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

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

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


It would be unwise for a pragmatist like me to say yes or no to
such a
possible false generalisation.
There are circumstances where I would be prepared to participate
in
the eradication of some species in certain places for the sake
of
humans, or domesticated animals, for example

Prickly pears for the sake of grazing field
The common cold virus
Malaria-carrying mosquitoes
Bracken in the Lake District
Hedgehogs in N Uist and Benbecula
Cats on Marion Island

Well, out of that lot, nos 1, 5 and 6 could be regarded as
putting
things right after introduction of species to places where they
don't
belong,

What do you mean by 'places where they don't belong'?

They didn't get there without human intervention.

Pretty obviously, they
are well suited to those places,

I can think of many places where I would thrive, but where I don't
belong ;-)

and 5 and 6 are not primarily 'for the sake of humans or
domesticated animals' - indeed, it was the *introduction* of
hedgehogs
that was 'for the sake of humans'.

The extermination of the hedgehogs is for the sake of humans, too.
It is for
the sake of those humans who consider the continued presence on the
islands
of large breeding populations of certain species of birds to be
important,
and who believe that management of the hedgehog population is
therefore a
necessary expedient. If the presence of the hedgehogs merely
threatened the
survival on the islands of something to which humans assigned
little
importance (like the slugs they were reputedly imported to
control), I
doubt whether the RSPB or the local tourist industry would have
lobbied SNH
for their removal.

OK, a fair point.


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



I suggest that similar principles apply - if a virus or any other
organism
is perceived as a threat/nuisance, countermeasures are likely to be
taken up
to the point where the cost/effort/hassle involved starts to
outweigh the
anticipated benefits.

That leaves questions about what are the benefits. Will removal of
one
species (whatever it is) have a knock on effect on others?

You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to
clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was
done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had started
turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that
threat ever materialised.

Is it good to
maintain as large a number of species as possible for its own sake?
...

Yes, if you would substitute something else for "possible", such as
"feasible without harming the human population"

or for potential future uses we don't yet know about? And how much
importance should we place on the furry cuddly factor?

Very many mammalian species do in fact play an important role in the
psychological well-being of humans.

Franz

"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

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" writes:
|
| 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.

Franz

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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

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

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

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


It would be unwise for a pragmatist like me to say yes or no
to such a
possible false generalisation.
There are circumstances where I would be prepared to
participate in
the eradication of some species in certain places for the
sake of
humans, or domesticated animals, for example

Prickly pears for the sake of grazing field
The common cold virus
Malaria-carrying mosquitoes
Bracken in the Lake District
Hedgehogs in N Uist and Benbecula
Cats on Marion Island

Well, out of that lot, nos 1, 5 and 6 could be regarded as
putting
things right after introduction of species to places where
they don't
belong,

What do you mean by 'places where they don't belong'?

They didn't get there without human intervention.

Whether it "didnt belong there' is a human value judgement. Had, in
pre-human times, a chance event carried prickly pear seed to Oz,
and it had
become established, presumably you'd now be saying it did 'belong
there'?


It wouldn't have arrived there as a result of human activity. OK,
you
can say that it's irrelevant which species brought it there -
whether it
came on a duck's foot or in a human's hand baggage, for example, but
what this discussion is leading me to believe is that there is a
quantitative difference between us and other species - we do things
more
purposefully and on a larger scale, and therefore have a larger
effect.

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.

Oh yes? For all practical purposes every piece of Opuntia which lands
on the ground roots. My father once established an Opuntia hedge
(believe it or not!) by cutting the "leaves" into four pieces each and
inserting each into the bare ground. The bulk of them rooted. Within
a couple of years we had more prickly pears than we could eat or sell
at the village auction market.

Franz

In article , Franz Heymann
writes
You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to
clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was
done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had started
turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that
threat ever materialised.

There was the whole rabbit/opuntia thing in Oz - I can't remember
whether the rabbits were introduced control the opuntias or vice versa,
but either way it didn't afterwards look to be such a good idea.

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

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to
clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was
done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had
started
turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that
threat ever materialised.

There was the whole rabbit/opuntia thing in Oz - I can't remember
whether the rabbits were introduced control the opuntias or vice
versa,
but either way it didn't afterwards look to be such a good idea.

I don't think the rabbits were imported to deal with the opuntias. My
memory says that they were released in the wild in the hope that they
would provide a future source for sport. The Ozzies also dealt with
their opuntias by using the anti-cactus bug.

Franz

"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

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to
clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was
done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had
started
turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that
threat ever materialised.

There was the whole rabbit/opuntia thing in Oz - I can't remember
whether the rabbits were introduced control the opuntias or vice
versa,
but either way it didn't afterwards look to be such a good idea.

I don't think the rabbits were imported to deal with the opuntias. My
memory says that they were released in the wild in the hope that they
would provide a future source for sport. The Ozzies also dealt with
their opuntias by using the anti-cactus bug.


If you're looking for a classic example of an attempted biological control
going wrong in Oz, the good old Cane Toad springs to mind - it didn't solve
the problem it was hoped it would, and has spread widely, preying on
virtually anything it can fit in its mouth.

"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?

"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?

"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.

Whether they were a 'problem' or not is a human value judgement, the reason
they were regarded as a 'problem' is that it interfered with human
requirements for that land.

--
Tumbleweed

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

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
You have a point. I mentioned the use of Cactoblastis cactorum to
clear the prickly pears out of the Little Karoo. After the job was
done, there were rumours floating around that the insect had started
turning its atention to pumpkin fields. I don't know whether that
threat ever materialised.

There was the whole rabbit/opuntia thing in Oz - I can't remember
whether the rabbits were introduced control the opuntias or vice versa,
but either way it didn't afterwards look to be such a good idea.



Rabbits were introduced as food for foxes. And the foxes were introduced so
people could hunt them.

--
Tumbleweed

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?



Indeed, 'life' is a problem of definition, not of fact.

--
Tumbleweed

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