Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Pvednes startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
This is why biodiversity is a good thing in and of itself, kids.
Not even close, but way to interject a purely political opinion into a benign thread. Because we all know the world will cease to exist in a fruit-scented puff of smoke if bananas become extinct. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
Because we all know the world will cease to exist in a monkey-fueled frenzy if bananas become extinct.
There, good as new.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while JooJooFlop gently hums:
There, good as new.
Hey, be careful; those guys'll gnaw your balls off. Or your face, or fingers and toes, or. . . .
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Pirotess:
Not even close, but way to interject a purely political opinion into a benign thread. Because we all know the world will cease to exist in a fruit-scented puff of smoke if bananas become extinct.
Low biodiversity in a species makes it very fragile, even in a species of agricultural or industrial importance. A species of agricultural or industrial importance going extinct is clearly undesirable.
It's not that difficult a concept.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Knight Rider:
Pved was pointing this out as an example of what having low biodiversity could lead to in any narrow example. It wasn't a save the whales post, it was lets not breed ourselves into a corner.
Pretty much.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Pvednes gently hums:
Low biodiversity in a species makes it very fragile, even in a species of agricultural or industrial importance. A species of agricultural or industrial importance going extinct is clearly undesirable.It's not that difficult a concept.
That's obvious, but can't possibly lead to the conclusion that biodiversity is useful in and of itself. Logically, you can't generalize from a specific example like this.
That's the problem.
It'll sting a bit commercially, but I'm absolutely certain that bananas going extinct will have exactly zero disastrous long-term global effects. It may be a bad thing if bananas go away, but that doesn't mean that biodiversity is necessarily good or desireable on the whole.
Logic is your friend.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Bloodsage is a fruit racist. A frucist.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Pirotess:
That's obvious, but can't possibly lead to the conclusion that biodiversity is useful in and of itself. Logically, you can't generalize from a specific example like this.That's the problem.
It'll sting a bit commercially, but I'm absolutely certain that bananas going extinct will have exactly zero disastrous long-term global effects. It may be a bad thing if bananas go away, but that doesn't mean that biodiversity is necessarily good or desireable on the whole.
Logic is your friend.
With low biodiversity, species become fragile and go extinct. There are many, many species that are important to us in some way. There are many more species that are not directly important to us, but are important to the survival of species that are important to us, and so on.
Since these species are directly or indirectly important to us, any one of these species going extinct will harm our interests, to either a small or large degree.
High levels of biodiversity in these species keep them secure from the risk of extinction. Since it is in our interests for them to remain extant, high levels of biodiversity is also in our interests.
The example of the bananas threatened by low biodiversity is simply one small piece of a vast body of evidence that this is, in fact, so. There are plenty of other examples, as well. Just look at any other threatened species of significance.
I like bananas, too. 
quote:
ACES! Another post by Naimah:
....
Why couldn't it happen to say Apples? Or Wheat? Or Corn?
I would venture that unlike bannana's, which only one species forms the crop that is wanted, those crops all have diffrent species that are in demand. Factor in the amoubt of hybridtion , wheat in particular, and evenstrait out gentic engineering, I would think they have Diveristy out the wazoo, at least here in the states.
--One of the points the artical makes is that most bannana trees are not grown from like seeds, but all stem from a few orginal trees through cuttings. In other terms, think of the groves as clones, rather than any true offsrping.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Peter said this:
I would venture that unlike bannana's, which only one species forms the crop that is wanted, those crops all have diffrent species that are in demand. Factor in the amoubt of hybridtion , wheat in particular, and evenstrait out gentic engineering, I would think they have Diveristy out the wazoo, at least here in the states.--One of the points the artical makes is that most bannana trees are not grown from like seeds, but all stem from a few orginal trees through cuttings. In other terms, think of the groves as clones, rather than any true offsrping.
Those were merely examples of other crops. Bloodsage is making the claim that because losing a relativly minor crop like bannanas to biodiversity dosn't matter the threat of limited biodiversity isn't there. If we were to fail to learn from mistakes made with banannas then it could be a tragedy if it occured with one of those crops that I listed, or any other major crop for that matter.
quote:
Quoth Pvednes:
With low biodiversity, species become fragile and go extinct. There are many, many species that are important to us in some way. There are many more species that are not directly important to us, but are important to the survival of species that are important to us, and so on.Since these species are directly or indirectly important to us, any one of these species going extinct will harm our interests, to either a small or large degree.
