Anne Schwarz wrote:
When we affect less desireable animals, the public's interest in preserving them flounders. If we found out that deep sea squid were dying from oil exposure, would we care even if it wasn't our fault?
Ecologists, Zoologists, Marine Biologists, Taxonomists, Evolutionary Biologists,
most permaculturiats and regenerative, biological (see how deftly I avoided
using the "O" word) farmers would probably be very concerned
L.F.London
Hello~
Good point. I would also like to personally thank you and the other people who picked up this thread for having good, clean, intelegent responsesto my comments, even on disagreeign points. That being said...
Perhaps my real question was "should we" instead of "would we." Should we be concerned with environmental factors that are truly not our fault (such as oil being released from the bottom of the ocean). The entire
human populace could be self-sustaining, but this phenomenon would still be happening. A less far-fetched example, perhaps, would concern the ozone layer and the ongoing debate about how much/little we have to do with it growing and healing large atmospheric holes. Or global warming for that matter, another highly debated topic.
I guess my question is, if the planetary cycles are indeed responsible for the damage, are we entitled to go around trying to fix it? If we
should, I can't understand being against genetically modified organisms, thus the quandry...
Anne
Fighting the good fight for a clean, non-bickering debate....
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.