"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed thisaccountneverr
writes


"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed
thisaccountneverr
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
snip

Should we regard the earth as our habitat, and whatever we do to
make
it
better for us is therefore good, even if it is bad for other
species?

Sounds like a good idea to me*. I'm presuming for example, that if you
had
lice you wouldn't leave them on your body, even though that is 'good
for
you' and 'bad for lice'?

But would I, if I had the opportunity, eradicate them entirely from the
earth?
Bad for an individual louse is not the same as bad for lice as a
species

Its the start. Logically, if you would eradicate them from yourself, that
is
equivalent to saying you believe they should be eradicated totally.

No - but I do realise it's a bit selfish to ask other people to put up
with them if I won't ;-)

How
would you propose to not eradicate human lice?

We haven't done it yet, despite throwing all sorts of chemicals at them!
And no, I can't work up a lot of enthusiasm for them.

OK - bad choice of word. What I'm trying to get at is the concept of
'treading lightly' - not having a disproportionate effect. Atm we are
so
numerous and so technologically capable that simply going about our
business can have a hugely harmful effect on the world - we have to

I think you''ll have to define 'harmful'

Not a definition, but I think I mean 'causing a large change'. And I'm
not about to try to pind down 'large'.

and I suspect it will boil down to
what is good for us, rather than what is good for 'the world' (whatever
'good' and 'the world' means*).

Undoubtedly that is the definition some people would use.

For example, you might say 'if we change
the ecosystem too much in direction X, that will cause us problems, so we
shouldnt do it'. Or 'if we eradicate species Y, future generations wont
gain
enjoyment from them, or, that will cause a knock-on effect on the
ecosystems which will damage us. Unless you'd say something else?

Yes, in my contemplative moments, I would look on it as not causing too
much change to the world, and that is incompatible with the success of
the human species. I don't feel particularly wedded to the need for the
human race to continue successfully. Which is not to say that I can view
human suffering with equanimity.


consciously think about the effect we are having and take measures to
reduce it if we are to balance our effect to be at a similar level to
that of other species.

Why should we do that?

For the good of the world? Because we consider ourselves to better than
animals? But why is 'the world' more worthy of care than the human
species? I don't know. Perhaps the 'devil takes the hindmost' approach
is the only sensible one.


And how would you measure it? How would you define
the level? Whats the number of seagull equivalents to people? Or
hedgehogs?
Or nematodes?

You'd look at the changes in species abundances and at the changes in
physical conditions.


Nope, I'm not quite sure what you are advocating.

Ah well, that's life.


And malaria is the same issue as lice. Thought experiment.....**you**
have
the last colonies of several hundred each of human lice, fleas, ticks
etc.
Do you kill them? **you** are the last person with malaria. Should you
take
the drug that will cure you?

Quite possibly not. But what I should do and what I do do are frequently
two entirely different things.


Does earth heat up to the extent of being home only to a
few specialised bacteria, or do increasing floods etc take their toll
on
the human species and put a natural limit to the process?

What increasing floods?

The various things I've read which suggest rise in sea levels, and also
increasing extremes of weather - though I am quite likely out of date on
this. But I did say 'etc' - or are you saying GW isn't going to be a
problem to humans in any way?

So far there is no evidence for a generic rise in sea level or more floods
than the norm. I can easily imagine that you might believe this is not the
case however, given the hysterical news headlines that associate GW with
every single report of weather outside the 'norm'. A couple of examples;
....Boscastle, it only took a day before I heard someone on the news mention
it in connection with GW...had they not heard of Lynton and Lynmouth in the
50's? And how did they think all those valleys got there in the first place?
....recent floods in Bangladesh, GW blamed, yet they were only of the scale
that happens every 10-20 years.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

| That's a good question. I tnd to tink of anything which
replicates
| itself as being in some sense alive, but that may well be
wrong.

Prions.

You have just given the second example which proves me wrong.

Ever since that troublemaker synthesised urea, the boundary between
life and non-life has got more confused.

In my newfound ignorance, I am now also not quite certain as to where
viruses stand in the live/dead stakes.

Franz


You define what 'life' means, then you know whether it meets that criteria*.
100 years ago people thought there was a 'vital essence' or 'spark' that
constituted 'life', but now we know thats not the case (well, most of us
maybe?). Now its a matter of definition only.

