>
>In a message dated 2/15/98 1:26:45 PM, organix@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>>>CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>>
>Regardless
>of such hypotheticals, we must act on the knowledge we have,
>and that indicates that biodiversity is neither essential
>nor particularly hazardous to our continued well-being.
>In terms of changing our existance in a incremental fashion
>biodiversity is probably good; but in terms of major catastrophic
>changes it's probably bad.
You make your case well. But is it not plausible to say that a great
variety of design is in itself a value? Though (as I think you would
probably agree) biodiversity is neither important enough nor determinable
enough (as you say above) to warrant interference with peoples' lives,
it is important enough in this abstract sense to warrant some degree of
shepherding.
You never know when you might need a particularly nifty solution to a
problem, an algorithm for which has already been designed in nature in
the form of some animal or vegetable problem-solving function.
Guru George