[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment



In article <4um1hj$6s4_002@pm6-81.hal-pc.org>, charliew@hal-pc.org
(charliew) wrote:



> ALL species must adapt to survive, and they 
> have always been under this "pressure".  If they can't adapt, 
> they will surely go extinct, with or without our help.  I 
> will discuss what rate of adaptation they are capable of, but 
> I do not intend to worry one iota about some creature that 
> has lost its ability to adapt.  If this is true, the species 
> doesn't deserve to survive, because it doesn't have "what it 
> takes" to survive.  Too harsh?  Too bad.  That is the way 
> that nature is, and has always been.

Individual adaptation and species adaptation are much different on a
vastly different time scales.
Some species change, or evolve and turn into something else. Others hardly
change over millions of years like bacteria, or the horseshoe crab. Some
change very radically and lose functioning organs (i.e. degenerate) in
adapting to their environment like so many parasites.
The wretched inhabitants of the ruins of Imperial Egypt and the
descendants of the Mayan Kingdoms adapted and survived to reproduce.
That's the way "nature" works: whatever it is that survives is the
fittest. Fitness can only be determined by humans in retrospect.
From what I understand about mass extinctions, they are caused by radical
changes in the environment, which is to say habitat. These radical changes
do not usually occur suddenly or that often. Our earth is undergoing
several kinds of simultaneous rapid, radical change right now. 
It may be impossible to alter these changes, but it seems to make more
sense to at least try to do something reasonable,  rather than just let
nature (or "the market") take its course.
Best wishes, 
Jim Scanlon

-- 
199 Canal St #8
San Rafael CA
94901
415-485-0540


Follow-Ups: References: