Eat almost all the moose? Then the wolves start dying until the moose have recovered? Every year all species are eaten to the point of extinction, then need time to recover. That's the cycle? Get eaten to the point of extinction? In summer the scale lists one way, in winter the scale list the other way, a see-saw existence teetering between overpopulation and extinction every season. C'mon.. nature has done well in selecting vigorous healthy populations, that is until man came along and screwd it all up. Natural balance is a dynamic environment to be sure, but evolution and adaption usually insures a healthy population of all local species, where each can afford to lose the weaker individuals and replace them with greater skills, not some seasonal crisis which brings all populations to the brink of extinction. What you are describing are "natural calamities" (meteors, floods, ice-ages), which killed the dinos, or "invasive species" (carp, rabbits), introduced by man over the past 3000 years. Native ecologies usually consist of species which have adapted defenses against local predators and to the local environment in general and have arrived at a dynamic population where the best adapted survive and the weak are culled, until there is a long term stability in ratio of predator and prey. This dynamic balancing of predatory/prey population has been successfully employed by nature for millions of years. Extinction events are from non-native pressures, not natural local pressures to which the local population has adapted and survived for millions of years. What are you talking about, a zoo with 5 animals? Three die from old age and the zoo population is at the brink of extinction, until the last two mate and take 10-20 years to replenish the zoo population back to five individuals. A little naive are we? Until man came along, there were millions of buffalo and yes man nearly killed all of them for sport from the trains they were riding in. Until that time the buffalo herds could be counted in the thousands of individuals. And a few packs of wolves would kill a few weaker individuals which would feed the pack for the winter. Fact is that in winter wolves mainly feed on small rodents, which breed and replenish their populations very quickly. But seldom were herds decimated to the point of extinction, unless caused by an unusual "natural extinction event", not natural "balancing forces". Logic.
Logic is a foundational aspect of mathematical functions. http://factmyth.com/what-is-the-difference-between-logic-and-reason/
That twice now and I will not stand for this false accusation any longer. Show me where I said that or apologize. I could also accuse you of being a murderer, how would you feel about that? Put up or shut up with this character assasination. I consider that a grave adhominem. Show me a post where I advanced the idea of introducing "invasive species" or apologize.
Note the word "almost" up there. Fortunately wolves are not 100% efficient predators. No. The cycle is not "every year." It's about 40 years long. Man introduced moose to that island. Wolves arrived by walking across the ice. where they realized they had no reason to leave due to all the hunting. The wolves are not healthy; there is so much inbreeding (originals were single female, two males) that reproduction rates are low and birth defects are very high. But again, that's nature. The idea that nature will create balanced, healthy populations of animals coexisting in the circle of life is a Disney fantasy. Again, that's a Disney fantasy. Nature is a merciless environment where "healthy" means "survives to reproductive age." "Healthy" for ticks, heartworms and fleas does not mean "healthy" for wolves. "Healthy" for wolves does not mean "healthy" for rabbits. Nope. We see a quite dramatic ~40 year cycle on Isle Royale, and eventually one of those populations will likely go extinct, to be replaced by another one that goes into the new niche. It's the way of nature. 99.99% of all species have gone extinct. 99.98% of those species became extinct for natural reasons. Nope. Right. And the wooly mammoth existed quite happily until the climate changed (naturally) and wiped them out. The sabre toothed cat died out when its prey saw a precipitous decline about 12,000 years ago. It happens in nature, as well as due to the destructive influence of man. Natural extinction events happen due to changes in food supply, climate, weather, geography (i.e. formation of rift lakes) parasitism, overpredation and disease. It has always been thus. You seem to be trying to make a point that man causing extinctions is bad. I agree. But you base it on a remarkably naive view of nature.
"If [hemp was] planted in all inhospitable areas of the planet (where it will still thrive) its ecological and biological benefits would be drastic, IMO." So how about an apology for accusing me of character assassination?
Ok, backtrack #1. Almost extinct means what, and where? Ok, backtrack #2 Islands are isolated finite areas which usually results in a specialized adaptation of the native population and a greater vulnerability to predation or defoliation by foreign species, in addition to inbreeding of close relatives. This is not how it works globally, where species are able to migrate seasonally or permanently. Geese and butterflies migrate thousands of miles to feeding and breeding grounds. Sounds like that island was doing great until man introduced Moose to the island!!! A minor detail which seems to have escaped your attention. Or perhaps you were advocating for the introduction of foreign species into finite local islands, huh? Where did I make a point of Health in relation to evolution and adaptation to the environment. Is that another imaginary point I made? Most likely both species will go extinct. Moose are large animals which require lots of space and certainly do not belong on an island, The same thing can be said for wolves which are a open range predator. Neither species belongs on an island. But of course nature was not responsible for placing the moose or the wolves there. Man did, which proves my point. Did I advocate for the introduction of wolves after man introduced moose to the island? Yes, and were replaced by stronger better adapted species in increasing numbers until a dynamic equilibrium is reached. That's the way of nature. Yep. Unfortunately man is creating a sixth major extinction event (not local instabilities) which is already noticable by the disappearnce of species across the board at an increasing rate. (except for insects and humans). Ah, citing global extinction events. I believe I already mentioned those a few times as being outside of local extinction events. I'm glad you agree. Ok, another agreement, backtrack # 3 ] Well it seems to me that advancing a picture of nature constantly teetering on the brink of extinction is naive. Life is more resilient than that. p.s. Having lived in No. Idaho for the past 30 years dealing with -40F winters, building my own log-cabin, drilling my own well, cutting wood in 5' snow, growing fruit and vegetables, raising 100 chickens, 3 pigs, 3 horses, 2 goats, And I can assure you that life was not comparable to Disneyland or the Amsterdam zoo where, as a boy, I helped in birthing, feeding and care of calves as well as assisted in feeding and care of the reptile and monkey habitats. I know a thing or two about nature and how nature functions, OK? There were times in Idaho where my and my family's survival was a major concern. But enough of history. Insects have been around for 300 million years and somehow survived all extinction events. A fruitfly is able to adapt to drastic changes in its environment. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13953
Oh man, you don't even realize how childish this is becoming. And that in a thread on "Logic", it's almost funny.
Oh , that's where I advocated for the introduction of an invasive species? I would suggest that you read that statement again. Seems you missed the parts where I suggested "inhospitable areas" (habitats) which would have very little animal population, and the term "biological benefits' which is not a typical attribute of 'invasive species" . Obviously you are not well informed about the beneficial impact of the Hemp plant on the environment and its immediate surroundings. I would guess , you consider it a weed, a nuisance species. Well the first draft of the Constitution was penned on hemp paper, harvested from Washington's own hemp plantation. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-health-benefits-of-hemp-seeds#section3 http://www.hemptrade.ca/eguide/background/hemps-environmental-impact I also mentioned the symbiosis between bees and flowering plants. Am I suggesting that introducing honey bees is an invasive species that is detrimental to the environment? Think!@ Those are not examples of invasive species, those are examples of productive and restorative beneficial species. Earth worms are a beneficial species, they are the natural tillers and aerators of the soil, Their excrement is food for plants. Am I suggesting that the earth-worm is an invasive species? Do you see the disconnect between your interpretation of 'invasive species" and what the term actually means? to be continued.
OTOH, the human-bred Africanized bee is a threat not only to the environment by the aggressive take-over of large territories, low honey production, but primarily to its extremely aggressive behavior to all other life forms. That's an invasive species, which was artificially bred for some perceived "logical" human purpose. Who is the bad guy here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee Now there is an "invasive species". Get it?
continued from #88 Hemp has hundreds of eco friendly uses Saving trees. That's just a hint of the uses hemp can fill as good if not better than what is customary today. Think of this, hemp can replace plastic very easily and efficiently. BMW is already using hemp for dashboard and door moldings in some car models. I find it ironic (illogical) that we import "invasive" species which ruin our ecosystem and coastal waters, and outlaw "beneficial" species which maintain a sound ecological system, hospitable to man and animal alike. Maintaing a working relationship with nature seems like the Logical thing to do!
Nope. You must have missed the word "almost" in the post you replied to. Absolutely. Every biome is different. Given that there were no moose, the moose population definitely was NOT doing great. Isle Royale is 206 square miles, sufficient to support 200-500 moose. However, one thing you said is correct - they will almost certainly both go extinct, as 99.99% of species over the millennia have. LIFE is not "teetering on the brink of extinction." NATURE is not "teetering on the brink of extinction." SPECIES are. Always have been, always will be. That's great. Sounds like you know a lot about how farms work, which is very, very far from how nature works. Yep. And bacteria have been around much, much longer.