--
Tumbleweed

*Not easy, since coming up with a *complete* definition is difficult if not
impossible:-)

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

In article , Tumbleweed thisaccountneverr
writes

So far there is no evidence for a generic rise in sea level or more floods
than the norm. I can easily imagine that you might believe this is not the
case however, given the hysterical news headlines that associate GW with
every single report of weather outside the 'norm'. A couple of examples;
...Boscastle, it only took a day before I heard someone on the news mention
it in connection with GW...had they not heard of Lynton and Lynmouth in the
50's? And how did they think all those valleys got there in the first place?
...recent floods in Bangladesh, GW blamed, yet they were only of the scale
that happens every 10-20 years.

So - are there any effects of GW? Are there likely to be? Are you saying
that it is happening but not a problem, or that it isn't happening?

My original question was is it self limiting, in that it will decrease
the number of humans who are the driving force, or, once started, is it
unstoppable? The exact mechanism by which the number of humans is
reduced is not important to that question. But if you are saying that
there won't be any ill effects on humans, then that makes the question
a nonsense.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , BAC
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes
As gardeners, we do it all the time, don't we? Are
you suggesting that instead of growing things we like, we should
cultivate
things we are told are 'worthy'? That'd be the day I gave up gardening.

Maybe we all should. They're blaming the last round of nastiness on
import of cultivated plants ;-)

Sudden Oak Death?

Yes.


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Tumbleweed thisaccountneverr
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
snip
Had Opuntia arrived in Oz as chance seeds in pre-human times, they would
have established more slowly, other things would have evolved around
them. They would not have become the problem that they did.


Not at all, it spread because it was a great environment for it and there
were no natural predators, not because of any specific human program to
deliberately spread it.

It was introduced deliberately and therefore in a greater amount than
the odd chance seed. It was introduced as 'fencing', AIUI to control the
introduced rabbits.

I would imagine they introduced it by cuttings, which is the obvious
method of propagation (as Franz has described). An Opuntia seedling is a
delicate thing to begin with, and it would have been a lot slower to
establish ... as demonstrated by the fact that it hadn't managed to
establish itself out of its original continent until we started to help
it along.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed thisaccountneverr
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
snip
Had Opuntia arrived in Oz as chance seeds in pre-human times, they
would
have established more slowly, other things would have evolved around
them. They would not have become the problem that they did.


Not at all, it spread because it was a great environment for it and there
were no natural predators, not because of any specific human program to
deliberately spread it.

It was introduced deliberately and therefore in a greater amount than
the odd chance seed. It was introduced as 'fencing', AIUI to control the
introduced rabbits.

I would imagine they introduced it by cuttings, which is the obvious
method of propagation (as Franz has described). An Opuntia seedling is a
delicate thing to begin with, and it would have been a lot slower to
establish ... as demonstrated by the fact that it hadn't managed to
establish itself out of its original continent until we started to help
it along.


"A lot slower " in the case of opuntia would have meant maybe 5 or 10 years
difference, nothing in the scheme of things.' exponential growth' is what
makes the difference, not people. One seedling or 1,000, give it a few
years and you'd see no effective difference.
hedgehogs in scotland,snakes in guam, snails & miconia in tahiti, all it
took in each case was a very few individuals and a little bit of time. The
latter was introduced as just a few plants about 60 years ago and now covers
something like 2/3 of the land area IIRC.


--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes
As gardeners, we do it all the time, don't we? Are
you suggesting that instead of growing things we like, we should
cultivate
things we are told are 'worthy'? That'd be the day I gave up
gardening.

Maybe we all should. They're blaming the last round of nastiness on
import of cultivated plants ;-)

Sudden Oak Death?

Yes.



The 'lost gardens' people were claiming their Victorian Rhodies had
exhibited the symptoms identified as indicative of carrying the disease, for
decades. If that is true, it hasn't been spreading very quickly.

So, should gardeners be prevented from growing imported plants, because
there is a risk that something unwelcome might hitch a lift with the import?
I hope not.

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed thisaccountneverr
writes

So far there is no evidence for a generic rise in sea level or more
floods
than the norm. I can easily imagine that you might believe this is not
the
case however, given the hysterical news headlines that associate GW with
every single report of weather outside the 'norm'. A couple of examples;
...Boscastle, it only took a day before I heard someone on the news
mention
it in connection with GW...had they not heard of Lynton and Lynmouth in
the
50's? And how did they think all those valleys got there in the first
place?
...recent floods in Bangladesh, GW blamed, yet they were only of the
scale
that happens every 10-20 years.

So - are there any effects of GW? Are there likely to be? Are you saying
that it is happening but not a problem, or that it isn't happening?

