular. i have not assumed validity, becuase i have not made statistical
assumptions in these messages - i have not carried out statistics, but thought experiments.
assumpitions are made that depend upon the nature of the data, thus i wouldnt use a normal
distribution data assumption, to analyse poisson data, unless the central limit theorem where
demonstratably applicable.
in addition, you state you don't want humans killed by cougars, despite representations in other
threads that advocated the mistreatment of cyclists. related to that i note on your website that you
enjoy cylcing but dislike mountain bikers and road building. so as you dislike roads and off-road
cycling, do you cycle in space? or perhaps just your head?
i never said that a species is native on arrival, merely that it can become integral, as a result of
ecological shifts - and bear in mind not all arrivals are anthropogenic, and many have been equally
damaging - for instance the devastation of South America Fauna after the formation of the Panamanian
landbridge. the invasive species are however integral to the ecology of the amazon basin.
that systems are dependent on humanity does not make humans native i agree. but it makes humans
integral to the ecosystem processes that enable the persistence of species that would otherwise go
extinct or be exterpated - calcareous grasslands in the U.K and lepidopterans spring to mind. and
humans are a part of nature - without natural selection humanity would not have evolved.
jeff strickland may not be knowledgeable - but if you read my sentence, i used the proviso "at least
researched" in the structure.
your point that it is subjective to state that humans should be left in, is no less subjective than
to say they should be removed. futhermore. any human theory is subjective, it has come from a
person, but it is possible to analyse them objectively. indeed a biocentric viewpoint is still
subjective, it was proposed by humans.
to your point that pure wildlife habitat would be an improvement, i agree - but it didnt help the
golden toad did it? other factors are at work, potentially groundwater pollution in this case.
humanity must be considered ( defined as: Of or characterized by deliberate thought- Oxford English
Dictionary second edition) in order to provide an adequate solution to these issues.
to your last point that it is possible to be dishonest or stupid whilst being superficially polite,
i will say you are in no danger of that. your stupidity, impoliteness and incivility are plain.
However, it is painfully obvious that any reasoned argument will not work with you - you are a
person of beliefs. beliefs cannot be refuted, unlike scientific hypotheses and ideas, and thus i
shall leave you to them. indeed i respect your right to have them, but i will no longer engage in
attempts of dialogue. i wish you a happy life.
Sincerely, Alan Poots
Biodiversity Conservation Research Group, Oxford University.
"Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:43:40 -0000, "Alan Poots" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> .To reply to you Mike: . . ."Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> .
news:[email protected]... .> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:48:47 -0000,
> <
[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> ."Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> .> .
news:[email protected]... .> .> On 7 Feb 2004 09:09:37 -0800,
>
[email protected] (Reco Diver) .wrote: .> .> .> .>> .> .> .> .> .3) Whether or not people
> recreate there has no statistical
bearing
> .on .> .> .> . predicting if cougars are abundant. .> .> .> .> .> .> There's no proof of that. .>
> .> . .> .> .Do a basic lit review before passing judgement. .> .> .> .> Don't forget, I have a
> Ph.D. and an MA in math. To prove that, a .scientist .> .would .> .> have to REMOVE all humans
> from the experimental area. That will
never
> .> .happen, .> .> because humans are too selfish. .> .> .> . .> .to respond to the latest error on
> your part Mike. A scientist would
not
> .have .> .to remove all the humans from the park for at least two reasons: .> .1. humans are an
> integral part of the biosphere in general, and of
this
> .> .system in particular. .> .> Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. Humans are a VERY recent
addition
> .to .> the ecosystem, making them an exotic species -- NOT "an integral part
of
> .the .> ecosystem". Be honest! Humans are as much a part of the ecosystem as
zebra
> .> mussels ar in SF Bay. . . .strangely mike, whether or not a species is recent or not does not
> effect .its potential to be integral.
>
> So a species can become native the day it arrives? BS.
>
> many systems are utterly reliant on human .activity for their persistance - such as calcareous
> grasslands, which
would
> .otherwise turn into forested regions, with a resultant loss of habitat
for
> .many invertebrate assemblages; farmland bird's such as the cirl bunting
are
> .reliant on traditional farming methodologies; and savannah in africa is .maintained by grazing
> pressure and fires - many of which are
anthropogenic
> .in cause.
>
> That doesn't make us native to those ecosystems. In fact, it proves we are
NOT
> native. After enough time has passed, the other species learn how to deal
with
> the newcomer.
>
> .in addition, do you suggest that humans should all return to Africa to
where
> .it is believed that speciation occurred?
>
> No, it wouldn't help. That doesn't make us native to North America.
>
> .Do you advocate the removal of species from islands because they migrated
to
> .get there?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> .Perhaps no species should be dispersive?
>
> See my paper below.
>
> .Whislt i agree that humanity in general is having a terrifying effect on
the
> .world's biota - especially through anthropogenic introductions - humanity
is
> .a part of nature and must be considered when trying to solve ecological .problems.
