Red squirrels are BACK

[pErvinalia]

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.

Those in glass houses shouldn't be casting stones.

And regarding Jim's statement, it can be considered "bad" if we put it in the context of ecosystem health for the benefits of us humans. By degrading ecosystems we threaten our own life support systems.

[pErvinalia]

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.

Then why did you infer that man interfering with evolution is a bad thing? Going by your own definition, all actions of man are NATURAL!

[Sean Hayden]

[Seth]

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?!?

And therein lies my point. If humans turn the planet into a Venus-like atmosphere with pools of boiling lead by excreting CO2, it's neither good, nor bad, nor purple. Well, it might be purple, but I think rusty red is more likely...

Anyway, it is what it is, and it's going to be what it's going to be, and no amount of anthropomorphic angst makes it good or bad, so STFU about "global warming" already.

Adapt or die.

[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.

Then why did you infer that man interfering with evolution is a bad thing? Going by your own definition, all actions of man are NATURAL!

I didn't so infer, you did. My argument is that if Red Squirrels can't compete against Grey Squirrels, then Red Squirrels are just fucked and it's no big deal, and it doesn't matter a whit how the Grey Squirrels got there because it's all part of nature and evolution. You were the one bitching about imported "invasive" species.

That's what species do. That's ALL they do, and they absolutely, positively will not stop until you are dead.

[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?!?

And therein lies my point. If humans turn the planet into a Venus-like atmosphere with pools of boiling lead by excreting CO2, it's neither good, nor bad, nor purple. Well, it might be purple, but I think rusty red is more likely...

Anyway, it is what it is, and it's going to be what it's going to be, and no amount of anthropomorphic angst makes it good or bad, so STFU about "global warming" already.

Adapt or die.

non-sequitur. You are implying it is "bad" to mess with evolution. You are wrong, even by your own admission. As usual. So STFU.

[pErvinalia]

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.

Then why did you infer that man interfering with evolution is a bad thing? Going by your own definition, all actions of man are NATURAL!

I didn't so infer, you did.

You are a debating retard of the highest order. You said "Who the hell do you think you are to mess with evolution? That's what makes one an arsewit."

My argument is that if Red Squirrels can't compete against Grey Squirrels, then Red Squirrels are just fucked and it's no big deal, and it doesn't matter a whit how the Grey Squirrels got there because it's all part of nature and evolution. You were the one bitching about imported "invasive" species.

You are the one claiming that messing with evolution makes one an arsewit, while in the same breath claiming that man messing with evolution is "natural" and therefore ok. Is it too much to ask that you could construct a fucking cogent argument at some point in your inglorious posting career on the rationalist forums?!?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

The implication is, of course, that "natural" processes (defined as uninfluenced by humans) are "better" than human-influenced processes.

"Better" isn't the point, in any sort of moral sense. However, we can measure the impact on ecosystems caused by human interference, past and present. In many ways, it is the rate of change that is critical. Aboriginal Australians had a significant effect on the Australian ecology from 50 to 60 thousand years ago, but given their relatively low spread though the continent, low population numbers and technological base, the effects were absorbed at a rate with the ecosystem as a whole could adjust to (they too had an impact via an introduced species - the dingo. This semi-domesticated dog was almost certainly responsible for the disappearance of the Tasmanian Tiger and the Tasmanian Devil from the mainland)

European man has had a much more dramatic effect over a couple of centuries, introducing a much wider range of feral animals, and accelerating the rate of extinction by a very high degree. Biodiversity is one objective measure of the health of an ecosystem, and it has plunged in many areas of Australia. Once a species is extinct, a unique facet of the world has disappeared for good. Sure, we know that extinction and speciation are natural processes through time, but when extinction rates are accelerated many fold, natural communities become impoverished in comparison to their original state, and the process can easily snowball, given the inter-locking connections in any natural community.

Seth, you can make as many philosophical points as you like about "natural", but that makes no difference to the reality of natural communities being weakened, in a truly objective sense, by some human activities, and makes the truly heroic efforts of various organisations to preserve endangered species something to be admired and valued. This is not a sentimental attachment - one can recognise that certain species were heading for extinction because of specialising in a disappearing ecological niche, for example, and not be too alarmed...

These points, by the way, are made by someone with an honours degree in ecological and evolutionary science, and a lifetime of reading about and observing the natural history of Australia... Would you care to list your qualifications in assessing ecological issues?

[pErvinalia]

He's got demonstrable skills in abusing logic. Does that count??

[Seth]

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?!?

And therein lies my point. If humans turn the planet into a Venus-like atmosphere with pools of boiling lead by excreting CO2, it's neither good, nor bad, nor purple. Well, it might be purple, but I think rusty red is more likely...

Anyway, it is what it is, and it's going to be what it's going to be, and no amount of anthropomorphic angst makes it good or bad, so STFU about "global warming" already.

Adapt or die.

non-sequitur. You are implying it is "bad" to mess with evolution. You are wrong, even by your own admission. As usual. So STFU.

You can't "mess with evolution" dear boy. Evolution is not predictive, it is descriptive. Whatever happens is evolution, whether it is better for one species or another or not.

[Seth]

You are a debating retard of the highest order. You said "Who the hell do you think you are to mess with evolution? That's what makes one an arsewit."

