Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:09:51 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:46:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

...the original ecosystems in North
America cannot be restored exactly to what they once were due to the
extinction of many of their original species.

Why would it be important to do that?

There is no point in arguing value systems. If it isn't important to
you, there is nothing I can say that will make any difference.

Just which state do you want to return to? The miocene? The late
pleistocene? That which existed just pre-Columbian? Was it OK for
the first immigrants to north America to wipe out some species, but
not us? Should we wipe out all of the species that came over the land
bridge with the first humans and try to resurrect the "native" ones
that they wiped out? What is the magic, golden era? Why should the
world be static?

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote in message ...
Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Christopher M. Jones wrote:

Yeah, you. Only about half a percent (less actually) of the
land area of the US is arable.


Utter bull****.

Google is our friend:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html
United States arable land: 19.32%
These are the CIA's figures... and if you can't trust the CIA, who can
you trust? Be specific...we want names and addresses. :-)

My apologies.

I meant to say permanent cropland. You'll notice on
that same page under "Land Use" it says:

arable land: 19.32%
other: 80.46% (1998 est.)
permanent crops: 0.22%

Note that "permanent crops" includes ONLY such things as fruit and nut
trees, vineyards, etc. that are not replanted after every harvest. It
is not a subset of "arable land".

Even if you take the total of all cropland, pastureland,
and such-like you still end up with way less than 10%
of the land area. Also, cropland area in the US has
been decreasing over the past few decades. See, for
example, he
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/N...rt/table2.html

Note that this table covers only non-federal land. The BLM manages vast
areas of grazing land in the west. The Forest Service, and to a lesser
extent the BLM, also manage vast areas of former forest lands that have
been turned into tree farms.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:



...the original ecosystems in North
America cannot be restored exactly to what they once were due to the
extinction of many of their original species.



Why would it be important to do that?


Especially considering that the species inhabiting North America have
varied wildly in the pre and post ice-age world; as much due to climate
changes as human intervention.
There isn't any fixed group of species to return to.
Are we supposed to reintroduce Woolly Mammoths and Giant Sloths?
I for one don't want Saber Toothed cats prowling around the neighborhood.

At this point, such species would come under the heading of "exotics",
and I don't recall that anyone has suggested that it would be a good
idea to reintroduce them, even if it becomes possible to clone them back
into existence. I would settle for protecting representative portions
of original ecosystems in order to save the species that remain.

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:09:51 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:46:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

...the original ecosystems in North
America cannot be restored exactly to what they once were due to the
extinction of many of their original species.

Why would it be important to do that?

There is no point in arguing value systems. If it isn't important to
you, there is nothing I can say that will make any difference.

Just which state do you want to return to? The miocene? The late
pleistocene? That which existed just pre-Columbian? Was it OK for
the first immigrants to north America to wipe out some species, but
not us? Should we wipe out all of the species that came over the land
bridge with the first humans and try to resurrect the "native" ones
that they wiped out? What is the magic, golden era? Why should the
world be static?

As I said in another post, I'd settle for pre-Columbian (though it would
be kind of neat if we could clone some extinct species back into
existence - sort of like Jurasic Park). We just need to save enough
land in a natural state to maintain healthy populations of existing
species. That may require some restoration, but not a great deal.

Who says the world should be static? We just want to save the pieces so
that the evolutionary process can continue. "Static" would be turning
the Earth into a giant human feedlot, with only domesticated, or
opportunistic, species left.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:27:56 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

As I said in another post, I'd settle for pre-Columbian (though it would
be kind of neat if we could clone some extinct species back into
existence - sort of like Jurasic Park). We just need to save enough
land in a natural state to maintain healthy populations of existing
species.

We are doing that, but again, why? Why should your preferences
overrule others'?

Who says the world should be static? We just want to save the pieces so
that the evolutionary process can continue.

We are part of the evolutionary process.

"Static" would be turning
the Earth into a giant human feedlot, with only domesticated, or
opportunistic, species left.

You really do hate humanity, don't you?

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:27:56 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

As I said in another post, I'd settle for pre-Columbian (though it would
be kind of neat if we could clone some extinct species back into
existence - sort of like Jurasic Park). We just need to save enough
land in a natural state to maintain healthy populations of existing
species.

We are doing that, but again, why? Why should your preferences
overrule others'?

Would you prefer that more species become extinct? Society, through
it's elected representatives has decided otherwise. Individual
preferences get overruled constantly in a democratic society.

Who says the world should be static? We just want to save the pieces so
that the evolutionary process can continue.

We are part of the evolutionary process.

So?

"Static" would be turning
the Earth into a giant human feedlot, with only domesticated, or
opportunistic, species left.

You really do hate humanity, don't you?

One can only conclude from that remark that you wouldn't mind living in
a "giant human feedlot". Try living in China sometime and see how you
like it. Personally, I don't want to be treated like cattle, and I am
astonished that you would equate that with "hating humanity".

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:47:52 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

We are doing that, but again, why? Why should your preferences
overrule others'?

Would you prefer that more species become extinct?

Species go extinct all the time. Most of the species that have ever
lived on the planet are now extinct, and it happened long before we
came along. Why should we interrupt the process?

Who says the world should be static? We just want to save the pieces so
that the evolutionary process can continue.

We are part of the evolutionary process.

So?

So the evolutionary process continues, by definition.

"Static" would be turning
the Earth into a giant human feedlot, with only domesticated, or
opportunistic, species left.

You really do hate humanity, don't you?

One can only conclude from that remark that you wouldn't mind living in
a "giant human feedlot". Try living in China sometime and see how you
like it. Personally, I don't want to be treated like cattle, and I am
astonished that you would equate that with "hating humanity".

Nice strawman.

You really do hate humanity, don't you?

One can only conclude from that remark that you wouldn't mind living in
a "giant human feedlot". Try living in China sometime and see how you
like it.

There are a lot of things a Westerner might object to about Mainland China; but
lack of wildlife species is probably *not* near the top of the list. Lack of
individual freedom would be, but the Gaia-religion is killing that here in
America quite well.

Mainland China has problems, but those problems are separate from any lack of
wild habitat, and could arise even in a country with lots of wild species.

Personally, I don't want to be treated like cattle,

But you seem willing to treat others like parasites upon Nature.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:47:52 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

We are doing that, but again, why? Why should your preferences
overrule others'?

Would you prefer that more species become extinct?

Species go extinct all the time. Most of the species that have ever
lived on the planet are now extinct, and it happened long before we
came along. Why should we interrupt the process?

Who says the world should be static? We just want to save the pieces so
that the evolutionary process can continue.

We are part of the evolutionary process.

So?

So the evolutionary process continues, by definition.

"Static" would be turning
the Earth into a giant human feedlot, with only domesticated, or
opportunistic, species left.

You really do hate humanity, don't you?

One can only conclude from that remark that you wouldn't mind living in
a "giant human feedlot". Try living in China sometime and see how you
like it. Personally, I don't want to be treated like cattle, and I am
astonished that you would equate that with "hating humanity".

Nice strawman.

It's not nearly as good as yours.

G EddieA95 wrote:

You really do hate humanity, don't you?

One can only conclude from that remark that you wouldn't mind living in
a "giant human feedlot". Try living in China sometime and see how you
like it.

There are a lot of things a Westerner might object to about Mainland China; but
lack of wildlife species is probably *not* near the top of the list. Lack of
individual freedom would be, but the Gaia-religion is killing that here in
America quite well.

Don't know anything about this "Gaia-religion". Don't know if I've even
met any of those folks. I do know that the more irritating
infringements on my individual freedon would be things like having to
have a permit to park at a trail head up in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie
NF, plus reservations to use many of their backcountry campsites. I
have permanently lost the freedom to visit many areas because they have
been thoroughly trashed by the loggers, dam builders, etc. Don't think
those "Gaia" folks had a hand in any of that.

Sure, we have, in many ways, lost the freedom to do whatever we damn
please wherever and whenever we want, but that's what happens when you
pack more and more people into an area. Get used to it, because, for
the forseeable future, it's only going to get worse. Don't think those
"Gaia" folks are the ones pushing population growth either.

Mainland China has problems, but those problems are separate from any lack of
wild habitat, and could arise even in a country with lots of wild species.

Personally, I don't want to be treated like cattle,

But you seem willing to treat others like parasites upon Nature.

Where exactly did I do or say any such thing? Don't think I have, but
if there are individuals out there who fit that definition, one would
certainly be entitled to say so.