Re: post from Holloway

Gerrit Hanenburg (
Sun, 29 Oct 1995 13:13:26 GMT (H. M. Hubey) wrote:

>Ok. OK. So I have to refine it. I didn't think you'd catch it.
>YOu should have written about the European pygmy shrew too
>while you were at it.

One counter example is usually enough to falsify a statement.

>It's like in economics; fixed cost and variable cost. Once that's
>done naturally we'll be at the top :-).. That's the way it
>should be.

Maybe that's the way it should be from an anthropocentric point of view but
not from an evolutionary point of view.

>What's the problem anyway. This is getting boring.

*You* brought up the idea of "evolutionary advancement".
It's your problem not mine.I was only trying to refute it.

>Selection says we're on top of the food chain.

And what about the mosquito that feeds on you?
Many critters consider you a rich source of minerals and protein.
*The* food chain doesn't have a top.It's more like a network.

>In a few hundred years the only mammals we'll allow to live
>will be either our pets, live on farms or in zoos.

*If* we are still around by that time.I doubt our current unsustainable way
of life in combination with the exponential growth of the human population
will let us stay that long.A book like "Beyond the Limits.Confronting
Global Collaps;Envisioning a Sustainable Future" by Meadows et al. doesn't
make *me* very optimistic.
I wouldn't call a species that treats the environment like we do very