>Again, the idea is that genetic sequences are objectively real, that is you
>can literally put your microscopic hands on them. Ecosystems are arbitrary
>in that they only exist through our definition of them. Genetic sequences
>would be there even if there were no geneticists to describe them,
>ecosystems require an ecologist's insight.

I'm sorry sb, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this.  Again I say
that genetic sequences are no more 'real' than ecosystems.  Ecosystems as we
know them are made up of various parts and infinite subtleties, and yet we
can still define them.  Same with genetic sequences.  They aren't really
there either.  They are made up of various parts and infinite subleties
(i.e. there are always [to our present knowledge] more basic parts).  I
think once one gets a broad perspective that this becomes evident.  We're
not only making up some of it, we're making up all of it.

Bryan H.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods


>
>
>>>>sb...    to quote a really smart guy...   "it's ALL relative"  (caps
>>>>mine)...     in other words, nothing has objective reality except that
>>>which
>>>>we agree has objective reality...   if ecosystems are real to us as
>>humans,
>>>>then they are as real as anything else....    i agree with the argument
>>>that
>>>>says that they have intrinsic value and that their natural evolution
>>should
>>>>be seriously considered in any GM debate....
>>>>
>>>>bryan hyden
>>>>
>>>
>>>I disagree. I've never bought this idea that objective reality is
>something
>>>unique to humans. I think that  a deer being eaten by a mountain lion is
>>>experiencing objective reality. Michael Soule and Gary Lease edited a
>book,
>>>_Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction_ about the
>>>objective reality of nature. Albeit a bit hysterical at times, I agree
>with
>>>most of their ideas.
>>>sb
>>
>>Your point about objective reality is well taken sb...  I do not argue
with
>>it.  However, I do believe that your point was outside of the argument in
>>question.  How do we determine that, say, genetic sequences are
objectively
>>real and that ecosystems are not?  That is the level at which I was saying
>>we as a race make things up arbitrarily.
>>
>
>
>Again, the idea is that genetic sequences are objectively real, that is you
>can literally put your microscopic hands on them. Ecosystems are arbitrary
>in that they only exist through our definition of them. Genetic sequences
>would be there even if there were no geneticists to describe them,
>ecosystems require an ecologist's insight.
>
>I'm pretty sure I'm right on this, but I'll admit that I've been having
this
>arguement since grad school. My advisor for my Ph.D. still thinks that I'm
>wrong, but then he's a lawyer (actually a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence, but I
like
>to accuse him of being a lawyer) and they think every thing is definitional
>and subject to change.
>sb
>
>





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%