>
> Who said we shouldn't be "considered"? But zebra mussels are a part of
nature,
> but NOT native to SF Bay. Being a part of nature implies NOTHING. It is dishonest of you to imply
> that being a part of nature means that it's okay
for
> us to be wherever we want to go. That is just human rationalization,
nothing
> more.
>
> And removal of humanity would not allow a "pure habitat", as a .result of pervasive atmospheric
> and groundwater effects - to name a few.
>
> It would be pure(ly) wildlife habitat, since there would be no humans
there. It
> would be an improvement over human presence.
>
> .this is believed to have lead to the recent extinction of the golden
toad,
> .despite the prevention of access. . . . .> .> to remove them would be inappropriate to correct .>
> .modelling of the situation, regardless of whether one believes them to .have .> .the right to be
> present. .> .2. factorial principles of statistical design would allow examination
of
> .> .the premise, by testing for interactions using a GLM. .> .> Ah, yes: how to lie with
> statistics. Without removing the humans, it is .> IMPOSSIBLE to know what the effect of removing
> the humans would be.
That
> .is .> obvious to anyone with half a brain. . .i did not suggest that one should lie through
> statistics. it is , i
agree,
> .possible to misrepresent the data through statistics , especially if the .methodologies are not
> robust, and assumptions of statistical models are
not
> .met.
>
> Exactly.
>
> a public misunderstanding of what statistics state, and to be fair
> .science in general, means that this is done, allowing nefarious
manipulation
> .of public perception towards an incorrect premise.
>
> That's what you are doing: using phony statistics to justify what you want
to
> happen.
>
> .And as much as i didn't want to get technical - you have in previous .messages suggested the
> complete removal of humans from the park. this is .not necessary.
>
> Not necessary FOR WHOM? It IS necessary, if we want to prevent killings of humans by cougars, and
> to give them the best chance to survive.
>
> by using factorial design principles it is possible to .analyse heterogenous ecological data -
> namely differences within a
region.
> .so that for instance one part of the park with a level of human usage of .(for example) 1 (or
> other arbitary and hypothetical value), and N other .variables at levels Xn, can be compared to a
> parts with human usages of .diferent values - with N variables at levels Xn. this would allow
> .extrapolation on an n-dimensional backdrop through multivariate
techniques
> .(appropraite to the data distribution), to explore the consequence of
human
> .usage on cougars, or other species, and thereby provide an ability to
gauge
> .what the effect of removal would be. these techinques are fully
repeatable,
> .testable, and objective.
>
> That is pure BS. It ASSUMES what you are trying to prove, and is thus
circular
> logic. The only way to know what will REALLY happen when humans are
removed is
> to REMOVE them! IN YOUR OWN WORDS, you are "EXTRAPOLATING". That is only
valid
> if ... it's valid. You are ASSUMING it's valid. That is exactly how
so-called
> "scientists" lie with statistics. Of course, I don't expect you to admit
it.
>
> .but i am sure as an MA Mathematics you didn't need an explanation of .multivariate ecological
> techniques, but others may well not have been
aware
> .of these aspects.
>
> You are being dishonest, because you haven't explained what your
ASSUMPTIONS
> are.
>
> .> Isuspect that you .> .have backed yourself into a corner as a result of erroneous
assumptions
> .in .> .your original arguments. .> .> "Suspicion" is not enough. You have to prove it (hint:
> you can't,
because
> .you .> are all wet). . .agreed, it had been raining a lot after all. And i need prove no such
> .thing. i wished to allow people unaware of the previous parts to your .conversation to be made
> aware of the possibility that the arguments may
not
> .be based on correct premises ,and to allow you a chance to re-evaluate
your
> .position in the light of the presentation of alternate viewpoints by
authors
> .who demonstrate an appreciable,or at least researched, understanding of
this
> .topic - such as Jeff Strickland.
>
> Thanks for picking the most dishonest of all of them to use as an example
of a
> "knowledgeable" person!
>
> perhaps you could start a new thread with .a revised argument? an improved model as it were? .
> .your aims are admirable in some senses, but naive in others. whilst
humans
> .have been demonstratably bad for the environment, any solution which .excludes them from
> consideration will be inadequate.
>
> That is a subjective judgment, not a fact.
>
> .your suggestion that i have half a brain is offensive - at no point did i .suggest that your were
> half-witted, merely that your hypothesis may be .grounded on incorrect assumptions. i hope that my
> comments have not .offended, and that was certainly not the intention, but have provided
> .information that can be integrated into subsequent hypotheses.
>
> It is quite possible to be dishonest, or stupid (it is hard to distinguish those), while being
> superficially polite.
>
> .Sincerely, .Alan Poots.
>
> What Is **** Sapiens' Place in Nature, From an Objective (Biocentric) Point of View? Michael J.
> Vandeman, Ph.D. July 4, 2002
>
> "For hundreds of millenia, evolving humanity was a native species ... in
Africa
> and Asia. ... The modern Races of **** sapiens were a true alien species
when
> they colonized the rest of the world, from Australia to the New World and finally the distant
> oceanic islands." E.O. Wilson, p.98.
