Mountain Bikes · Public discussion

"Divisive Issue"

Started by Mike Vandeman · · Last activity · 95 posts · 3,569 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Mountain Bikes
Published
22 February 2007
Last activity
6 April 2007
Original author
Mike Vandeman
Posts
95
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,569
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 95
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. February 21, 2007

    Nature Conservancy

    Re: "Divisive Issue" (Winter 2006 Issue, p.6)

    To the Editor:

    Times change. We learn new things, and old ideas become obsolete. It's
    inevitable. For example, we can no longer safely assume that water
    from mountain streams is safe to drink. As Mark Gross stated so
    eloquently, exploiting wildlife and wildlife habitat, for pleasuring
    humans, is fast becoming obsolete (although dropping support for
    Nature Conservancy seems counter-productive to me). The
    rationalizations for such exploitation are transparently just that.
    Aldo Leopold is a good example of discarding obsolete notions (the
    killing of wolves) when they become clearly untenable.

    This not to say that denigration of the "exploiters" is okay. I can't
    really criticize 19th century Americans for not anticipating modern
    conservation biology. And I don't think that difference of opinion
    necessarily means we can't get along and work together. There will
    probably always be compromises "on the ground".

    But I don't see any reason to compromise on telling the truth! Yes, we
    are animals somewhat like other animals, but we are not a natural part
    of any ecosystem. We are a species that is native to part of Africa,
    and everywhere else a very late newcomer, i.e. an exotic species. Like
    all exotic species, we have arguably no right to access, much less
    exploit, local ecosystems, especially when those activities threaten
    native species (except that, when it's convenient, we claim that
    "might makes right"😉.

    There is no honest way in today's environment to rationalize hunting,
    fishing, and "collecting" of native species, or non-sustainable
    recreational activities like mountain biking.

    Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

    References:

    Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and
    Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House,
    1981.

    Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
    University Press, 1987.

    Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North
    America and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press, 2001.

    Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books,
    1991.

    Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
    Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, 1995.

    Louv, Richard, Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from
    Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel
    Hill, 2005.

    Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
    Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
    California, 1994.

    Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights
    for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc.,
    1973.

    Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3,
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8,
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4, and
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

    Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the
    Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.

    "The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic
    Society, 1994.

    Wilson, Edward O., The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
    2002.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  2. Move to Africa or kill yourself.

    Mike Vandeman said:

    But I don't c any reason to compromise on telling Þ truÞ! Yes, we
    r animals somewhat like oÞr animals, but we r ¬ a natural part
    ov any ecosystem. We r a species Þat is native to part ov Africa,
    & everywhere else a very late newcomer, i.e. an exotic species. Like
    al exotic species, we hav arguably no ryt to access, much less
    exploit, local ecosystems, especially wen Þose activities Þreaten
    native species (except Þat, wen it's convenient, we claim Þat
    "might makes ryt"😉.

  3. Mike Vandeman said:

    But I don't see any reason to compromise on telling the truth! Yes, we
    are animals somewhat like other animals, but we are not a natural part
    of any ecosystem. We are a species that is native to part of Africa,
    and everywhere else a very late newcomer, i.e. an exotic species. Like
    all exotic species, we have arguably no right to access, much less
    exploit, local ecosystems, especially when those activities threaten
    native species (except that, when it's convenient, we claim that
    "might makes right"😉.

    How would you define what is a "native" species in North America? Are
    you saying that only species that emerged from the proverbial
    primordial ooze in North America have any right to exist here?

    [censored] Durbin

  4. On Feb 26, 3:01 pm, "Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    ........

    Quoted message said:


    [censored] Durbin

    You are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

    PH

  5. Olebiker said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    But I don't see any reason to compromise on telling the truth! Yes, we
    are animals somewhat like other animals, but we are not a natural part
    of any ecosystem. We are a species that is native to part of Africa,
    and everywhere else a very late newcomer, i.e. an exotic species. Like
    all exotic species, we have arguably no right to access, much less
    exploit, local ecosystems, especially when those activities threaten
    native species (except that, when it's convenient, we claim that
    "might makes right"😉.

    How would you define what is a "native" species in North America? Are
    you saying that only species that emerged from the proverbial
    primordial ooze in North America have any right to exist here?

