DMadrone wrote:
"In the natural world, aggression is almost ALWAYS a threat rather than
an actual harmful act. It is rare for the native flora and fauna to
actually hurt members of their own species: damage to other species is
usually a matter of food, not bad temper. There are two necessities of
Life: Diversity and resources. Diversity always wins out. I know, I
know...our culture supports such ideas as the superior aggressive male
with a harem...but one individual's fathering of lots of babies would
reduce diversity of the species. Nature tends to correct for this...as
example, deer and moose who expend a great deal of energy being
aggressive and sequestering the most females, generally use up their
stores of fat and die of starvation over the winter. The nice guys live
longer, and get to mate too."
----
At the risk of droning on with some detailed explanation, I must
respectfully suggest that the "facts" underlying much of this posting
may not match very well either the realities in the natural world nor
current theory in behavioral and evolutionary ecology.
Animals in the wild DO hurt other members of their own species with
considerably regularity. This includes males (and sometimes females,
too) fighting, sometimes to the death, over access to mates or
territories or both, as well as individuals killing the young of other
conspecifics (infanticide). MANY examples along these lines are
documented in each issue of professional journals including Animal
Behavior, Behavioral Ecology, and Behavioural Ecology & Sociobiology. (I
note, by the way, that the authors of many of the reports are women
investigators.) As one of many people who has spent long hours doing
field studies, I can attest to first-hand observation of often brutal
aggression between members of the same species in a variety of animals.
Nature often "ain't pretty."
Also, I suggest we examine the validity of the idea that nature "tends
to correct" for biases in, for example, mating success. The data suggest
otherwise. In some species (e.g., elephant seals or some birds that
breed on leks), as few as 5% of males may be responsible (as genetic
fathers) for more than 95% of all young produced. That's what the
evidence (DNA fingerprinting, etc.) shows. Yes, a few other males (those
that might be less agressive) may occasionally father some young ... but
most of the available data indicate that in many species, reproductive
success is _not_ evenly distributed across all males.
Does this pattern (successful reproduction by only a few males) reduce
the genetic diversity within a species? Yes! ... but as far as we know,
that's what the evidence indicates is going on. Should nature "correct"
for this? Current theory suggests not -- because the mechanisms by which
such "correction" would have to take place (species-level selection)
aren't powerful enough, in evolutionary terms, as the process that is
going. That process (sexual selection) is thought by the vast majority
of evolutionary biologists to be responsible (along with the more
general mechanism of natural selection) for the evolution of many, many
traits of wild organisms. In other words, if a trait contributes to the
genetic success (over successive generations) of its bearers, the trait
will persist and spread even if the species as a whole might be better
off, in some sense, without the trait -- because no _known_ mechanism in
non-human organisms is strong enough to "correct" it. If it benefits an
individual (on average), in terms of leaving more copies of its genes
into future generations, to behave aggressively, then genes contributing
to aggressiveness will persist, and genes that contribute to less
aggressive behavior will "lose out" numerically.
Is aggression ALWAYS the outcome? No -- because in _some_ (many?)
organisms, the costs of aggression (e.g., risk and consequences of
injury) outweigh the benefits, such that the equation is tipped in the
direction of less agression. However, in the natural world aggressive
defense of resources or mates or both very often DOES pay off (in terms
of reproductive success) -- which is why so many species are aggressive
in many contexts.
We may not "like" the end results, nor the patterns that persist in the
animal world, but that doesn't make them go away. If someone can show me
solid evidence that my generalizations are inaccurate or misleading, I'd
be happy to see it, and to modify my statements accordingly.
-- R Curry
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Aug 31 13:55:37 1997
Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com (emout11.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.26]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id NAA12023 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:55:35 -0600 (MDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (from root@localhost)
by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
id PAA25497 for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Sun, 31 Aug 1997 15:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 15:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hello ECOFEM
Hello to everyone on this list-
I am a high school debater and we are debating the principles of EcoFeminism
and I was wondering if anyone on the list could give me any information. I
need internet sites, books and any newspapers or magazines that would have
things about ecofeminism in them very badly. I hope that someone will be
able to help me. Please write to me directly with any information -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks so much.
Jessica
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Aug 31 17:22:19 1997
Received: from buffy.tpgi.com.au (buffy.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.34]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id RAA16136 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 17:22:14 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from resolve ([203.58.22.188] (may be forged))
by buffy.tpgi.com.au (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA16701
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 09:24:45 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 09:18:56 +1000
From: Lee Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: making an anarchic ecofeminist society
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Good Heavens, Helen, you sound like you're quoting directly from my
webpages. Do you have a website yourself?
Lee.
helen lobato wrote:
> Gwendolyn asked "how do we get from where we are now to there" meaning
> how
> do we clean up the mess we, the world are in. The change will be
> difficult
> but it must begin. Our society is unsustainable.We have reached the
> levels
> of economic output and of individual consumption that are beyond what
> can be
> maintained for long to all people let alone our future predicted
> population
> of 11 billion.
> We who live in rich countries can only live in our way because we take
> most
> of the worlds resources.We cannot continue to live the affluent way of
> life
> that we do. we must change our lifestyles so that we live well without
> the
> need to further damage and exploit the earth and other people.
> Therefore the starting point to change is education of us all. once
> people
> understand that we really have no choice if the race is to continue
> then the
> change can progress. So I think that it is up to us all to spread the
> word
> and show by example what is possible.
> You have to start at the grass roots. The people in power have to much
> to
> lose to lead the way. What we need is a conserver society. That is a
> local
> economy which is small scale, cooperative and self sufficient where
> we can
> live modestly where our towns must provide most of our needs from
> local
> resources. It must be a non affluent lifestyle based on needs not on
> wants.
> This does not rule out improvements in technology, hospitals and other
>
> services but there would be more of an emphasis on needs.
> I am told that is is starting around the world.It will take decades
> but it
> is the only alternative to the system that we have now. It is on the
> way to
> collapse and we have to be ready with our alternative societies before
> it
> happens.
> Zanne asked what we would be boycotting? we would be boycotting all
> the
> unnecessary spending and frivolous entertainment that we partake in
> today.To
> be self sufficient and set up new communities there would be no need
> for
> these distractions. Our lives would become more communal.we would need
> to
> convert our suburbs into regional economies.We would eliminate the
> need to
> travel long distances to work and in fact we would have much more
> leisure
> and of course we would eliminate the unemloyment problems and the
> horrific
> social problems of our present society. A lot of the things that we
> presently pay for would be shared responsibilities such as childcare,
> elderly care ,libraries, schooling etc. We have no choice but to live
> the
> life we are living which will get rougher rapidly. So we boycott the
> system.
> We make our own communities. How? Find a group of likeminded people.
> Perhaps find a piece of good land and start sustainable permaculture
> gardens. Convert a building into a shared shed, meeting place, library
>
> whatever and things will grow. They have to. But I think the big
> thing is
> education. spreading the word that we don't have to take what they the
>
> capitalists are dishing out.
>
> Helen
--
Conflict between separated parents
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/ncpreport/
\|/ \|/
. .
/|\ /|\
Live simply...we're killing the planet
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/
Sustainable Future Webring
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/webring.html
