Interfering wih Evolution and Natural Selection

Deleted

, United Kingdom

May 17, 2012 @ 20:01:56

Today me and all the people I work with went to a national trust woodland area for the day. We had to clear some tree's that are a threat to the other plan life in the area. I cant remember what they were other than they had purple flowers and some had lime disease.

My question is should we be doing this. Are we interfering with natural selection. Its ok us clearing away this stuff so other tree's and plants can survive. B8t this is an unnatural interference. Shouldnt we just let nature take its own course and not interfere.

It was howeve a good day out in the countryside.

0

Elza

, Canada

#2

May 17, 2012 @ 20:11:08

@townie_guy Said

Today me and all the people I work with went to a national trust woodland area for the day. We had to clear some tree's that are a threat to the other plan life in the area. I cant remember what they were other than they had purple flowers and some had lime disease.

My question is should we be doing this. Are we interfering with natural selection. Its ok us clearing away this stuff so other tree's and plants can survive. B8t this is an unnatural interference. Shouldnt we just let nature take its own course and not interfere.

It was howeve a good day out in the countryside.

The Milk thistle...very dangerous plant and something that should certainly be cut down as its not a natural plant to most countries.

I believe any and all foreign plants brought in by humans should be stopped even if they are very pretty. We should embrace the natural environment and only allow that which nature brings in.

0

townie_guy

Deleted

, United Kingdom

#3

May 17, 2012 @ 20:13:52

where does it come from then??

0

someone_else

Not a dude.

Deleted

American Alps, Washington

#4

May 17, 2012 @ 21:00:11

@townie_guy Said

where does it come from then??

Have you never heard of an invasive species?

The very presence of the milk thistle was likely caused by man (as is usually the case when a non-native species is introduced to an area). Which is the greater infraction? Introducing it where it wasn't supposed to be in the first place? Or eradicating it because we recognize that it wasn't supposed to be there?

0

Edited: May 17, 2012 @ 21:02

townie_guy

Deleted

, United Kingdom

#5

May 17, 2012 @ 21:07:35

Yeah I know that we have introduced species we shouldnt of. And yeah I know where you are coming from. That is the reason we were chopping the stuff down. However it has spread naturally. Was just wondering thats all.

I know the Everglades in the states also have a trange variety of wildlife natural and unnatural.

0

Dark_Tink

<3 Boobie <3

, Canada

#6

May 17, 2012 @ 21:16:46

@townie_guy Said

Yeah I know that we have introduced species we shouldnt of. And yeah I know where you are coming from. That is the reason we were chopping the stuff down. However it has spread naturally. Was just wondering thats all.

I know the Everglades in the states also have a trange variety of wildlife natural and unnatural.

It may be 'spreading naturally', as plants do, but it is not there naturally. So there is nothing wrong or bad with removing it.

When a plant is 'introduced' to an area that is not originally from, it causes serious problems.

We have a plant here, the Purple Loosestrife that has become problematic. While it's very pretty, it needs to be removed from the area in which it is causing problems.

0

someone_else

Not a dude.

Deleted

American Alps, Washington

#7

May 17, 2012 @ 21:19:58

@townie_guy Said

Yeah I know that we have introduced species we shouldnt of. And yeah I know where you are coming from. That is the reason we were chopping the stuff down. However it has spread naturally. Was just wondering thats all.

I know the Everglades in the states also have a trange variety of wildlife natural and unnatural.

It spread naturally after being introduced unnaturally. Letting them remain would be like letting illegal immigrants remain in a country just because they're already there.

0

Jennifer1984

Returner and proud

Penzance, United Kingdom

#8

Jun 05, 2012 @ 04:08:08

@townie_guy Said

Today me and all the people I work with went to a national trust woodland area for the day. We had to clear some tree's that are a threat to the other plan life in the area. I cant remember what they were other than they had purple flowers and some had lime disease.

