[Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?

[Robinwbruce at aol.com]

Is the antithesis natural/unnatural any more useful in biology than  that 
of natural/artificial; I am uncertain. I suppose there is yet  another 
antithesis - natural/supernatural - still lurking in our historical  
consciousness. Our brief for science would seem to be, or perhaps  it should be, to 
explore the totality of nature; after all in a  natural universe, the unnatural, 
the artificial and the supernatural are  just categories of ignorance and/or 
convenience. That places the search  for, and discovery of, natural 
classification (what ever that is, and it is a  lot) at the very heart of science, 
contra Rutherford and his aphorism about  science being either physics or 
stamp collecting!  It would seem that  Rutherford was actually exploring 
(among many other things) the  possibility of a natural classification of 
particles with respect to their  radioactive decay. It quacks, it swims, and it 
dabbles, therefore it must be  physics; if you say so.
 
 
Robin
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/28/2012 11:35:51 P.M. GMT Daylight Time,  
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz writes:

it is  somewhat ironic that certain religions call certain practices (e.g.  
homosexuality) "unnatural"! The obvious reply is "thank you, I am indeed a  
human, and not an animal, so I don't degrade myself by indulging  in 
beastly "natural" habits, I'm better than that!" :)


From:  Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
To:  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 7:50  PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically  endangered?

From: "Zack Murrell"  <murrellze at appstate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:21  AM
[...]

> By the way, one definition of human from the Online  Etymology Dictionary 
> is "humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite;  learned, refined, 
> civilized".  This definition doesn't seem to  fit very well with any 
> current description of Homo sapiens  Linnaeus.

***
Yes, there are (at least) two definitions of "human",  the above is the
nineteenth Century (pre-WW I) definition: "human" as  different from
"animal", by the ability to think and the use of that  ability to make 
informed decisions. Human = reasoning, cultured,  etc.

Much more common these days is the definition of "human"  as
"recognizably Homo sapiens". Human characteristics are having
two  eyes, a nose, a personality, etc. Being shouted at by your 
boss and then  going home to kick the dog is "human". Most 
"human" caracteristics are  those of the higher mammals (and birds)
and thus cats and dogs are accepted  as having many human traits.
The ability to think is as likely to be used  to rationalize actions not
based on informed decisions. In short, the human  being is not 
distinct from animals but is the standard by which to measure  
other animals. Creepy crawlies fail the "human test" and are  yeech,
while a seal pup is cute.

Obviously these two definitions are  mutually exclusive, and it
is important to keep in mind which definition is  being  used.

Paul


_______________________________________________

Taxacom  Mailing  List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The  Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of 
these  methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/

(2) a  Google search specified as:   
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms  here
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing  List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The  Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of 
these  methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a  Google search specified as:   
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms  here