Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!.misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <117400119@inmet>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 23:15:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117400119
Posted: Mon Oct  6 23:15:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 04:51:35 EDT
References: <164@grc97.UUCP>
Lines: 67
Nf-ID: #R:grc97.UUCP:-16400:inmet:117400119:000:2815
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Oct  6 23:15:00 1986


[mrh@cybvax0.UUCP ]
>> [my argument...] was that subtracting thousands out of many millions
>> [of species] does not reduce genetic diversity  much.  It  was  also  that 
>> artificial methods can preserve genetic diversity, without hindering
>> technical progress or  population  growth. It also was that other artificial
>> methods can actually increase genetic diversity, and do it fast.

>All three sentences are seriously in error.

>Subtracting thousands of species PER YEAR from millions DOES reduce genetic
>diversity by a great deal, because the losses are cumulative.  

That entirely depends on the number of years  through  which  one
projects  the  process - i.e., on one's ability to foresee the
future. To claim a large cumulative effect is to claim powers  of
long-term prediction. They need to be demonstrated first.

>Artificial methods cannot preserve significant genetic diversity yet, as I
>have explaind in related articles in the past few days.

*Yet* is an important word here. The context of my statement  was
the future. So, Mike is attacking a strawman.

*Significant* is another important  word.   If  a  thousand  lost
species  a  year  is  "significant"  (see Mike's statement above) -
wouldn't he agree that preservation of a thousand species a year
(e.g.  in seeds) is "significant"? Or would he argue it's impos-
sible? (The articles he mentioned haven't reached this site yet).

>Artifical methods cannot increase genetic diversity in  a  manner
>comparable  to the results of evolution, as I have also explained
>in related articles in the past week or two.

I'll look out for them - *but* if Mike means "cannot" for all  future  -
then he has a very heavy burden of proof.

If he only claims they can't do it as *yet*, then this is *another*
strawman.

>> Ecological diversity is not necessarily reduced by
>> civilization. Artificial habitats are habitats too,

>Ecological diversity is much the same as species diversity.  
>Artifical habitats do nothing (in less than thousands  of  years)
>to increase overall species diversity on the globe.

Why in "less than  thousands"?  Civilization  *has*  existed  for
thousands  of years. It may exist for more thousands. *Yet another*
strawman.

"Overall global species diversity" is not all that matters.
Diversity  of an ecological community may increase when
new species are introduced to it by civilization.

Artificial habitats create  hitherto  impossible  communities  of
coexisting  species  - new ecologies; new populations with new
evolutionary trends; new strains and varieties.

>[Mike's ad-hominems omitted. Upmanship is even less interesting
>than strawmanship]

Surprisingly, he needs both, even though  arguing  on  his  own,
biological,  turf.  The  position  he is defending must be weak
indeed. 

		Jan Wasilewsky