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?


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