    [censored] Durbin

    See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4. I define it as one that has
    been around a million years. But no matter how you define it, humans
    in North America are an invasive, exotic species.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  6. Mike Vandeman said:


    Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4. I define it as one that has
    been around a million years. But no matter how you define it, humans
    in North America are an invasive, exotic species.

    So, why should we accept your definition?

    Animals move from one environment to another in search of more food
    and/or better shelter. Wild animals naturally migrate and are not
    considered invasive or exotic. Why would you consider the Paleo-
    Indians who crossed the Bering Strait around 40,000 years ago any
    different than other animals?

  7. Olebiker said:
    Mike Vandeman said:


    Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4. I define it as one that has
    been around a million years. But no matter how you define it, humans
    in North America are an invasive, exotic species.

    So, why should we accept your definition?

    Animals move from one environment to another in search of more food
    and/or better shelter. Wild animals naturally migrate and are not
    considered invasive or exotic.

    Yes, they are. You don't become a native species the day you arrive!
    It takes a long time for the natives to adapt to the newcomer. Biology
    texts are silent on this issue, especially on the issue of humans as
    an exotic invasive, because they don't want to tell the truth about
    humans. It's doubtful that ANY species other than bacteria and viruses
    can change fast enough to adapt to humans. The North American
    megafauna obviously couldn't. They went extinct.

    Why would you consider the Paleo-

    Quoted message said:

    Indians who crossed the Bering Strait around 40,000 years ago any
    different than other animals?


    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  8. Mike Vandeman said:

    Yes, they are. You don't become a native species the day you arrive!
    It takes a long time for the natives to adapt to the newcomer. Biology
    texts are silent on this issue, especially on the issue of humans as
    an exotic invasive, because they don't want to tell the truth about
    humans. It's doubtful that ANY species other than bacteria and viruses
    can change fast enough to adapt to humans. The North American
    megafauna obviously couldn't. They went extinct.

    If you truly believe this, why haven't you moved back to Olduvai
    Gorge?

    Those paleo-indians must have been some terrific hunters to bring to
    extinction 135 species in maybe 400 years using only pointed sticks
    and clovis pointed spears.

  9. Olebiker said:


    Those paleo-indians must have been some terrific hunters to bring to
    extinction 135 species in maybe 400 years using only pointed sticks
    and clovis pointed spears.

    There is some evidence for paleo-indian activity as much as 30,000
    years ago.

    PH

  10. On Feb 27, 11:03 am, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote:
    It's doubtful that ANY species other than bacteria and viruses

    Quoted message said:

    can change fast enough to adapt to humans.

    Rats and cockroaches seem to have managed just fine.

    PH

  11. pmh said:
    Olebiker said:

    Those paleo-indians must have been some terrific hunters to bring to
    extinction 135 species in maybe 400 years using only pointed sticks
    and clovis pointed spears.

    There is some evidence for paleo-indian activity as much as 30,000
    years ago.

    OK. What point are you making with this observation? I'm missing it.

  12. Olebiker said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    Yes, they are. You don't become a native species the day you arrive!
    It takes a long time for the natives to adapt to the newcomer. Biology
    texts are silent on this issue, especially on the issue of humans as
    an exotic invasive, because they don't want to tell the truth about
    humans. It's doubtful that ANY species other than bacteria and viruses
    can change fast enough to adapt to humans. The North American
    megafauna obviously couldn't. They went extinct.

    If you truly believe this, why haven't you moved back to Olduvai
    Gorge?

    You obviously haven't read my paper. No matter where humans are, we
    change too rapidly for anything but bacteria and viruses to adapt to
    (successfully) us.

    Quoted message said:

    Those paleo-indians must have been some terrific hunters to bring to
    extinction 135 species in maybe 400 years using only pointed sticks
    and clovis pointed spears.

    They were: near Port Townsend, WA was a mammoth with a spear point in
    its elbow, proving the point.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  13. pmh said:
    Olebiker said:


    Those paleo-indians must have been some terrific hunters to bring to
    extinction 135 species in maybe 400 years using only pointed sticks
    and clovis pointed spears.

    There is some evidence for paleo-indian activity as much as 30,000
    years ago.

    Even 50,000 years (when [censored] sapiens first left Africa), isn't long
    enough for other species to evolve successful adaptations to us.

