🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Jim wrote:

> Harold Brashears wrote:
> > 
> > Jim <msteitz@xmission.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >Harold Brashears wrote:
> > >>
> 
> <personal attack clipped>
> > 
> > >> >You insist the postulation of the existence of undiscovered species is
> > >> >not only
> > >> >unjustified,
> > >>
> > >> I would be interested in where I said this.  I looked over the recent
> > >> exchange (mostly with Braun & Jim), and I believe this statement is a
> > >> misrepresentation.
> > >
> > >But in another he says:
> > 
> > >> that these individuals were very anxious for some Brazilian peasant to
> > >> cease making a living because of a hypothesized species loss based on
> > >> hypothesized species!
> > >
> > >Do you or do you not accept the existence of undiscovered species?
> > 
> > That was never the question, though it clearly concerns you.  This is
> > what I mean by a "strawman".  You raise a question not considered.
> > 
> > >Once
> > >you concede their existence, you must assign them an importance equal to
> > >that of known species in your decision-making, because the term
> > >"unknown" does not describe any inherent properties of the species, only
> > >our ignorance of it.
> > 
> > then you attribute some property to the question, so you can argue at
> > it.  If we concede importance in my mind to species unknown equal to
> > that of species know, this was not the question.
> > 
> Attribute some property to the question? I'm afraid I don't understand.
> And I still have not gotten a respone-Do you acknowledge the existence
> of unknown species? You have to make a decision, because remaining
> silent is actually a decision of "no."
> 
> > I will repeat what I argued, since I have clearly been unable to
> > communicate this.  I will try to strip it to what I see as the
> > essentials.
> > 
> > It was hypothesized that unknown species existed.  On the basis of
> > this hypothesis, it was hypothesized that they were being made
> > extinct.
> > 
> > On the basis of the hypothesis, it was determined that Brazilian
> > peasants must take drastic action to prevent the hypothesized
> > extinction.  The proposal to do this was made by someone sitting at an
> > expensive computer digesting a meal that probably would have fed a
> > Brazilian family for a week!
> > 
> > If the absurdity and elitism in that position is not apparent, I can
> > do no better.
> 
> There is nothing absurd about it, because the "hypothesis" involved has
> a 100% chance of correctness. And as for the elitist claim, an excellent
> reason for "drastic and expensive action" is to assist poor in achieving
> a permanent and sustainable living. The slash-and-burn cycle of forest
> depletion is clearly unsustainable, and is the ultimate in making a
> molehill (a few years' crops) out of a mountain (rainforest). And if the
> absurdity of not attacthing value to undiscovered species that clearly
> exist is not apparent to you, than I can do no better.

Well put. However, this matters not with Harold. 

		Dave Braun

> 
>