[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
In article <8ZMpWQAigOFyEw+S@wandana.demon.co.uk>,
Jim Barr <JimBarr@wandana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4utmb9$6sc_004@pm3-146.hal-pc.org>, charliew
<charliew@hal-
>pc.org> writes
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>As I replied in an email message to you, most of the
species
>>that have ever existed are now extinct, and they went
extinct
>>before man ever walked on this planet. We shouldn't
>>deliberately drive species to extinction, but we also
>>probably should not intervene to prevent species from going
>>extinct that are not fit for survival.
>>
>>A good example of this is the cheetah in Africa.
Scientific
>>American ran an article on this species, in which it was
>>noted that their genetic diversity is very small, and they
>>are currently experiencing reproductive problems. This
>>species is probably not fit to survive long term, and it
may
>>not even be possible for us to ensure this if we wanted to.
>>In other words, how would some researcher go about
>>introducing enough beneficial "defects" in their genome to
>>ensure enough genetic diversity to take care of this
species
>>over geologic time frames? We have no way of knowing the
>>answer to this one without being able to anticipate what
kind
>>of future adaptive pressure they will face, nor do we have
>>the expertise to modify their genes.
>
>
>Just a small point here Charliew, if your are talking about
a species
>that has painted itself into a corner by specific
environment
>requirements (it only eats ONE herb and requires a unique
temperature to
>survive) then OK.
>
>But what if the environmental change we are talking about is
say a 1%
>drop in available O2 in the atmosphere.
>
>That would have *some* effect on ALL air breathing
creatures.
>
>We are no longer talking species, we are taking large groups
of species,
>and a serious ( possibly runaway) imbalance in the total
system
I don't have a big problem with your statements. I only
wanted to bring out the point that it is easy to get carried
away to the point of becoming ridiculous. I am in agreement
that we shouldn't do things that simultaneously drive large
groups of species extinct.
References: