Being an ecologist-oriented listserv, I would suspect few people would admit we know nothing about the way ecosystems work. Of some ecosystems we have a wonderfully clear understanding, of others a dismal one, and of others still, none whatsoever. Even for all our understanding, we cannot predict the future and ecosystems will not all unfold in a way we predict. Nothing can replace polar bears? I really doubt it. How about Grizzlies, with which they are already hybridizing. My point is we should not dismiss certain species just because we think we know what might happen to them in our lifetime. Even if we knew which species were the most important, does this really matter? We know what happens when rain forests are destroyed, we know what happens when oyster reefs are leveled, and when top carnivores are eliminated, does this prevent them from happening? All species may not be equal but is that for us to decide? For ecologists? For politicians? I don't know.
Frank Marenghi > Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:30:46 -0800 > From: [email protected] > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Insignificant species? > To: [email protected] > > I think that one missing component in this discussion is the time > frame. It is difficult for humans to conceptualize millions (or > billions) of years. Have you ever actually seen $1,000,000? Our > lifetimes are scores of years. We tend to view everything from our > personal perspective. Sure, species come and species go but humans > skewing evolution to favor only fast-evolving species like viruses and > bacteria really throws a clinker into the works. Someone else said > "Nature will survive." > > Cordially yours, > Geoff Patton, Ph.D. Wheaton, MD > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1