High levels of biodiversity in these species keep them secure from the risk of extinction. Since it is in our interests for them to remain extant, high levels of biodiversity is also in our interests.
The example of the bananas threatened by low biodiversity is simply one small piece of a vast body of evidence that this is, in fact, so. There are plenty of other examples, as well. Just look at any other threatened species of significance.
I like bananas, too.
This is the old, and fallacious--a type of appeal to consequences--argument that claims unknowable dire happenings should the unsupported assertion be dismissed. It's the same argument that claims abortion is bad because one could be killing the next Mozart or Rembrandt, when in fact it could just as easily be the next Stalin or Torquemada. It's also the same argument that claims it's logical to believe in God because if you do and you're wrong, nothing is lost, yet if you don't and you're wrong, you spend eternity in Hell.
There is quite a bit of historical and geological evidence that the earth and the ecology are much more elastic than the doomsayers claim. So what if bananas die out? So what if there are no more cutesy little seals? "Onos, the delicate chain of life that we don't actually understand very well might not work right in some undefined fashion with unknowable consequences!" is hardly a good answer.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Naimah gently hums:
Those were merely examples of other crops. Bloodsage is making the claim that because losing a relativly minor crop like bannanas to biodiversity dosn't matter the threat of limited biodiversity isn't there. If we were to fail to learn from mistakes made with banannas then it could be a tragedy if it occured with one of those crops that I listed, or any other major crop for that matter.
The point, of course, being that one can argue that biodiversity is good or necessary in certain cases, but cannot generalize from those cases into a blanket assertion covering all of nature.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
From the book of Naimah, chapter 3, verse 16:
Those were merely examples of other crops. Bloodsage is making the claim that because losing a relativly minor crop like bannanas to biodiversity dosn't matter the threat of limited biodiversity isn't there. If we were to fail to learn from mistakes made with banannas then it could be a tragedy if it occured with one of those crops that I listed, or any other major crop for that matter.
quote:
The world's most popular fruit and the fourth most important food crop of any sort
I'm not sure I would call it a 'minor' crop. Just think about what the top food crops are, and what crops it has to beat out to be ranked #4. Also, think about the impact on the people that grow bannanas, and the areas they grow it in. Wipe out the bannanas, and things will be VERY bad for them. We might be fine, but people in other parts of the world will be screwed.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Bloodsage said:
The point, of course, being that one can argue that biodiversity is good or necessary in certain cases, but cannot generalize from those cases into a blanket assertion covering all of nature.
But if we can argue that biodiversity does indeed perserve a species, and for the species itself it is in its best intrest to be perserved, shouldn't all species need to maintain a robust biodiversity merely in an attempt to continue their existance?
Anyway, just to interject that the reason this is far less likely to happen to wheat and apples etc. is because they can still reproduce sexually whereas our common banana cannot anymore. It's been bred into technical sterility although cuttings of it can still be grown.
edit: fuck, beaten. What a useless post. Niklas fucked around with this message on 05-15-2006 at 02:31 PM.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Quoth Naimah:
But if we can argue that biodiversity does indeed perserve a species, and for the species itself it is in its best intrest to be perserved, shouldn't all species need to maintain a robust biodiversity merely in an attempt to continue their existance?
And we should care about the best interests of a particular species because. . . ? Your logic fails right there.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
And we should care about the best interests of a particular species because. . . ?
They're delicious.
quote:
How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
And we should care about the best interests of a particular species because. . . ? Your logic fails right there.
It's not so much why should we care as why do we have the right to deny species the ability to exist.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Naimah absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
It's not so much why should we care as why do we have the right to deny species the ability to exist.
You're begging the question. The real question is, "Why does a particular species have a right to exist?"
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
This is the old, and fallacious--a type of appeal to consequences--argument that claims unknowable dire happenings should the unsupported assertion be dismissed. It's the same argument that claims abortion is bad because one could be killing the next Mozart or Rembrandt, when in fact it could just as easily be the next Stalin or Torquemada. It's also the same argument that claims it's logical to believe in God because if you do and you're wrong, nothing is lost, yet if you don't and you're wrong, you spend eternity in Hell.There is quite a bit of historical and geological evidence that the earth and the ecology are much more elastic than the doomsayers claim. So what if bananas die out? So what if there are no more cutesy little seals? "Onos, the delicate chain of life that we don't actually understand very well might not work right in some undefined fashion with unknowable consequences!" is hardly a good answer.
