[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: