strong opinions (was: [pf] Parasitic worms vs chemical in slug control)

>Kaleopono wrote:
>> Several species of slugs are extremely destructive pests in Hawaii's
warm climate in which they can breed year 'round.  I hope these parasitic
worms are proved to be benign except for slugs.  Kaleopono
>> * * * * *

At 08:35 19/9/2001 -0500, Jill wrote:
>Kaleopono,
>    I understand the work that slugs do - eating many of our fruits and
vegetables that we had hopes of eating ourselves, and yet, I feel it is
unwise to destroy any being.  Each being has its place in our ecosystem.
As an organic/sustainable gardener, I strive for a balance of all
creatures, rather than complete eradication of anything.
>                                                            Jill

· I don't think "wiping out", "complete eradication" is at all likely with
'biological control'. However, the "balance" isn't a smooth, even balance
either. My Deep Ecology post in March 1999:
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/deep-ecology/mar99/0076.html "sustainable",
included:
  “'Sustainable' here can mean continuing into the indefinite future (I
don't use 'forever'), and refers to an ecosystem, which can include humans.
There will be change involved - an ecosystem is dynamic, with numbers and
location of individuals changing day by day for animals, and season by
season for plants. I include the rare possibility of a species going
extinct, and a roughly equal probability of a new one arising. Thus
sustainable includes: having no recognisable trend, over a time-scale of
thousands (or at least hundreds) of years, and almost certainly longer.
  The small-scale meaning, used by people on this and the Positive Futures
list, refers to humans in their environment, and most times means the
answer to: "what life-style can I adopt for the rest of my life, that (if
all in the world adopted it) would enable the world we know (i.e. including
within living memory) to continue with only slow change (tolerable by our
environment) if any?" A common component is to have only local impacts, so
that you yourself have some chance of keeping track of them.”

· Then, in e-mails originally sent to "TF" (also sent to PF, on July 18
2001 at 05:19 +1200, available at:
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2001III/msg01168.html ), I said:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[David: ]
>>· I don't have an answer for the question: "Isn't it better for the
animal to have lived (as a farmed animal), than not to have lived at all?"
I'm doubtful, because the reason applies to all living things, trees and
people as well; to me the number "needed" is set by a dynamic, cyclical
process, ecology, and not on the basis: more (life) is better.
>>
>[young NZ Green, TF: ]
>Though I am loathe to admit it, I do not understand. It sounds interesting
though!
>
[David: ]
· Which of the two things I said? The "life is better than not-life" bit
(and how it applies to all living things), or the ecology bit? If it's the
latter:
· I assume that you agree that there's nothing right _or_ wrong with the
natural processes that occurred before humans existed, or that might exist
now if no humans had ever arrived on the scene.
· If watched, over ten to a few hundred years, you can see that the number
of plants, herbivores and carnivores varies over a modest range of numbers,
so you could call the whole system stable. (That's why it looks similar, a
hundred years later when only the oldest trees are the same individuals,
everything else at the earlier time has died and been replaced.) That's a
mature ecology.

· Each of the three main groups (named above) vary over adjacent years,
with explosions of numbers followed by die-backs, as the predators,
including disease and famine, cut down the excess.
· This dynamic balance, in a mature ecology, ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

· So the reason I'm responding to Jill is to say that I agree with
Kaleopono here; that _excess_ is the problem needing human intervention,
not the _existence_ of the slugs. Once the excess is cut down to something
a mature ecology can keep in balance, the intervention can stop and should
stop.

· Further, I believe the same reasoning applies to people, particularly
excessively-consuming people.
  Either or both of: the excessive consumption, and the numbers of the
excessively-consuming people, needs to be cut down by intervention. Until a
normal dynamic ecology can come to a new balance.
  If you want to call that a Deep Ecology view, feel free; I don't believe
though, that that view is acceptable to most of the people calling
themselves Deep Ecologists on that list I used to post to in 1999. A great
many were Romanticists. (Named after the impulse driving the Romantic
period in literature, art and music, a couple of hundred years ago.)

· Given the events of last week, many will see that comment as uncaring and
objectionable; not something that should be posted on a Positive Futures
list run by Yes! magazine. (Note:Kaleopono sent-on Fran Korten's "let your
voice be heard" http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2001III/msg01410.html )

· I have a positive future in mind which emphatically doesn't include any
major part of the current US culture except free speech; it seems to me
there are some basic assumptions held by most on this list which I don't
share. These assumptions should be discussed, and _my_ opinion is that this
list is the right place, now. I used to reserve such opinions for the Deep
Ecology list, in past years, keeping my PF posts fairly bland.
Self-censorship, I suppose.

· However, whether I post my real opinions, somewhat moderated opinions, or
don't post at all, is less important than that the PF list attract and hold
people wanting to read about what a Positive Future might be like, and what
it might imply for themselves. So most of all, I don't want people to
leave, on account of my opinions or for any other reason. Comments please.
 (Directly to me, if you're unwilling to post to the whole list, as 9 out
of 10 subscribers are. That's why I include my  davd@ihug.co.nz  below.
I guarantee that I'll be polite, and will stop e-mailing when _you_ wish.)

David.
David MacClement [davd @ ihug.co.nz] (remove spaces)
http://davd.tripod.com/GrRR-010907_titles.html#top
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
***********************************************

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.aVEN4x
Or send an email To: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: csf@moscow.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================