Red squirrels are BACK

[pErvinalia]

In any case, it's not "natural" for humans to introduce invasive species to new environments. You'll of course claim it is "natural", without realise the hole in your argument. That is, if you can claim human's moving species around is "natural" then we can argue that further interference in ecology is "natural". Dumbass.

[JimC]

So protecting native species makes one an "arsewit", does it?

No, one is an arsewit if one is an arsewit. If red squirrels can't compete with grey squirrels, then red squirrels are evolutionary failures and it's perfectly natural for them to go extinct. Who the hell do you think you are to mess with evolution? That's what makes one an arsewit.

Over the space of millennia, sure. If a species is on its way out, without human derived pressure, then there is no point in preserving it for sentimental reasons.

However, when humans transplant species between continents, they introduce elements into an ecology which can lead to rapid extinction of other species, which reduces the overall biodiversity of a given ecosystem, always a bad thing...

[mistermack]

The red squirrel hasn't just suffered from the introduced disease that the greys carry.
They have also been drastically reduced by loss of habitat, due to intensive land-use by man.

None of this is evolution in action. In the natural world, the red would be an evolutionary success, still being around after 4 billion years.
If there was a land-bridge between America and Northern Asia and hence Europe, the species would encounter each other gradually, and there would have been plenty of time to evolve resistance to squirrel pox.
Seeing as they are showing signs of resistance already, after only 100 years, there can be no doubt about that.
Indeed, the reds could just as likely invade America, as vice versa. There's an awful lot of suitable territory over there.

I can see that happening very easily, once some immunity has developed. It only takes one well-meaning idiot to start off the American population. If they survive to breed, full immunity would become inevitable.

[Seth]

Naturalistic fallacy. Yet another of your favourite fallacies.

So, evolution is not good?

[Seth]

In any case, it's not "natural" for humans to introduce invasive species to new environments. You'll of course claim it is "natural", without realise the hole in your argument. That is, if you can claim human's moving species around is "natural" then we can argue that further interference in ecology is "natural". Dumbass.

You've just proven my case. Thanks.

Human beings are part of nature. Their actions are perfectly natural, including moving species from one place to another. The failure in your reasoning is a "naturalistic fallacy" which holds that humans are somehow alien to the planet and that therefore their actions are somehow not "natural" actions. The implication is, of course, that "natural" processes (defined as uninfluenced by humans) are "better" than human-influenced processes. That's simply stupidity on your part.

Everything humans do is entirely natural and part of the natural system of evolution. The dinosaurs might not have liked the fact that a natural asteroid impact destroyed their habitat and killed them all off 65 million years ago, but that's entirely beside the point. It was a natural event, not an unnatural one...just like every impact humans have on the environment, whether you like them or not.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Naturalistic fallacy. Yet another of your favourite fallacies.

So, evolution is not good?

Course it isn't. It's no more good than gravity, electricity, surface tension or erosion are good. It's just a natural process and, as such, should be outside of all discussions of ethics.

[Seth]

So protecting native species makes one an "arsewit", does it?

No, one is an arsewit if one is an arsewit. If red squirrels can't compete with grey squirrels, then red squirrels are evolutionary failures and it's perfectly natural for them to go extinct. Who the hell do you think you are to mess with evolution? That's what makes one an arsewit.

Over the space of millennia, sure. If a species is on its way out, without human derived pressure, then there is no point in preserving it for sentimental reasons.

However, when humans transplant species between continents, they introduce elements into an ecology which can lead to rapid extinction of other species, which reduces the overall biodiversity of a given ecosystem, always a bad thing...

Why is it a bad thing? You are falsely assuming that it's "better" that such things not change, which is a naturalistic fallacy.

[Seth]

Naturalistic fallacy. Yet another of your favourite fallacies.

So, evolution is not good?

Course it isn't. It's no more good than gravity, electricity, surface tension or erosion are good. It's just a natural process and, as such, should be outside of all discussions of ethics.

Exactly. Got it in one. Very good.

Now learn to integrate the fact that everything humans do, and the impacts on the environment those actions produce, are likewise entirely natural processes and therefore should be outside the discussion of ethics.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Naturalistic fallacy. Yet another of your favourite fallacies.

So, evolution is not good?

Course it isn't. It's no more good than gravity, electricity, surface tension or erosion are good. It's just a natural process and, as such, should be outside of all discussions of ethics.

Exactly. Got it in one. Very good.

Now learn to integrate the fact that everything humans do, and the impacts on the environment those actions produce, are likewise entirely natural processes and therefore should be outside the discussion of ethics.

Here's where we differ. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with right and wrong - specifically which human actions are right and wrong. You cannot remove human actions from discussion of ethics without removing ethics itself from discussion of ethics!

[Seth]

Naturalistic fallacy. Yet another of your favourite fallacies.

So, evolution is not good?

Course it isn't. It's no more good than gravity, electricity, surface tension or erosion are good. It's just a natural process and, as such, should be outside of all discussions of ethics.

Exactly. Got it in one. Very good.

