Evolution, Natural Selection and Government Policies

[hndog609]

It'd be ironic if somehow Humans saved a species from natural extinction and that species carried a disease that ends up killing us off.

Skynet will take care of that before we get the chance.

 

[rjd970]

So if bugs infest a particular area and their waste is toxic to existing life that is natural but not when man does it? If the bugs suck the life sustaining resources that is natural but not when man does it?

What may be the difference being argued...Bugs are excreting natural waste created during the course of maintaining basic life necessities. Chemicals not naturally occurring in nature, developed by human industrial processes devastating an ecosystem is not natural.

I guess it is where you want to draw the line. Our natural place in the evolutionary history of the earth could be argued that we are part of nature, and what we do know, from eating to flying planes, is natural.

Mother nature is infinitely more smart and capricious then we could ever be. If things get too unbalanced, nature will correct and take care of itself.

 

[n_huffhines]

Skynet will take care of that before we get the chance.

Not if we can get to Dyson first.

 

[n_huffhines]

Humans introduce unnatural properties to the environment, but humans are sophisticated by virtue of evolution, so even though a toxic chemical wiping out a species may be unnatural, it's still evolutionary.

 

[theFallGuy]

It'd be ironic if somehow Humans saved a species from natural extinction and that species carried a disease that ends up killing us off.

Technically, in the wild most of the animals that we "save" from extinction would probably rip us to shreds.

 

[n_huffhines]

Technically, in the wild most of the animals that we "save" from extinction would probably rip us to shreds.

 

[rjd970]

Humans introduce unnatural properties to the environment, but humans are sophisticated by virtue of evolution, so even though a toxic chemical wiping out a species may be unnatural, it's still evolutionary.

Exactly what I was trying to say, but you said it more succinctly.

 

[hndog609]

That dude would kill you in a heartbeat if he wanted and you know it.

 

[volinbham]

What may be the difference being argued...Bugs are excreting natural waste created during the course of maintaining basic life necessities. Chemicals not naturally occurring in nature, developed by human industrial processes devastating an ecosystem is not natural.

I guess it is where you want to draw the line. Our natural place in the evolutionary history of the earth could be argued that we are part of nature, and what we do know, from eating to flying planes, is natural.

Mother nature is infinitely more smart and capricious then we could ever be. If things get too unbalanced, nature will correct and take care of itself.

Sure, I can see the difference in degree.

Beavers build damns that don't naturally occur in nature but it is their unique skill. Those damns certainly disrupt the environment for any number of species. We just have more capabilities than beavers (except when it comes to getting beaver )

My larger point is that we appear to be the only species that attempts to stop it's own impact on evolution and the impact of other species (ones we deem pests of one sort or another) on evolution.

To LGs larger point perhaps the preventative actions we take are just part of our evolutionary contribution - if so, it is at least ironic that while we are trying to preserve things as they are; we're simply altering evolution.

 

[VOLatile]

What may be the difference being argued...Bugs are excreting natural waste created during the course of maintaining basic life necessities. Chemicals not naturally occurring in nature, developed by human industrial processes devastating an ecosystem is not natural.

Exactly what I was trying to say...

 

[lawgator1]

I see what you are getting at but because we have free will we can choose how much we'd like to attempt to stall the process.

Then I assume you approve of man doing what he can to reduce global warming ...

 

[volinbham]

Then I assume you approve of man doing what he can to reduce global warming ...

I didn't present the question as approve/disapprove. It's just that as I thought about it I found it worth contemplating.

 

[volinbham]

Exactly what I was trying to say...

What about the beaver damn example? These damns are not naturally occurring. They are specifically crafted by one species and it has drastic environmental effects for other species which then adapt.

 

[RespectTradition]

The extinction caused by human overpopulation, pollution, etc. are not evolutionary processes or natural processes.

Not even comparable.

An asteroid crashing into the earth is a natural occurance. Manmade chemicals dumped into waterways is not natural.

I can see a religionist making an argument that man is unique and not a part of nature. I can't see that argument being legitimately made by a non-religionist.

If we are an evolved part of the world, then anything we do is as 'natural' as any other species. Birds build nests, bees build hives, beavers build dams, we build refineries. Why does one draw an artificial distinction?

A bee takes raw materials and fabricates a substance (honey) that would not exist without it. Man takes raw materials and fabricates a substance (plastic) that would not exist without us.

Can one argue that we make choices that damage the current environment? Absolutely. Can a non-religionist make an argument that such actions are unnatural? Absolutely not.