by Xerographica » Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:21 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Ethel mermania » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:00 pm
by Bombadil » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:01 pm
by Xerographica » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:28 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:30 pm
Bombadil wrote:I don't think so Xero.. remember there's always a best.. there must be a best.. and the best if spread across the globe will eventually wipe out everything else..
..much like humans are doing.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:51 pm
Albrenia wrote:I imagine one would have to be careful lest new species choke out the native flora and fauna via competition for the same resources.
How do reptiles evolve when another species invades their space? In the case of the Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis) in Florida, its feet evolved to better climb higher in trees to avoid the invasive brown anole (Anolis sagrei). - John Virata
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Costa Fierro » Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:47 pm
by Xerographica » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:10 pm
Costa Fierro wrote:New Zealand and Australia are good examples where the introduction of exotic species wrought havoc on native flora and fauna.
Based on a comparison with these early fossils, dingo morphology has not changed over the past 3,500 years. This suggests that there has been no artificial selection over this period and that the dingo represents an early form of dog from 4,000-5,000 years ago. They have lived, bred, and undergone natural selection in the wild, isolated from other canids until the arrival of European settlers, resulting in a unique canid. Therefore, it is argued by some scientists that the dingo should be recognised as the distinct taxon Canis dingo.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Costa Fierro » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:29 pm
by Page » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:19 pm
by Sovaal » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:51 pm
Xerographica wrote:Did you know that honeybees aren't native to the Americas? Imagine the first bears to discover honey. I'm sure that they were pretty happy about the discovery, except for the part about the stings. I'd sure love to be able to see and know exactly what difference the introduction of honeybees has made, and will make. For example, none of the 1000s of different species of orchids native to the Americas have evolved to be pollinated by honeybees. But there are certainly some native orchid species that can be pollinated by honeybees. Then what?
My best guess is that honeybees in the Americas will lead to a net gain of biodiversity. The bees, given that they are different than the native pollinators, have increased the diversity of the demand for flowers, which will increase the diversity of the supply of flowers.
Except, even though it's likely that the introduction of honeybees to the Americas will result in more biodiversity, their introduction goes against the premise of conservation. Conservationists definitely would not have approved the introduction of honeybees to Americas. They would have vetoed it, which is why I'm not a conservationist. Instead, I'm a herclivationist.
"Herclivation" is another one of my made up words. It represents the idea of deliberately doing things to increase biodiversity.
The difference between herclivation and conservation is perhaps like the difference between consequentialism and deontology. As a herclivationist, I don't have a rule against the introduction of life. My rule is to judge an introduction based on its impact on biodiversity.
Admittedly it's super tricky to precisely predict the outcome of any introduction. We can't precisely predict what would happen if hummingbirds were introduced to Africa and Australia, but we know that doing so would increase the diversity of the demand for flowers, which would increase the diversity of their supply.
What would happen if Tillandsias were introduced to Africa and Australia? Tillandsias are epiphytes that prefer niches that are too dry and bright for most other epiphytes. Right now in Africa and Australia the preferred niches of Tillandsias are largely unoccupied. If Tillandsias were introduced to Africa and Australia, then they would fill these niches and provide shelter and food for a wide variety of animals. Tillandsias would essentially create new niches for more life.
What about introducing kangaroos to other parts of the world? I'm guessing that lions would vote for their introduction to Africa.
In any case, it can't be the rule that an introduction will result in a net loss of biodiversity... otherwise there wouldn't be any biodiversity. Life is synonymous with colonization. If there ever was any life that didn't colonize, then it inevitably learned the hard lesson of keeping all its eggs in the same basket. An underwater thermal vent that forms the foundation of a thriving habitat can cease to function at any time. Just like our planet can be destroyed at any time. The one job that Nature gave us is to distribute life to other planets.
Now you know my opinion on the topic of conservation versus herclivation... what's yours?
