> There is no clear difference between garden or native grasses and
> "noxious" weeds. It depends on people's perception in my opinion.
> Besides, I do not like the anthropocentic arrogance calling some
> plant species as weeds or worse "noxious weeds".
Okay Toshihide, you caught me being anthropocentric. :-) It is human
perception that makes the distinction of what is a weed and what
isn't. To me a weed is basically any plant I don't want growing where
it is growing. So, for instance, grass is a weed in my garden. It
isn't what I want growing there.
How about this though, in a prarie garden, someplace I want to plant
native plants, a weed would be any of those non-native plants that
threaten to choke out the plants that I have planted. But a garden,
or a yard, is a human made thing.
In nature I would consider a weed to be a foreign plant that is
choking out the native plants. Weed may not be the correct term, but
it works. Such a plant would be out of balance with the eco-system.
Seems I was reading about some trees in the everglades people are very
worried about, kudzu may be another example... and there are some
thistles that are pretty horrible about taking over native plants.
If you let just anything grow in your yard, flower, and spread, then
you may be spreading plants that are hostile to the native plants, and
not something beneficial to humans or to the eco-system. (And you
will most certainly be spreading things that are hostile to people's
yards, and that is going to tick off your neighbors AND cause them to
spray a lot more chemicals on their lawns.) In land that has been
corrupted by humans, we may need to be careful about letting that
corruption spread.
At risk of being anthropocentric, I think that human communities need
some aesthetic appeal. Living in the midst of uncontrolled grasses
and thistles are not my idea of where I want my children to play, or
where I want to hang out with my neighbors. But living in a garden,
where the garden is all around you, and you can't really separate the
yards from the garden, now that would be a place to live! Herbs and
vegetables and flowers, and tall tufts of grasses, mixed with
stretches of ground covers, and perhaps some mowed grass play areas,
that sounds good to me.
Let wild places be wild, but human places can be fit to human wants,
needs, and sense of beauty.
Stephen R. Figgins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tech.ora.com/fig/
"Well, once again my friend, we find that science is a two-headed
beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern
conveniences,...but the other head of science is bad! Oh beware the
other head of science, Arthur, it bites!"
--The Tick