Indeed. And you still don't get the point, so yes, I'd have to concur with your analysis of your mental abilities.

My argument is that if Red Squirrels can't compete against Grey Squirrels, then Red Squirrels are just fucked and it's no big deal, and it doesn't matter a whit how the Grey Squirrels got there because it's all part of nature and evolution. You were the one bitching about imported "invasive" species.

You are the one claiming that messing with evolution makes one an arsewit, while in the same breath claiming that man messing with evolution is "natural" and therefore ok. Is it too much to ask that you could construct a fucking cogent argument at some point in your inglorious posting career on the rationalist forums?!?

You're not an arsewit for messing with evolution because evolution is a descriptor, not a predictor. You're an arsewit if you complain about how evolution is proceeding. Sorry if I was a bit unclear.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Can you guys drop the arsewits, please? Or else you will be joining Hack on his holidays.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

The implication is, of course, that "natural" processes (defined as uninfluenced by humans) are "better" than human-influenced processes.

"Better" isn't the point, in any sort of moral sense. However, we can measure the impact on ecosystems caused by human interference, past and present. In many ways, it is the rate of change that is critical.

Critical to what? Critical to your anthropocentric conceits about the proper course of evolution I believe. This position presumes that one path of evolution is "better" than another, and in this case, human activities are viewed as "negative" or "worse" for evolution. It's a value judgment on humanity that has no rational basis because evolution is as evolution does, and being morally neutral, evolution is neither good nor bad, it just is.

Aboriginal Australians had a significant effect on the Australian ecology from 50 to 60 thousand years ago, but given their relatively low spread though the continent, low population numbers and technological base, the effects were absorbed at a rate with the ecosystem as a whole could adjust to (they too had an impact via an introduced species - the dingo. This semi-domesticated dog was almost certainly responsible for the disappearance of the Tasmanian Tiger and the Tasmanian Devil from the mainland)

So what? That's evolution in action. Your anthropocentric interests in the continued existence of the Tasmanian Tiger, or homo sapien sapiens are utterly irrelevant.

European man has had a much more dramatic effect over a couple of centuries, introducing a much wider range of feral animals, and accelerating the rate of extinction by a very high degree. Biodiversity is one objective measure of the health of an ecosystem, and it has plunged in many areas of Australia. Once a species is extinct, a unique facet of the world has disappeared for good. Sure, we know that extinction and speciation are natural processes through time, but when extinction rates are accelerated many fold, natural communities become impoverished in comparison to their original state, and the process can easily snowball, given the inter-locking connections in any natural community.

Do they become "impoverished?" This is nothing more than a value judgment of the status quo ante, which is, again, an anthropocentric conceit. The extinction of one, or many species does nothing more than open up ecological niches for other organisms to evolve into. It's neither good nor bad, impoverishment nor enrichment. It's just evolution, which is nothing more than a descriptor for whatever happens. Your interests in keeping "nature" in your preferred stated is an anthropocentric conceit, nothing more.

Seth, you can make as many philosophical points as you like about "natural", but that makes no difference to the reality of natural communities being weakened, in a truly objective sense, by some human activities, and makes the truly heroic efforts of various organisations to preserve endangered species something to be admired and valued. This is not a sentimental attachment - one can recognise that certain species were heading for extinction because of specialising in a disappearing ecological niche, for example, and not be too alarmed...

Again, this is an anthropocentric conceit that holds, without rational justification, that the status quo ante is "better" than whatever will emerge through evolution.

These points, by the way, are made by someone with an honours degree in ecological and evolutionary science, and a lifetime of reading about and observing the natural history of Australia... Would you care to list your qualifications in assessing ecological issues?

I'm not saying that humans don't have impacts on the ecosystem, I'm merely saying that those impacts are just exactly as "natural" as glaciation or desertification caused by planetary tilt and solar variation. Therefore, human impacts being as "natural" as any other sort of impact (like an asteroid), it's nothing more than anthropocentric conceit to make a value judgment about those impacts because it assumes that one sort of impact is "natural" and therefore "good" and one sort of impact is "human-caused" and therefore "bad."

This is not the case. Evolution is what it is, and we have already agreed that evolution is morally neutral. Therefore nothing humans do is better or worse than anything else that affects the environment.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This is not the case. Evolution is what it is, and we have already agreed that evolution is morally neutral. Therefore nothing humans do is better or worse than anything else that affects the environment.

Non sequitur.

Morality is, by definition, the differentiation of human actions into those that are good/right and those that are bad/wrong. (The question is, is it right to make such a division? )

So, since morality is a tightly proscribed human invention that only has relevance in terms of human actions, to claim that its lack of relevance in other areas implies its lack of relevance in the human case is nonsensical.

[Seth]

This is not the case. Evolution is what it is, and we have already agreed that evolution is morally neutral. Therefore nothing humans do is better or worse than anything else that affects the environment.

Non sequitur.

Morality is, by definition, the differentiation of human actions into those that are good/right and those that are bad/wrong. (The question is, is it right to make such a division? )

So, since morality is a tightly proscribed human invention that only has relevance in terms of human actions, to claim that its lack of relevance in other areas implies its lack of relevance in the human case is nonsensical.

If only humans have morals, why do dogs demonstrate a sense of "fair play?"