>(snip)
>Dreamer wrote, in part: "Exotic blackberries seem to disrupt larger
>stabilities,
>harmonies, whatever when they come to the Pacific Northwest, and may
>therefore be subject to control programs. This need not constitutue
>unfair discrimination or differentiation, so long as the northwest
>species protected by such programs are themselves subject to similar
>control when they cause similar problems elsewhere. "
>
>Bissell here: How would you know that in advance? Anyway, the chance of
>North American grasses becoming exotic pests in Asia or Europe is so small
>as to be immeasureable. So, the rule of "equality" isn't a factor. If you
>are saying, "if" the situation arises to reciprocate, you'll do it, then
you
>can excuse almost any behavior. If a deer wants to pick up a rifle and
shoot
>me, I'll go along; therefore it's alright for me to shoot the deer?
>
>Dreamer goes on: "The original question was whether humans should be
>condoned in
>exploiting and inflicting suffering upon other species of animals for
>purely recreational purposes. That's a different kettle of fish, since
>it involves humans acting for their own benefit at the expense of other
>species. Non-native vegetation control programs attempting to benefit
>one set of non-human species at the expense of another set of non-human
>species -- presumably not just for human benefit. "
>
>Bissell again; Aren't you being unequal if you say non-human values prevail
>over human values? Aren't you saying that non-human species automatically
>should receive the benefit of differential treatment in *most*
>circumstances? Doesn't look equal to me.
>
>All species do, and should, act for their own benefit. To do otherwise is a
>direct conflict with ecological/evolutionary relationships.
>
>sb
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|