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:17 pm
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by Crockerland » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:24 pm
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:22 am
Page wrote:In principle, I agree with you and the comparison you've drawn to consequentialism vs. deontology. As a consequentialist, I reject any rule that can't be justified by its consequences, if someone says "you just don't do x" then I want to know what the potential results of x are, why such a rule exists.
However, in practice I am generally against introducing a new species as a rule, because in practice, the overall consequences of doing so are almost always negative, and we can't predict what kind of domino effect will occur.
Philosophically, I think consequentialism is the only logical approach to ethics, but the problem is that consequences are a chain reaction and it is impossible to know where the consequences of a single action ends.
If there was unanimous or near unanimous agreement among experts that introduction of a new species to an area would be a net positive, I'd be open to it, but this isn't something you do without exhaustive research first.
In summary of my entire argument from evolutionary theory, "native" plants cannot be deemed biologically best in any justifiable way (note that I am emphatically not speaking about ethical or aesthetic preference, for science cannot adjudicate these considerations). "Natives" are only the plants that happened to arrive first and be able to flourish (the evolutionary argument based on geography and history), while their capacity for flourishing only indicates a status as "better than" others available, not as optimal or globally "best suited" (the evolutionary argument based on adaptation and natural selection). - Stephen Jay Gould, An Evolutionary Perspective on Strengths, Fallacies, and Confusions in the Concept of Native Plants
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:32 am
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:We have evidence of what can happen when non-native species are introduced to a foreign ecosystem. Not great. Check dragonfish.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:47 am
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by Alvecia » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:29 am
by Right wing humour squad » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:44 am
by Page » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:06 am
Right wing humour squad wrote:We need to start making robotic replacements for animals as soon as they become endangered.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:42 am
Esternial wrote:I assume the bees get to vote which plants survive and which ones don't by paying for their votes withmhoney
Sure enough, the team found that medium-sized plant eaters, like wildebeest, zebras, impalas, and warthogs, tend to congregate in the newly cleared areas. They forage slightly more often in these safe zones, and they certainly poop a lot more often there, depositing three times as much dung as in the wooded regions. These animals act as living conveyor belts, moving nutrients away from dense thickets and toward open ones. - Ed Yong, Humans Have Unleashed a ‘Landscape of Fear’
Ficus microcarpa is native to temperate and tropical Asia, Australasia, and Pacific regions. It is a popular ornamental tree grown in many warm temperate, subtropical, and tropical regions of the world, where it is widely known to escape from cultivation. It is reported here as being naturalized in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura counties, southern California. The invasive spread of F. microcarpa follows the introduction of its host-specific pollinating wasp, Eupristina verticillata; E. verticillata was first reported for California in 1994 from Arcadia, Los Angeles County. The wasp introduction reunited the F. microcarpa host plant–E. verticillata obligate pollinator mutualism thereby enabling the reproduction and naturalization of both organisms in California. A map showing the current distribution of F. microcarpa, citation of voucher specimens, and photographic documentation are provided. - Richard E. Riefner Jr., Ficus microcarpa (Moraceae) naturalized in southern California, U.S.A.: Linking plant, pollinator, and suitable microhabitats to document the invasion process.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:02 am
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Xerographica wrote:Do you mean lionfish or snakehead fish?
Yes, lionfish. Also known as dragonfish. They have taken over several areas of the Atlantic ocean (particularly Florida waters and in the Caribbean) and it's not endemic to them. This fish is native to the Pacific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterois#I ... _and_range
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:10 am
Alvecia wrote:The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and neither one is better than the other when taken to the extremes.
As with most things in life, a healthy balance is the superior option.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Alvecia » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:16 am
Xerographica wrote:Alvecia wrote:The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and neither one is better than the other when taken to the extremes.
As with most things in life, a healthy balance is the superior option.
In some cases, as in honeybees being introduced to the Americas, conservation and herclivation are mutually exclusive. Herclivation is better because it results in a better balance. More biodiversity inherently means a better balance.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Aggicificicerous, Ancientania, Hidrandia, Ineva, Kostane, Kreushia, Omphalos, Plan Neonie, Shrillland, Talibanada, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan
Advertisement