The Malthusian Catastrophe might just be too limited in scope. (5)

1 Name: Schmome : 2006-10-07 13:28 ID:QNq0e2tu

We as a species are selfish and arrogant. I was listening to the radio this morning to a discussion on the survival of our beloved sea cow: the manatee. (they are acually closer relatives to the elephant.) Florida developers focus largely on our need as humans for water, and that need has encroached on the natural habitat of the manatee. Manatees are mammals, and thus are susceptible to temperature (more so than other marine mammals). The naturally heated springs of Blue Spring state park are one of the only sources of refuge for Florida's manatees in the wintertime, yet developers are demanding their "fair" share of the water. As the Florida population booms, the need for water rises, and our collective water table is becoming insufficient for our increasing needs. The now healthier population of manatees is almost entirely due to the supporting winter habitat of blue springs, coupled with the recent effort towards their conservation. If this area is taken from the manatee, it is not only in danger of the decline of its newly grown population, but could become completely extinct in the area.
It is not fair to claim that it is simply evolution taking its course, because evolution focuses on a diversity of animals coevolving to the benefit of one another. The developer in charge of the project actually tried to hide her guilt by scapegoating to the government saying something along the lines of "we are federally mandated to do whatever necessary to support the water needs of Florida's growing population."
Any opinions on whats to become of mother nature? Think I'm blowing the situation up? Remove half the human population, you say? Speak your piece!

2 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-10-07 19:48 ID:Heaven

> It is not fair to claim that it is simply evolution taking its course, because evolution focuses on a diversity of animals coevolving to the benefit of one another.

Wrong.
Evolution doesn't say anything about diversity or evolving "to the benefit of one another". It simply says that those animals which are the best adapted to their environment will survive and the ones that aren't will eventually either adapt or die out.

3 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-10-12 20:01 ID:1d3BCOfx

Can't we claim in fact that mankind is simply acting in response to evolution by eliminating other less successful species? Personally I'm a conservationist and would hate to loose the manatee but from a definition of evolution isn't man just one more link in the chain so to speak? Even if we nuked the planet I imagine life in it's most basic forms will plod along and eventually return to a diversified state.

4 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-10-16 16:34 ID:aIyM1KF4

>>3

Even "acting in response to evolution" is a meaningless concept. Evolution is not a force that affects living beings. It is simply a result of living beings, well, living, and dying.

5 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-10-19 00:02 ID:hee8NfdW

In short, anything we do is the will of evolution. Even Hitler helped us evole.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.