On 30 Aug 2004 16:14:40 -0700,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:
..Mike Vandeman <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
..> On 29 Aug 2004 14:10:17 -0700,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
..> .> On 29 Aug 2004 04:42:33 -0700,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .Mike Vandeman <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
..> .> .> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:50:08 GMT, "S o r n i" <
[email protected]> wrote:
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .Scott Burley wrote:
..> .> .> .{MV, I assume:}
..> .> .> .>> That's called "sour grapes". You are just upset that the research
..> .> .> .>> shows that mountain bikng is more harmful than hiking.
..> .> .> .>
..> .> .> .> Not sure if you're refering to me or cc, but I have no reason to be
..> .> .> .> upset, as I am not a mountain biker. If anything, I have a slight
..> .> .> .> bias towards hiking, though I understand you're none to fond of that
..> .> .> .> either.
..> .> .> .
..> .> .> .Wrong. Mike gives lip service to advocating "pristine" wilderness, but
..> .> .> .hikes in heavy lugged boots on a regular basis.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Anyone who has seen my web site (click on the mountain bike) knows that I hate
..> .> .> those I & have never used them.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> .Bill "hell, he doesn't even ***** about HORSES shitting and leaving
..> .> .> .post-holes all over trails" S.
..> .> .>
..> .> .> Horses are native. I do think they shouldn't be shod or used as vehicles,
..> .> .> however.
..> .> .
..> .> .Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century
..> .> .thus they are not "native." Your lack of basic knowledge is astounding.
..> .>
..> .> Horses evolved in North America. Thus horses are native to North America. Thanks
..> .> for demonstrating your ignorance of archaeology. And everything else. You need
..> .> to read this:
..> .>
..> .
..> .The horses that evolved in North America died off between 8,000 and
..> .10,000 years ago.
..>
..> If that were true, we wouldn't have horses today! DUH!
..>
..> .Modern horses are descended of those imported by Spanish explorers and
..> .others. They are not the native horses that once roamed and evolved here.
..> .DUH!
..>
..> All animals die, but some of them pass on descendents. Those Spanish horses
..> wouldn't be there, unless they descended from the first horses that evolved on
..> the Earth! So horses ARE native to North America. DUH!
..
..So are humans. DUH!
Nope, humans are too new. 10,000 years isn't long enough to become a native
species:
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.
Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North America
and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press,2001.
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.
Wilson, Edward O., The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.
===
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
[email protected]...