>
> "The behaviours animals use to avoid predators are both genetically based
and
> learned. The genetic component is acquired through natural selection and
so can
> only slowly be developed. This may account in part for the fact that most
of the
> world's surviving large mammals live in Africa, for it was there that
humanity
> evolved, and it was only there that animals had the time to acquire the genetically based
> behaviours that allowed them to cope with the new
predator."
> Tim Flannery, p.198.
>
> Many answers have been given to this question, but none, to my knowledge, based on science. Even
> scientists, apparently, often avoid applying their knowledge when it may be inconvenient (e.g.,
> interfere with our preferred lifestyle). For example, open any biology textbook and find where it
> defines "exotic species". Do you see any mention of the fact that humans are, throughout most of
> our range, an exotic species -- or even a discussion of whether we are an exotic species?
> _______
> If biology is so valuable (which I think it is), why do we shy away
> __
> from using it?
>
> Another example: it is often claimed that humans are a natural part of our environment -- we are
> just an animal like any other animal. If that is true, then why aren't humans mentioned in the
> vast majority of natural histories? The fact is, we consider ourselves a part of our ecosystems
> when it's convenient (e.g. when we want to justify recreation in wildlife habitat), and not, when
> it's not
> ___
> convenient (e.g. when choosing where to live: in a house!). When you
> _____
> die, will you re-enter the ecosystem just like any other dead organism? No! We are either
> cremated, or buried in a box, specifically to avoid the natural process of decay.
> _____
>
> It is obvious that we are a part of nature, or we couldn't touch and interact with it. The real
> question is Which part of nature are ____ _____ we?
>
> Biology texts usually define an "exotic species" as one transported by humans to a new
> location, where it hadn't existed before. However, this is not a good definition, since the
> effect of the exotic species on its new surroundings has nothing to do with how it got there,
> but more to do with the fact that it is a newcomer. However, every species was new at some time
> in the past. So the
> _____
> question is, How long does it take to become a native species?
> _________________________________________________
>
> I would like to suggest that a length of time that makes sense, biologically, is the time that it
> takes for the other species in the
> _____
> ecosystem to evolve (i.e., make persistent -- "beneficial" -- genetic changes) to adapt to the
> newcomer -- say on the order of a million years. This would make humans (**** sapiens) native only
> to (part of) Africa, and everywhere else, a relative newcomer -- an exotic species. (This is not a
> value judgment, but simply a statement of biological fact.)
>
> Does this mean that we should all move back to Africa? I don't think so -- it wouldn't help! Even
> in Africa, our behavior changes so rapidly, on an evolutionary scale, that the only things that
> can evolve fast enough to keep up with us are bacteria and viruses! So even in Africa, we might as
> well consider ourselves an exotic species.
>
> But what I do think it means is that we should act with restraint -- with the manners of a guest!
> What does this mean in practice? I think it means, first of all, to "listen" to other species, and
> what they are trying to tell us! For example, what is the first thing that every child learns
> about wildlife? That they don't want us around: that they run away whenever we try to approach
> them! And then, of course, because we are the curious animals that we are, we proceed to ignore
> their wishes.
>
> Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and Birute Galdikas all had the same experience when they began trying
> to study apes in the wild: the apes didn't want them around! They "told" the researchers that
> clearly and unequivocally. Jane couldn't get close to the chimpanzees until she started bribing
> them with bananas. The gorillas charged Dian and tried to scare her away. And the orangutans
> pushed over trees toward Birute, apparently trying to kill or intimidate her. The apes desperately
> need us to deliver their message to the rest of humanity. Although the message is impossible to
> miss, most humans ignore it. Rather than arguing over to what degree the apes resemble or differ
> from humans, the most important message that we can derive from studying them is that they want to
> be left alone!
>
> This is perhaps a bitter pill, but one that humanity urgently needs to take. With our population
> increasing rapidly, it is more important than ever to give wildlife what they want, which is also,
> ____
> therefore, what they need: freedom from the pressure, irritation,
> ____
> infection with diseases, and outright danger of the presence of humans. It is utterly inexcusable
> that we continue extending our hegemony into every square inch of the Earth -- and soon, other
> defenseless planets as well.
>
> This is a tall order? Very well, then it is a tall order. But I do not see why we shouldn't aim
> for what is needed, instead of pretending that less is adequate.
>
> References:
>
> Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the
> Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House, 1981.
>
> Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books, 1991.
>
> Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists. Covelo, California:
> Island Press, c.1995.
>
> Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring
> Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California, 1994.
>
> Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los
> Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1973.
>
> Vandeman, Michael J.,
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially
>
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3.htm,
http://home.pacbell.net/ mjvande/india3.htm,
>
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8.htm, and
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/goodall.htm.
>
> Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the Preservation of
> Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.
>
> "The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic Society, 1994.
>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
> help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
>
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