    Quoted message said:

    PH


    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  14. pmh said:

    On Feb 27, 11:03 am, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote:
    It's doubtful that ANY species other than bacteria and viruses

    Quoted message said:

    can change fast enough to adapt to humans.

    Rats and cockroaches seem to have managed just fine.

    Yes, but not by adapting to us. They were lucky enough to already able
    to deal with us.

    Quoted message said:

    PH


    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  15. Olebiker said:
    pmh said:
    Olebiker said:

    Those paleo-indians must have been some terrific hunters to bring to
    extinction 135 species in maybe 400 years using only pointed sticks
    and clovis pointed spears.

    Quoted message said:

    There is some evidence for paleo-indian activity as much as 30,000
    years ago.

    OK. What point are you making with this observation? I'm missing it.

    You have a potential time span about 75 times as large within which to
    speculate.

    PH

  16. pmh said:
    Olebiker said:
    pmh said:

    On Feb 27, 1:09 pm, "Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > Those paleo-indians must have been some terrific hunters to bring to
    > extinction 135 species in maybe 400 years using only pointed sticks
    > and clovis pointed spears.

    Quoted message said:

    There is some evidence for paleo-indian activity as much as 30,000
    years ago.

    OK. What point are you making with this observation? I'm missing it.

    You have a potential time span about 75 times as large within which to
    speculate.

    Try again, this time in English.

    Quoted message said:

    PH


    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  17. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > Those paleo-indians must have been some terrific hunters to bring to
    > > extinction 135 species in maybe 400 years using only pointed sticks
    > > and clovis pointed spears.
    > There is some evidence for paleo-indian activity as much as 30,000
    > years ago.
    OK. What point are you making with this observation? I'm missing it.


    You have a potential time span about 75 times as large within which to
    speculate.


    Try again, this time in English.

    The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals,
    whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right
    is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die",
    and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or
    peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version,
    Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and
    it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species bad.

  18. On 28 Feb 2007 09:53:06 -0800, "bill" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > > Those paleo-indians must have been some terrific hunters to bring to
    > > > extinction 135 species in maybe 400 years using only pointed sticks
    > > > and clovis pointed spears.
    > > There is some evidence for paleo-indian activity as much as 30,000
    > > years ago.
    > OK. What point are you making with this observation? I'm missing it.
    You have a potential time span about 75 times as large within which to
    speculate.


    Try again, this time in English.

    The problem here is that "right" is a human concept,

    Right. It's called "morality". That doesn't mean you can dismiss it.

    animals,

    Quoted message said:

    whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right
    is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die",
    and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or
    peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version,
    Killer, V.25.

    But humans have a concept called "morality", under which might does
    NOT make right. Or had you forgotten that? Most mountain bikers
    conveniently forget things like that.

    Quoted message said:

    all species in any location were once "invasive"

    True. It takes a lot of time before they can be called "native". That
    doesn't excuse what humans are doing to nature.

    and

    Quoted message said:

    it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species bad.

    Hogwash. Exotics can do an enormous amount of harm to native species.
    Humans are the worst expotic invasive of all, although most biologists
    aren't honest enough to admit it. You cite wildlife when you want to
    excuse human rapaciousness, but you conveniently forget wildlife when
    it comes to evaluating human impacts: most species do very little harm
    to other species. Even predators are generally incapable of driving a
    species to extinction, UNLIKE HUMANS.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  19. Disregard my earlier message.

    Just kill yourself.

    It's a lost cause, but here goes your logic applied to you:

    Premises:

    All invasive species should not exist outside of their native range.
    Humans are an invasive species outside of the tiny native range.
    Mike Vandeman is a human.
    Mike Vandeman insists on living outside of the native human range.

    Conclusion:
    Mike Vandeman should not exist.

    QED

    Mike Vandeman said:


    Hogwash. Exotics can do an enormous amount ov harm to native species.
    Humans r Þ worst expotic invasive ov al, alÞo most biologists
    aren't honest enuff to admit it. u cite wildlife wen u want to
    excuse human rapaciousness, but u conveniently forget wildlife wen
    it comes to evaluating human impacts: most species do very litl harm
    to oÞr species. Even predators r generally incapable ov driving a
    species to extinction, UNLIKE HUMANS.

  20. On Feb 28, 7:51 pm, "JSH" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    You are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

    PH

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.