I'm saying that there is no significant evidence at the present time for
global rises in sea level, or increased flooding (or droughts come to that).
Howver, if every time there is a storm, a drought, a flood, or a plague of
locusts, the media invoke the GW mantra, then pretty soon people will start
to believe it.*


My original question was is it self limiting, in that it will decrease
the number of humans who are the driving force, or, once started, is it
unstoppable? The exact mechanism by which the number of humans is
reduced is not important to that question. But if you are saying that
there won't be any ill effects on humans, then that makes the question
a nonsense.

There will undoubtedly be 'bad' and good from the planet warming up. For
example, fewer people will die of cold (ISTR that more people die of
hypothermia worldwide than heat stroke).
It is also unlikely that GW will in any way *significantly* affect the human
population, and in any event it will naturally run its course and be gone
within 100-200 years because people wont be using oil or coal any more then
(or probably in about 50 years time but it will take its time to work
through the system). And GW certainly wont affect humanity as badly as many
other things we currently suffer from globally, such as poor water supplies,
AIDS, malaria, deaths from poor cooking practices, and so forth.

--
Tumbleweed

*the interesting question about GW is "so what do you propose to do about it
then" because there is almost certainly no actual practical way of stopping
it now, assuming it does exist(1). The cure would have far worse
consequences than the disease, to coin a phrase.

(1) bearing in mind that the climate models used to model GW cant actually
tell us what the climate should be now, let alone in 100 years time.

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...

And no 2 is an interesting one ... where do we draw the line
...
how
do
we regard viruses, compared with plants, animals, fungi,
bacteria
...

That's a good question. I tnd to tink of anything which
replicates
itself as being in some sense alive, but that may well be
wrong.

Computer worm?

Touche


It's not so far fetched - this Universe seems to like patterns -
perhaps
life is simply another way of creating and maintaining patterns.
Ideas which
are able to perpetuate and defend themselves (e.g. religions) via
their
hosts could be argued to possess a form of 'life' too?

Shades of Dawkins' memes/genes ?

Franz

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

| That's a good question. I tnd to tink of anything which
replicates
| itself as being in some sense alive, but that may well be
wrong.

Prions.

You have just given the second example which proves me wrong.

Ever since that troublemaker synthesised urea, the boundary
between
life and non-life has got more confused.

In my newfound ignorance, I am now also not quite certain as to
where
viruses stand in the live/dead stakes.

Franz


You define what 'life' means, then you know whether it meets that
criteria*.
100 years ago people thought there was a 'vital essence' or 'spark'
that
constituted 'life', but now we know thats not the case (well, most
of us
maybe?). Now its a matter of definition only.

I would be tempted to think that the only living objects are the
eukaryotic cells in any of their myriad manifestations and
associations.

Franz

In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

I would be tempted to think that the only living objects are the
eukaryotic cells in any of their myriad manifestations and
associations.

Watch out, or Pete will put you on the hit list of the Prokaryote
Equality Front ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

I would be tempted to think that the only living objects are the
eukaryotic cells in any of their myriad manifestations and
associations.

Watch out, or Pete will put you on the hit list of the Prokaryote
Equality Front ....

{:-))

Franz

Phil Kyle Usenet Anti-Christ
wrote in message
05.60...
Gluteus Maximus wrote in
:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:22:43 GMT, "Phil Kyle Usenet
Anti-Christ"
wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote in
t.net:

Idiots don't ...
^^^^^^

Shut up fish knickers.

Kipper knickers

Haddock knickers.

I do believe Mr. Brooks (well 3 of him, anyway) has made your
point for you, Mary.

I suppose he gets these ideas from the odour surrounding the kind
of woman he keeps company with.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...

And no 2 is an interesting one ... where do we draw the line
..
how
do
we regard viruses, compared with plants, animals, fungi,
bacteria
...

That's a good question. I tnd to tink of anything which
replicates
itself as being in some sense alive, but that may well be
wrong.

Computer worm?

Touche


It's not so far fetched - this Universe seems to like patterns -
perhaps
life is simply another way of creating and maintaining patterns.
Ideas which
are able to perpetuate and defend themselves (e.g. religions) via
their
hosts could be argued to possess a form of 'life' too?

Shades of Dawkins' memes/genes ?


Sometimes known as 'Dawkin's Bad Idea', because the metaphor is dismissed as
simplistic - memes or ideas lack the internal set of instructions to
replicate themselves. But maybe they do have them, and we simply cannot
perceive them as such.

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...


Idiots don't ...
^^^^^^

Shut up fish knickers.

Kipper knickers

Haddock knickers.

I do believe Mr. Brooks (well 3 of him, anyway) has made your
point for you, Mary.

I suppose he gets these ideas from the odour surrounding the kind
of woman he keeps company with.

I've only just seen this :-)

We were talking about poultry and fox though ...

Mary