That's an anthropological bias. There are no (zero, none, zilch) environments on the planets where hemp can grow and there are no other plants or animals. You want to introduce an invasive species for a perceived human benefit. You even listed how all the reasons hemp was so super awesome. I won't argue with you; you clearly like it a lot and I have nothing against hemp. However, make no mistake. Introducing invasive species will destroy other species. It's happened every time we tried it. And many of the people doing it used arguments exactly like yours. Rabbits were a food and fur source, and good sport - and they were introduced into an environment that many people considered a "wasteland" since it was much drier than Europe (where early settlers came from.) To use your term, inhospitable. Decimated Australia. Oops. Lungworm was introduced into Australia to control the exploding cane toad population (another invasive species.) It decimated indigenous frog populations instead. Oops. Kudzu was introduced as a way to provide erosion control in dry areas of the US where not much else would grow quickly. (Again, "inhospitable areas" to use your term.) It is now destroying ecosystems since it's so much more aggressive than US groundcover, and many animals can't eat it. And it chokes out local trees. Oops. You want to do the same thing. But this time is different, you say! Climate change! Honeybees! Clothing! Plastics! And it has a giant taproot that will only do good things! It will change things, but all the changes will be good! Until the oops, that is.
I see, there are no beneficial organic species on earth. Every living thing is an invasive species , if you just give it a chance to thrive and replace other species, right. All of life is predatory and there is no such thing as symbiosis, mutually benefitting two unrelated life forms, with a secondary beneficial impact on herbivores and tree dwellers. That is not the definition of an "invasive species". And secondly, that is not logical thinking. Is the honey bee an invasive species, comparable to the Africanized bee? If you think so, you are misinformed. The African bee is a pest, the Italian honey bee is probably the most beneficial creature on earth. https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-bees/5375684 Hemp is not an invasive species because it is a crop plant, which is controlled and harvested at regular times. If it replaces another beneficial species such as trees, as a source of fiber, it is a good thing. Hemp is much more versatile and useful than trees, replacing the cutting of trees with regular harvest of hemp. Saves trees! That is not replacement by an invasive species, that is a conservation practice, saving trees for their own maximum beneficial properties. Farmers can plant hemp between other crops as hemp is a soil conditioner and will reduce the need for pesticides. I am glad you have no objection to hemp, but it is clear you have no understanding of the beneficial properties of this plant, in addition to the fact that while it grows it is most efficient atmospheric carbon scrubber and of all plants including trees. It is not an invasive species when used as a crop. And aside from its beneficial properties it carries real commercial value as a source of industrial fiber of many grades. But apparently you are not too worried about the current state of the earth's atmosphere and ecosphere. Hey, it'll take another 50 years before things are really beginning to die and because all things will die at the same rate there are no winners who feed on the carcasses of the dead species. Well, maybe some bacteria and a bunch of insect species. They'll be the unstoppable invasive species when the chips are on the table and we run out of DDT, or some other deadly chemical to which insects become immune, but will kill humans slowly and horribly. Watch the Hellstrom Chronicle if you want to get a glimpse of what awaits man and other large animals if we continue to ignore the health of the planet, to suit our needs. The earth doesn't care who or what lives or dies. It's been through much worse than humans. As Carlin said; "to the earth man is a surface nuisance, to be shrugged off like a bad case of fleas." Anyway, if we want to apply logic when considering man's future on this planet, this might be a logical way to enter the environmentally neutral renewable energy and product markets. The hemp plant and its versatile uses is and always has been of extraordinary utility to mankind. But not in the US.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perfect example. You think hemp will benefit YOU. It will not benefit the species it displaces or out-competes. Like those rabbits in Australia. So now introducing invasive species is . . . good? You just said "mankind presents a logical problem to itself. Just consider the man-caused spread of "invasive species" in unprepared environments." Then you got mad that I suggested that you were for introducing invasive species. Now you are saying EVERYTHING living is invasive. Just like those rabbits were. Just like GMO crops are. Again, just like those rabbits. They were crops, harvested for meat and hides and used for sport. That way the people there wouldn't have to hunt and kill native species! Why, those rabbits were a conservation practice, saving indigenous animals for their own ecosystem. So to summarize - At first you were against invasive species, species introduced by man as crops. Like rabbits in Australia. Because mankind really screwed up Australia by doing that, because rabbits grew so well there and took over. And in fact you are mad that I even suggested you were for invasive species; you DEMANDED an apology! Mankind has no business screwing up the ecosystem like that. But you are for invasive species like hemp, a species introduced by man as a crop. Which will grow really well and take over. And I am a fool because I do not recognize all the awesome benefits of invasive species, like hemp (and rabbits presumably.) Mankind should really mess with the ecosystem like that, because everything and everyone will benefit. You might want to google the terms "logic" and "consistency."