Now learn to integrate the fact that everything humans do, and the impacts on the environment those actions produce, are likewise entirely natural processes and therefore should be outside the discussion of ethics.

Here's where we differ. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with right and wrong - specifically which human actions are right and wrong. You cannot remove human actions from discussion of ethics without removing ethics itself from discussion of ethics!

Keerect!

But then again, linking ethics to science is irrational.

The question is, are your personal anthropogenic preferences any more or less important than anyone or anything else's?

Maybe the cockroaches are hankering for their time in the sun...so to speak. Is it unethical to suggest that human beings ought to become extinct to allow for that?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Naturalistic fallacy. Yet another of your favourite fallacies.

So, evolution is not good?

Course it isn't. It's no more good than gravity, electricity, surface tension or erosion are good. It's just a natural process and, as such, should be outside of all discussions of ethics.

Exactly. Got it in one. Very good.

Now learn to integrate the fact that everything humans do, and the impacts on the environment those actions produce, are likewise entirely natural processes and therefore should be outside the discussion of ethics.

Here's where we differ. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with right and wrong - specifically which human actions are right and wrong. You cannot remove human actions from discussion of ethics without removing ethics itself from discussion of ethics!

Keerect!

But then again, linking ethics to science is irrational.

Whether ethics should be linked to science is a very broad area of discussion. In the broadest terms, science is merely a methodology for investigating and forming conclusions and is exterior to ethics. Where ethics get linked to science is exactly where they get linked with anything - where particular human actions that could be seen as having a moral value occur as a part of "doing science".

The question is, are your personal anthropogenic preferences any more or less important than anyone or anything else's?

Maybe the cockroaches are hankering for their time in the sun...so to speak. Is it unethical to suggest that human beings ought to become extinct to allow for that?

I admit that my humanity makes me more inclined to take an anthropocentric view of what to do than otherwise. However, I shy away from calling it "right" or "wrong". It's just what I would prefer to happen. So you could say that it's more important than anyone else's to me.

[Seth]

Whether ethics should be linked to science is a very broad area of discussion. In the broadest terms, science is merely a methodology for investigating and forming conclusions and is exterior to ethics. Where ethics get linked to science is exactly where they get linked with anything - where particular human actions that could be seen as having a moral value occur as a part of "doing science".

I agree. Like vivisecting American bomber crews while they are still alive, as the Japanese have just (finally,70 years late) admitted.

I admit that my humanity makes me more inclined to take an anthropocentric view of what to do than otherwise. However, I shy away from calling it "right" or "wrong". It's just what I would prefer to happen. So you could say that it's more important than anyone else's to me.

Well dodged! The problem I have with the anthropocentric viewpoint is that it makes irrational ethical and moral assumptions as justifications for actions taken for supposedly neutral scientific reasons. For example, if rising sea levels are going to put a number of South Pacific atolls underwater in the distant future, why is it rational for the occupants of those islands to demand that somebody else "do something" about it rather than those inhabitants doing the rational thing, which is to move somewhere else?

I think when it comes to environmental issues, rationality too often takes second or third place to anthropocentric conceit and politics.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yeah. That Japanese scenario is exactly what I was thinking of - although I had the nazi experiments on Jews in mind - but same shit. It's hard to justify that kind of cruelty without a complete lack of empathy.

The other is far more complex. What are the other consequences of rising sea-levels? What would be needed to prevent it? Who is in a position to prevent it? Can it even be prevented or have things gone too far already? Who wins? Who loses? And, ultimately, which of these do I care most about?

Morality is ALWAYS subjective. Attempts to objectify it lead you down the kinds of philosophical, navel-gazing rabbit-holes that jamest loves so dearly! You can never ask what's right, only what's right to me.

[pErvinalia]

Naturalistic fallacy. Yet another of your favourite fallacies.

So, evolution is not good?

It's neither good, bad, nor purple. It's neutral to your moral beliefs. What else could it be?!?

[pErvinalia]

In any case, it's not "natural" for humans to introduce invasive species to new environments. You'll of course claim it is "natural", without realise the hole in your argument. That is, if you can claim human's moving species around is "natural" then we can argue that further interference in ecology is "natural". Dumbass.

You've just proven my case. Thanks.

Human beings are part of nature. Their actions are perfectly natural, including moving species from one place to another. The failure in your reasoning is a "naturalistic fallacy" which holds that humans are somehow alien to the planet and that therefore their actions are somehow not "natural" actions. The implication is, of course, that "natural" processes (defined as uninfluenced by humans) are "better" than human-influenced processes. That's simply stupidity on your part.

Everything humans do is entirely natural and part of the natural system of evolution. The dinosaurs might not have liked the fact that a natural asteroid impact destroyed their habitat and killed them all off 65 million years ago, but that's entirely beside the point. It was a natural event, not an unnatural one...just like every impact humans have on the environment, whether you like them or not.

My God, you can't be that stupid, can you?? I just pre-empted this bollocks and pointed out that it sinks YOUR OWN argument.