4 ms·

But it wasn't natural competition, we brought the rats there. I guess you can argue that the actions of humans are just as "natural" as any others. However, I t

by glesica 12y ago

But it wasn't natural competition, we brought the rats there. I guess you can argue that the actions of humans are just as "natural" as any others. However, I think this is a very foolish way of looking at the situation because we act based on intelligence, not instinct. Competition only "works" when everyone is playing by the same rules. This means that we throw off the equilibrium for the rest of the planet because we play by different rules. In fact, our intelligence is such that I don't even think we're playing the same game any more.

jheriko 12y ago
its not just that we brought the rats there, its that rats are so well adapted to being transported by people that they spread with us and succeed in diverse habitats. keeping that island rat free is going to be a constant battle, because rats are so good at spreading by using our transportation as a vector. like i say, i'm in two minds... i do think its incredibly sad to wipe out a species by introducing another like this. we lose something really special and unique. i just can't give equal weight to the argument because its so flooby dooby and driven by emotion rather than sensiblity. also, i don't think we play by different rules... we classically out compete every other species in almost every habitat. we are the pinnacle of evolution today. the fallout of our actions are nature in action, despite the temptation to treat humans with some special place of privilege in the natural order of things... that being said, our alturism is part of that success, and is ultimately the source for the feeling argument.
- 2muchcoffeeman 12y ago
  We are special though. How many species can simply alter an environment so that it can live somewhere that would otherwise be uninhabitable by it? Now seeing that we're already altering our environment however we want, why not alter it back? Especially if you consider humans to be playing by the same rules. In that light, who cares about the rats? We out competed them, we'll alter things in ways that please us.
  - jheriko 12y ago
    some of the very first and most basic life, algae, completely transformed the atmosphere of the entire planet and continue to have the dominant effect on it, in ways that dwarf the human impact on it in recent times, we do not consider them special for the scale of their effect... but yes, you are right about altering it back. this is why our altruism and the 'feeling' argument has more merit than logically it should. (for me)
    - glesica 12y ago
      But the algae didn't intend to alter it. That's the difference. We don't respond to environmental pressure, we just apply equal and opposite pressure (for the most part, obviously everything has a cost). It's like a psychology experiment. If one of the subjects figures out the parameters of the experiment the experiment is ruined because that individual will likely mess up the whole system by acting intelligently instead of naturally. We are the only ones that significantly alter our environment. If there was a continuum of intelligence, with a fairly smooth and not-to-concave curve, I would be inclined to agree with you. But there isn't, it's a bunch of animals that have no appreciable ability to alter their environments purposefully, and then us. Therefore anything we do falls in the "contaminated experiment" category.
      - jheriko 12y ago
        define intent and intelligence? i'm yet to see evidence of free will, i'm not convinced i am not just a machine doing its thing like everything else is... also, this feels like a religious argument from both sides.
        glesica 12y ago
        I agree that this borders on philosophy. The reason I hold the opinion I hold is that I feel it results in greater sustainability. The Earth regulates itself pretty effectively and did so for a long time before we got smart. Therefore, I think we're better off messing around with it as little as possible and allowing that self-regulation to continue to the greatest extent possible since we don't actually know if we can do better, or even as well, (and if we bet that we can and can't, we're in trouble).

by glesica 12y ago

jheriko 12y ago

its not just that we brought the rats there, its that rats are so well adapted to being transported by people that they spread with us and succeed in diverse habitats. keeping that island rat free is going to be a constant battle, because rats are so good at spreading by using our transportation as a vector. like i say, i'm in two minds... i do think its incredibly sad to wipe out a species by introducing another like this. we lose something really special and unique. i just can't give equal weight to the argument because its so flooby dooby and driven by emotion rather than sensiblity. also, i don't think we play by different rules... we classically out compete every other species in almost every habitat. we are the pinnacle of evolution today. the fallout of our actions are nature in action, despite the temptation to treat humans with some special place of privilege in the natural order of things... that being said, our alturism is part of that success, and is ultimately the source for the feeling argument.

2muchcoffeeman 12y ago
We are special though. How many species can simply alter an environment so that it can live somewhere that would otherwise be uninhabitable by it? Now seeing that we're already altering our environment however we want, why not alter it back? Especially if you consider humans to be playing by the same rules. In that light, who cares about the rats? We out competed them, we'll alter things in ways that please us.
- jheriko 12y ago
  some of the very first and most basic life, algae, completely transformed the atmosphere of the entire planet and continue to have the dominant effect on it, in ways that dwarf the human impact on it in recent times, we do not consider them special for the scale of their effect... but yes, you are right about altering it back. this is why our altruism and the 'feeling' argument has more merit than logically it should. (for me)
  - glesica 12y ago
    But the algae didn't intend to alter it. That's the difference. We don't respond to environmental pressure, we just apply equal and opposite pressure (for the most part, obviously everything has a cost). It's like a psychology experiment. If one of the subjects figures out the parameters of the experiment the experiment is ruined because that individual will likely mess up the whole system by acting intelligently instead of naturally. We are the only ones that significantly alter our environment. If there was a continuum of intelligence, with a fairly smooth and not-to-concave curve, I would be inclined to agree with you. But there isn't, it's a bunch of animals that have no appreciable ability to alter their environments purposefully, and then us. Therefore anything we do falls in the "contaminated experiment" category.
    - jheriko 12y ago
      define intent and intelligence? i'm yet to see evidence of free will, i'm not convinced i am not just a machine doing its thing like everything else is... also, this feels like a religious argument from both sides.
      - glesica 12y ago
        I agree that this borders on philosophy. The reason I hold the opinion I hold is that I feel it results in greater sustainability. The Earth regulates itself pretty effectively and did so for a long time before we got smart. Therefore, I think we're better off messing around with it as little as possible and allowing that self-regulation to continue to the greatest extent possible since we don't actually know if we can do better, or even as well, (and if we bet that we can and can't, we're in trouble).