> I wasn't intending to imply you personally. But I still believe many 'deep
> ecologists' who insist on other species 'intrinsic worth' and right to
> survive despite human behaviour, are being hypocritical. It is simpler to
> accept that nature 'knows' what it best for itself, and nature consists of
> selfish species. Therefore we should value nature for purely selfish reasons,
> which include the positive emotions we experience from enjoying it. W.F.
> Baxter has argued this quite convincingly in 'People or Penguins', an article
> that appears in 'Planet in Peril', and his views make a marked and welcome
> contrast to many of the other righteous but ultimately hypocritical views
> of other writers in the same volume.
but nature is a system of checks and balances - you're not looking at
dr. wolper's 'big picture'... that is, mice eat the grain in the silo
and would eat it all, but some die of a grain-carrier parasite and some
the cat gets. the cat would eat all the mice, but some hide better and
sometimes the dog chases it away... species are 'selfish' only as long
as it's in their interest to be so or as long as something doesn't get
in the way - and there are lots of obstacles.
look at herd animals cooperating to keep the young safe from predators
and cross species cooperation, right up to symbiosis.
every day, there are new disease popping up out of evolution's magic bag
of tricks. aids had to be introduced via intercourse or blood
transferal, so it only got a selected stripe of the population. suppose
the next big-time-fatal disease were airborne, or arrived in drops of
you keep making humankind out to be more than it is, and taking wild
jumps of wishing. wishing don't make it so. on my planet, we wish you'd
go to bed at a decent hour over here and quit making so much noise. does
it ever get us anywhere?
'''Why don't you just surrender now and save us both time?'''