|
----------Forwarded-----------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 20:32:24 -0800
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990312093231.011510d8@mail.geocities.com>
To: David MacClement <davd@geocities.com>
From: Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net>
> ----------Forwarded-----------
>Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:24:30 -0600
>From: rich coon <rcoon@carroll1.cc.edu>
>Subject: Re: Is living as part of a normal dynamic ecology, sustainable?
>
>Hey All:
>
>This is a tough quest. because i'm not sure what is meant by
>sustainable. If by that term we mean in a manner which is in harmony
>with the rest of the ecosystem,
[Mike Vandeman:]
That is too vague. How, EXACTLY, does one know if s/he is "in harmony" with
nature?
> i think probably the closest humans have
>ever come is as hunter/gatherer tribes. Probably no species lives in
>such a way as to not disturb any other aspect of the system and in that
>sense all species are probably only sustainable to a certain degree.
[Mike Vandeman:]
Yes. ALL of them produce wastes, that other species have to "clean up".
> If by sustainable we mean living in such a manner that we could do so
>with minimal impact for very long periods of time, then i think there
>probably have been times in human history when that has been the case
>and can be so again, but under very different circumstances than the
>present.
[Mike Vandeman:]
Does "minimal impacts" include causing extinctions? I doubt it.
Every human group has done that. Please see _The End of Evolution_.
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande