Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (15615)	8/10/2007 2:47:29 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

"However, the real question to me is are you making survival of the fittest neutral to humans? " It's not neutral but it isn't the same as herd creatures or frogs or something, who must adapt to changes of a particular biome. Humans are more complex. The fitness that provides longevity for humans may at times be more associated with cleverness or wisdom than physical prowess. Our destruction is more often associated with some corruption in the system than with physical defeat, although that may follow. The dangers that lurk for humans lie more within us than behind some bush in the ecosystem. "We are only one species, and until modern times, most animal evolution was driven by the ecosystem as a whole, not the actions of a single species." Where ever found throughout history, human beings have dominated their habitats. So I would think that birth control methods could certainly be implemented at least as well as hunting is. The only reason to manage wild life is because of some disruption in the wild pristine conditions that disrupt balances. Domesticating wildlife to make them less violent destroys their natural motivations to thrive. Birth control could be like hunting in regions where their is an imbalance, but the managers could get overly zealous and destroy the natural elements that contribute to fitness in the process. Hunt management used to do that when they eliminated natural predators so the hunters have more to shoot at. Hunters kill the best specimens, natural predators cull the weak. The former corrupts the system, while the latter strengthens it. "How much better you can do would depend on many assumptions and no doubt some of that highly maligned science endevour of modelling." I've never heard modelling get maligned except when it hampers further exploration ... usually because of funding issues.