Friday, September 22, 2006

Species customizing ...

... Diversity's hidden iceberg. (Hat tip, Maxine Clarke.)

This is extremely interesting and informative, but I am left with one question, and it has to do with "how important it is to keep the fabric of life intact." Every other species just goes about its business, heedless of the needs and concerns of other species - or things in general, for that matter. But many among the human species seem to think that humans are somehow obligated to accomodate ourselves to the needs and concerns of every other species. Now that may well be so. But I don't see how nature compels it. Keeping the fabric of life intact would seem to be the job of, well, life itself. (In saying this, I am presuming, for the sake of argument, a strictly naturalistic viewpoint.)

6 comments:

  1. Frank, as you say, it is life's "job" to keep its own fabric intact. And it will do so, with or without humans around.

    The fact is, however, that humans are affecting life on Earth on an increasingly large scale. If we keep destroying diversity, one of two things will happen, as I see it:

    1) We eventually destroy the very basis for human survival and we therefore cease to exist as a species. Once we're not around, the remaining life forms on the planet eventually spread out again to fill all the empty niches.

    2) We somehow manage to survive (and perhaps even flourish) the bio-diversity loss we cause. However, Earth has become a place where life exists to serve humankind. Nearly every species that has survived is in some way used for human purposes. The result is a barren and boring planet.

    Either way--from the standpoint of sheer survival, or simply for aesthetics--it seems to me that while humans have no intrisic obligation to preserve biodiversity, we do have a vested interest in making every attempt to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm still not sure I see the logic of it, Peter. Humans are a product of evolution, right? Evolution has made them - and everything else that lives - they way they are. What they do is follow their evolutionary drives, which will take them and everything else that lives wherever evolution is heading. I don't see why, just because we appear to be aware in ways other species are not, that we have to curb our evolutionary drives in any way, least of all on behalf of other species. It seems to me we either trust evolution or we do not. Or we are saying that evolution has brought us about in order to ... manage evolution? (By the way, I think we should behave in an environmentally responsible manner. But then, I do not subscribe to evolutionary determinism, which is what my question is meant to address.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:59 PM

    You know, Frank,

    If it were just evolutionary striving on man's part I would agree with you, although the example of the hovering fly shows just how dog-eat-dog nature is, so arguing from nature we should despoil the planet, press our advantage until the earth won't support our population.

    The problem in any scenario is technology; unlike evolution, it progresses at an exponential rate and thus upsets the flow of the fabric of nature with a variable other species cannot produce.

    Nature is kinder than science. The ants survive the hoverfly, possibly benefit. An oil spill does nobody any good.

    C. E. Chaffin


    p.s. Did you ever get my e-mails?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, I agree, C.E. - except, if you accept evolutionary determinism, then the technology also is a product of evolution and I don't see on what grounds one can question the course of evolution. It brings about what it brings about.
    I may have received your emails, but I have been so deluged by email these past couple of weeks and am so far behind in just trying to keep up with the workload that I don't remember seeing them. But I'll be here on Sunday and may get to them by then.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3:28 PM

    Why consciousness is a miracle and cannot be accounted for by evolution, as the ability to think abstractly gave birth to the first tools. This is where philosophical theists and pure evolutionists must depart, though I don't want Kansas to mess with their books on this account.

    CE

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree - especially on the books business.

    ReplyDelete