My question is should we be doing this. Are we interfering with natural selection. Its ok us clearing away this stuff so other tree's and plants can survive. B8t this is an unnatural interference. Shouldnt we just let nature take its own course and not interfere.

It was howeve a good day out in the countryside.

They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum
And they charge the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em

A good topic for discussion Townie. Thanks for raising it.

When I lived in a place called Gosport, as a student, I visited a local nature reserve called The Wildgrounds. It was an idyllic sort of place, but even to a casual observer, it was quite clear that the place was managed.

This was packaged conservation, not nature in all her glory. When I later saw one of the staff, I asked the same question that you ask above and the reply I got was that if nature were allowed to run amok, then it wouldn't be long before certain species of plant or wildlife became dominant to the detriment of others.

I was told that a carefully maintained "balance" was not only achievable but desirable so that people could go there and enjoy seeing nature at work.

Only.... it wasn't nature at work, was it..? It was man at work, producing an image of what we'd like nature to be... that we can "enjoy".

I never went back there again.

.

0

Edited: June 05, 2012 @ 04:09

syco

Deleted

Somewhere, United Kingdom

#9

Jun 05, 2012 @ 21:37:33

Before I post anything, I'd just like to say I am studying environmental studies BSc, and Allready hold NVQ's and HND's in countryside managment, environment & conservation.

When planning what work is to be done you have to find a balance between public acsess and safety, wildlife & vegitation needs and preventing certain invasive speciese from taking over.

What I mean by taking over is the sort of thing that is exemplified by Spagnum Moss, which will change an area until it can no longer be inhabited by anything other than Spagnum, this is a bad thing as the wildlife that depends on the vegitation will either die or migrate.

Sure you could say that that is naturale selection in action, yet it is in most cases human activity that have introduced the speciese, or made the area suitable for these species.

If man had never climbed down from the trees there are many species that would not be around, plants and annimals alike. As a key component of responsible land stewardship we have to try and find this balance between.

I'd also like to say that again, if we were still living in the trees, or living as the aboriginals of austrailia, the land below 400-600m would look like an open woodland glade, with grazed grass and vegitation, and browsing animals such as dear, bison and wild cattle, and large trees, mainly Oaks, Maple, Ash, Beach, Yew, Juniper and Birch in England & Wales(typical Temperate european Forest) and Scots Pine in Scotland (Part of the Great Boreal forest).

However, it maybee that the staff member in question was having a bad day and did not feel able to explain all this to you at the time.

0

townie_guy

Deleted

, United Kingdom

#10

Jun 05, 2012 @ 22:59:19

@syco Said

Before I post anything, I'd just like to say I am studying environmental studies BSc, and Allready hold NVQ's and HND's in countryside managment, environment & conservation.

When planning what work is to be done you have to find a balance between public acsess and safety, wildlife & vegitation needs and preventing certain invasive speciese from taking over.

What I mean by taking over is the sort of thing that is exemplified by Spagnum Moss, which will change an area until it can no longer be inhabited by anything other than Spagnum, this is a bad thing as the wildlife that depends on the vegitation will either die or migrate.

Sure you could say that that is naturale selection in action, yet it is in most cases human activity that have introduced the speciese, or made the area suitable for these species.

If man had never climbed down from the trees there are many species that would not be around, plants and annimals alike. As a key component of responsible land stewardship we have to try and find this balance between.

I'd also like to say that again, if we were still living in the trees, or living as the aboriginals of austrailia, the land below 400-600m would look like an open woodland glade, with grazed grass and vegitation, and browsing animals such as dear, bison and wild cattle, and large trees, mainly Oaks, Maple, Ash, Beach, Yew, Juniper and Birch in England & Wales(typical Temperate european Forest) and Scots Pine in Scotland (Part of the Great Boreal forest).

However, it maybee that the staff member in question was having a bad day and did not feel able to explain all this to you at the time.

