🚀 go-pugleaf

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.