Olebiker said:Mike Vandeman said:Quoted message said:Why are you not willing to defend your position, but insist on making
personal attacks? Defend your position in this forum with scientific
fact, not opinion.
I did. You just refuse to READ it:http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4. Idiot.
We are having a discussion on Usenet, not your homepage. If you have
something on your homepage that defends your position and consists of
fact, not opinion, please post it here. Pretend you are defending
your dissertation and the readers here are the committee.
Your inability to follow a simple link is duly noted.
What Is [censored] Sapiens' Place in Nature,
From an Objective (Biocentric) Point of View?
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
July 4, 2002
"For hundreds of millenia, evolving humanity was a native species … in
Africa and Asia. … The modern Races of [censored] sapiens were a true alien
species when they colonized the rest of the world, from Australia to
the New World and finally the distant oceanic islands." E.O. Wilson,
p.98.
"The behaviours animals use to avoid predators are both genetically
based and learned. The genetic component is acquired through natural
selection and so can only slowly be developed. This may account in
part for the fact that most of the world's surviving large mammals
live in Africa, for it was there that humanity evolved, and it was
only there that animals had the time to acquire the genetically based
behaviours that allowed them to cope with the new predator." Tim
Flannery, p.198.
"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest
of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.
Many answers have been given to this question, but none, to my
knowledge, based on science. Even scientists, apparently, often avoid
applying their knowledge when it may be inconvenient (e.g., interfere
with our preferred lifestyle). For example, open any biology textbook
and find where it defines "exotic species". Do you see any mention of
the fact that humans are, throughout most of our range, an exotic
species -- or even a discussion of whether we are an exotic species?
If biology is so valuable (which I think it is), why do we shy away
from using it?
Another example: it is often claimed that humans are a natural
part of our environment -- we are just an animal like any other
animal. If that is true, then why aren't humans mentioned in the vast
majority of natural histories? The fact is, we consider ourselves a
part of our ecosystems when it's convenient (e.g. when we want to
justify recreation in wildlife habitat), and not, when it's not
convenient (e.g. when choosing where to live: in a house!). When you
die, will you re-enter the ecosystem just like any other dead
organism? No! We are either cremated, or buried in a box, specifically
to avoid the natural process of decay.
It is obvious that we are a part of nature, or we couldn't
touch and interact with it. The real question is Which part of nature
are we?
Biology texts usually define an "exotic species" as one
transported by humans to a new location, where it hadn't existed
before. However, this is not a good definition, since the effect of
the exotic species on its new surroundings has nothing to do with how
it got there, but more to do with the fact that it is a newcomer.
However, every species was new at some time in the past. So the
question is, How long does it take to become a native species?
I would like to suggest that a length of time that makes
sense, biologically, is the time that it takes for the other species
in the ecosystem to evolve (i.e., make persistent -- "beneficial" --
genetic changes) to adapt to the newcomer -- say on the order of a
million years. This would make humans ([censored] sapiens) native only to
(part of) Africa, and everywhere else, a relative newcomer -- an
exotic species. (This is not a value judgment, but simply a statement
of biological fact.)
Does this mean that we should all move back to Africa? I don't
think so -- it wouldn't help! Even in Africa, our behavior changes so
rapidly, on an evolutionary scale, that the only things that can
evolve fast enough to keep up with us are bacteria and viruses! So
even in Africa, we might as well consider ourselves an exotic species.
But what I do think it means is that we should act with
restraint -- with the manners of a guest! What does this mean in
practice? I think it means, first of all, to "listen" to other
species, and what they are trying to tell us! For example, what is the
first thing that every child learns about wildlife? That they don't
want us around: that they run away whenever we try to approach them!
And then, of course, because we are the curious animals that we are,
we proceed to ignore their wishes.
Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and Birute Galdikas all had the
same experience when they began trying to study apes in the wild: the
apes didn't want them around! They "told" the researchers that clearly
and unequivocally. Jane couldn't get close to the chimpanzees until
she started bribing them with bananas. The gorillas charged Dian and
tried to scare her away. And the orangutans pushed over trees toward
Birute, apparently trying to kill or intimidate her. The apes
desperately need us to deliver their message to the rest of humanity.
Although the message is impossible to miss, most humans ignore it.
Rather than arguing over to what degree the apes resemble or differ
from humans, the most important message that we can derive from
studying them is that they want to be left alone!
This is perhaps a bitter pill, but one that humanity urgently
needs to take. With our population increasing rapidly, it is more
important than ever to give wildlife what they want, which is also,
therefore, what they need: freedom from the pressure, irritation,
infection with diseases, and outright danger of the presence of
humans. It is utterly inexcusable that we continue extending our
hegemony into every square inch of the Earth -- and soon, other
defenseless planets as well.
This is a tall order? Very well, then it is a tall order. But
I do not see why we shouldn't aim for what is needed, instead of
pretending that less is adequate.
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.
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/ecocity3,http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3,
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8, and
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/goodall.
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