Uhh, no, it isn't. Straw men are for the crows. You should know better.
The principles of ecology are quite well documented, thank you.
Besides, we've already addressed why it matters that bananas are dying out--it'll sting commercially, and we'll all be lacking a really good fruit. Banana splits without the banana will kinda suck. It's great when the chocolate is melted into the banana...with ice cream...mmm.
Endangered fluffy animals are aesthetically valuable, and the conservation status of apex predators are tried and true indicators of the health of ecosystems in general.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Bloodsage:
You're begging the question. The real question is, "Why does a particular species have a right to exist?"
I walked into that one.
At what point have we reached a point of absurdity in a crusade against a species? It is perfectly reasonable to argue that if a species isn't able to sustain itself without aid then it dosn't have the right to exist. However, humanity has reached a point where we have the ability to destroy nearly any species. There are many ways in which we can go about destroying a species, but those ways are irrelevant and the fact of the matter is we can destory just about any of them. So why is the ability to destroy any form of life transformed into the right to do so? I know this isn't answering the question directly, but I am not convinced that our ability to destroy should take priority over all other lifes state of existance.
quote:
Pvednes startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
Uhh, no, it isn't. Straw men are for the crows. You should know better.
Ironically, that is a straw man. I didn't claim you were arguing against a straw man, but that you're claiming nebulous and unverifiable bad consequences as a reason not to act. And, as I said earlier, you're extrapolating from bananas to the rest of the world without providing a logical link.
You should also know that the evidence for biological resilience far outweighs that for complicated theories of ironclad interdependence. Random species becoming overspecialized and then extinct happens all the time and has throughout the earth's history. It's not the worldwide disaster alarmists claim.
Further, claiming aesthetic value as a reason means that you essentially accept my argument: biodiversity is nice, but not required.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Quoth Naimah:
I walked into that one.At what point have we reached a point of absurdity in a crusade against a species? It is perfectly reasonable to argue that if a species isn't able to sustain itself without aid then it dosn't have the right to exist. However, humanity has reached a point where we have the ability to destroy nearly any species. There are many ways in which we can go about destroying a species, but those ways are irrelevant and the fact of the matter is we can destory just about any of them. So why is the ability to destroy any form of life transformed into the right to do so? I know this isn't answering the question directly, but I am not convinced that our ability to destroy should take priority over all other lifes state of existance.
Who says anyone is on a crusade?
You're also right: you haven't answered the question. Since when does every form of life on the planet have the same right to exist?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Robocop:
Who says anyone is on a crusade?You're also right: you haven't answered the question. Since when does every form of life on the planet have the same right to exist?
But why does the ability to do something grant us the right to do it? Screw thier right to exist, why do we have the right to destroy them?
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Naimah squealed:
But why does the ability to do something grant us the right to do it? Screw thier right to exist, why do we have the right to destroy them?
You're begging the question again.
We have a right to let them go extinct precisely because they have no particular right to exist.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage painfully thought these words up:
You're begging the question again.We have a right to let them go extinct precisely because they have no particular right to exist.
There is a fundemental differance between letting and activly persuing their destruction though. My question falls on the latter of the two situations.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Naimah squealed:
There is a fundemental differance between letting and activly persuing their destruction though. My question falls on the latter of the two situations.
And the same answer applies. You'll also probably want to point out the examples where anyone's on a crusade to deliberately eradicate a species.
You should look up "begging the question." You've got the burden of proof because it's you who asserts these species have a right to exist. Why?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Robocop:
And the same answer applies. You'll also probably want to point out the examples where anyone's on a crusade to deliberately eradicate a species.You should look up "begging the question." You've got the burden of proof because it's you who asserts these species have a right to exist. Why?
I'm questioning our right to deny a species of their facilities; be that biodiversity, habitat, or what have you, to exist. Not their right to exist.
quote:
Naimah startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
I'm questioning our right to deny a species of their facilities; be that biodiversity, habitat, or what have you, to exist. Not their right to exist.
Then you have to explain why they have a particular right to exist undisturbed or in their natural habitats.
You keep begging the question.
Begging the question means you ask a question in such a manner that the assertion you wish to prove is assumed. Asking about our right to deprive them of habitat assumes their right to the habitat, which is really the question at hand.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