True if we really cared, we would hand our cities, towns and villages back over to nature. And abolish all roads. And we would just live in caves like we were supposed to before we started building stuff. We as a race have never been at balance with nature.

0

syco

Deleted

Somewhere, United Kingdom

#11

Jun 05, 2012 @ 23:25:53

yeah, like we all really know, the human population is heading to danger point. If we look at rats they multiply until their supply of food/ water/ living space are all so used up it is not funny, all mamels do it, as the song says, but mostly they are kept in check by short life spans, humans and rats dont seem to have that problem.

Humans no longer have so short a life, and the humans make sure the rats have an unlimited supply of food from our rubbish, so they breed quicker than they can die.

0

townie_guy

Deleted

, United Kingdom

#12

Jun 05, 2012 @ 23:30:52

Well any natural population control that comes out, we scientifically engineer a solution. SO we are never kept in check. Thats why we have unnaturally long life spans.

0

cisslybee2012

Deleted

Bronx, New York

#13

Jun 05, 2012 @ 23:32:33

@townie_guy Said

Today me and all the people I work with went to a national trust woodland area for the day. We had to clear some tree's that are a threat to the other plan life in the area. I cant remember what they were other than they had purple flowers and some had lime disease.

My question is should we be doing this. Are we interfering with natural selection. Its ok us clearing away this stuff so other tree's and plants can survive. B8t this is an unnatural interference. Shouldnt we just let nature take its own course and not interfere.

It was howeve a good day out in the countryside.

Well humans have interfered with botanicals for over 10,000 years and counting. Plants can be spliced and bred into different styles. Nature allows selective breeding in all living organisms, including people, which is how the lighter ethnic groups derived from the black peoples of Africa, so it's not really interfering in a bad way. Nature allows this.

0

Edited: June 05, 2012 @ 23:34

townie_guy

Deleted

, United Kingdom

#14

Jun 05, 2012 @ 23:37:55

@cisslybee2012 Said

Well humans have interfered with botanicals for over 10,000 years and counting. Plants can be spliced and bred into different styles. Nature allows selective breeding in all living organisms, including people, which is how the lighter ethnic groups derived from the black peoples of Africa, so it's not really interfering in a bad way. Nature allows this.

True but people choose who they breed with. A plant dosnt choose what it is spliced with. And genetic engineering is us unnaturally meddling. Im not against genetic engineering as I do have an interest in science and it interests me. But we are playing at God.

0

cisslybee2012

Deleted

Bronx, New York

#15

Jun 05, 2012 @ 23:46:26

@townie_guy Said

True but people choose who they breed with. A plant dosnt choose what it is spliced with. And genetic engineering is us unnaturally meddling. Im not against genetic engineering as I do have an interest in science and it interests me. But we are playing at God.

Well I haven't gotten around to studying anything about it yet so I really don't know how it works to make a comment one way or the other. Only thing I do know for sure is that mixing species is allowable in nature just as long as the organism belongs to the same species.

I mean, humans can't hybrid with anything other than humans, and a tiger cannot hybrid with a giraffe. But big cats can hybrid with any other big cat. So just as long as the organism is within it's species, it's superficial features can be changed thru breeding.

0

Similar Topics
	Forum	Topic	Last Post	Replies	Views
	Jokes & Humor	One day a cat dies of natural causes and goes to heaven.	Sun Feb 05, 2012 @ 19:37	1	430
	Health & Fitness	The Best Natural Pain Remedies-They really work,I've tried them.	Sun Jul 19, 2009 @ 17:09	3	619
	Society & Lifestyles	Is the western welfare state negatively affecting natural selection?	Sat Jun 13, 2009 @ 13:14	11	1263
	Relationships	Interfering parents	Fri Jun 23, 2006 @ 10:28	19	1088
	Health & Fitness	If anyone wants to work in the Natural Health Profession	Sun Aug 26, 2007 @ 02:33	2	538

Plants & Gardening