In article , Franz Heymann
writes

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

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or
poisoning the
kids.

That is an untenable generalisation. South Africa imported, from
Australia, the insect Cactoblastus cactorum in order to destroy
large
areas of prickly pear in the Little Karoo, thereby making hundreds
of
thousands of acres available for grazing land.


So what are you saying here, Franz - I don't quite understand your
gist.
SA imported and alien to destroy another alien to create grazing
land,
which may or may not be the natural vegetation for the area .

I was under the impression that the prickly pears were indigenous.
Perhaps I am wrong about that.

No - American (N&S) but have become widely naturalised, particularly in
Europe, S Africa and Australia.

If so, my point becomes rather weak.
On your final point: I have no objection to humans cultivating useful
plants, indigenous or otherwise.

So what you were saying was 'if a native species is wiped out for the
sake of useful plants, that is Good'?

Useful to whom?

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?

Or is the earth something that should be preserved even if it means
curing our instincts to dominate?

And neither of those questions is relevant to global warming etc because
if we mess up the earth it will mess us up too. So whether our motives
are to look after it for its own sake or to further our success as a
species, it's still a sensible thing to do.

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