>...
>How the hell can anyone truly argue that introduced species have the
>right to live where they want?
Well, I did use the example to support our claim to a nuttiness
championship. But I like your suggesed methodologies. >Have they surveyed
the introduced species
>and statistically analysed their responses? Have they found out whether
>they were read their rights before they were branded as "introduced" or
>even worse "suspected aliens". Surely they can be found a good lawyer to
>defend them against this unconstitutional attack on them. ;-);-)
Probably so. In fact, some years ago there was a book with the witty title
"Should Trees Have Standing?" that made a semi-serious case that
ecosystems and their members should be able to enforce their rights by
law. This, of course, was deliberately eccentric, not just loony, and made
points worth listening to. For instance, in the US, and I suppose
elsewhere, a corporation is officially a Person with rights. So the author
says, "Stand in a quiet forest and listen to a tree breathing. It makes
the same sound as a corporation." Not true, of course: corporations make a
lot more noise as a rule.
>...
>Gosh Dan now you've got me on the side of the introduced species - surely
>a grreat country like the USA can find it in it's heart to take in just
>one more immigrant? ;-);-)
Say, as long as you (or the introduced fish or whoever) can do a job that
there's no American to do, you're in. It was kind of amusing a few years
ago when a local musical organization ran its obligatory ads to seek
applicants (US citizens) duly qualified by training and experience to be
musical director of an orchestra specializing in authentic performance of
18th century music, so that they could prove their good faith about really
needing the Englishman they had hired. Let's see, "Fish species wanted,
must reproduce rapidly, have no natural enemies here, eat native species
for lunch. Apply..."
>... no wonder scientists
>hide behind the concepts of the Precautionary Principle, and Duty of Care
>when asked to estimate "risks".
Tsk tsk. "Not hiding, sir, just true scientific objectivity and
intellectual honesty, and our lawyers would quit if we said anything
else."
-- Dan Drake dd at dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/index.htmlMany things are not seen in their true nature and as they really are, unless they are seen as beautiful. Behavior is not intelligible, does not account for itself to the mind, and show the reason for its existing, unless it is beautiful. --Matthew Arnold