"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , michael adams
writes

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

But in this particular case the squirrels are here because man
interfered by introducing them in the first place.


And the "balance" you mention can only happen at the expense
of our native red squirrel. Is it a "balance" to gain one
introduced species at the expense of another indigenous one?
Is it a "balance" when mink supplant water voles on our
rivers?

snippage



If man, and man alone, is the primary cause of all these
imbalances - which he indeed is - then if they really exercise
you that much,

Who said they did?

....

Okey dokey..

....


then the answer seems pretty obvious. Get
rid of man. Because "interfering" with nature in various ways,
is part of man's self elected role on the Earth, and always
has been.

Perfectly true. Man interfered by introducing the grey squirrel. Man is
interfering again by trying to control its numbers in those parts of the
country which still have reds. Some people seem to think that this
second interference shouldn't take place.

Which in itself doesn't justify meeting out wanton cruelty to
defenceless creatures which are capable of feeling pain,
but that's another matter.

Except that that's often given as the justification against a second
interference.

....

That's very much a straw man, IMO. Or possibly trollery by whoever
suggested it.

The people proposing intervention don't regard it as constituting
cruelty, wanton or otherwise, but simple necessity

However trying to eradicate grey squirrels in the UK by this stage
is quite probably doomed to failure. I very much doubt if anyone
with any real knowledge of the subject seriously suggests otherwise.
Or at least that they won't eventually recolonise the whole of the
U.K, and certainly those areas where they presently constitute
the greatest threat.

Trying to reverse one foolish introduction by a similarly foolish
remedy, is more a testament to human vanity and pig-headedness
in the face of recalcitrant nature IMO, than it is of any
essential propensity to wanton cruelty.

....

I suggest you console yourself with the fact that life
forms of one form or another, all the way up from trilobites
through woodlouse and silver fish equivalents, all the way
up to cats and squirrels and chimpanzees co-existed
quite happily for 350 million years, prior to man's arrival
on the scene.

Err, the mere fact of evolution denies your claim that they "co-existed
quite happily" :-)

....

No the "happily" refers to the fact that an equilibrium of sorts
existed to the extent that they all survived as species. Whether
they were all happy as individuals, probably not. Presumably
they will all have had their good days and bad days in terms
of their predator/prey identity.

....


And his brief 250,000 year tenure on the
earth as homo sapiens, let alone his 20,000 year(?) long,
totally unsuccessful campaign to fully mould nature to his
will. And will doubtless take up where they left off, once
humans depart the scene. Be it from totally resistant viruses
such as a highly contagious strain of influenza; climatic castrophes
brought about by global warming, volcanic activity or meteor
strikes; nuclear or biological warfare; nuclear accidents,
chronic water shortages, or more simply a surfeit of
MacDonalds hamburgers. The demise of the red squirrel
in the UK should be the least of mankind's worries IMO.
The likes of cockroaches, slugs, fungi, and bacteria
are going to win in the end, whatever we do.

Some would say that viruses will "win".

....

ISTR that all viruses need a host.

If so, then they're probably not quite so foolish as to wipe
everything else out.

They didn't get where they are today, by........

Although it's indeed possible to see most higher life forms as
existing simply as vectors for viruses, and similar pathogens.
Which apparently can lay dormant for centuries. Just waiting
for the right moment....




michael adams

....


--
Malcolm