[Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?

[Ken Kinman]

Hi All,      I guess I come down somewhere in between Mark and Stephen on this, because some humans still live in harmony with the ecosystem in which they live.  The goal of the "Nature Conservancy" is " to protect the natural landscapes that harbor the diversity of plant and animal life on Earth."             So I would say that a large majority of humanity (and its artifacts) no longer lives naturally, but is the antithesis of nature and decreases the diversity around it (which is what most naturalists would regard as nature).  But I guess there is continuum from completely natural to partially natural.  A shelter belt is a human construct of sorts, but can act as a refuge for diversity (compared to the surrounding cropland).  So a shelter belt is far more natural than not (far more so than a suburban lawn).  There is almost nothing natural about a lapdog that would die within days out on the street, while a feral "alley cat" can last for years on its own (thus partially reverting back to its natural state).  Many humans in the third world can still survive on what they personally raise or hunt, but how long would most city folks in the United States last without electricity and trips to the grocery store?  Thus, you won't find the Nature Conservancy buying much land in cities (which have way too much asphalt and lawns).                        -------------------Ken                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:46:27 -0700
> From: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> To: mark at mwilden.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?
> 
> That is an incredibly naive question!! :)
> Semantically, it makes no sense! The humans vs. nature distinction is just that, a distinction between humans and nature (artificial vs. natural, etc.) So it is a semantic nonsense to claim that humans are part of nature! What you really mean, though, is something different, more like "humans and nature are together parts of a unified system" (which we don't really have a good name for, except perhaps "reality"), or something like "humans and nature are intimately mutually dependent", but I think we all know that already from natural disasters and the like ...
>  
> Stephen
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com>
> To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 June 2012 2:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] when is a common species critically endangered?
> 
> This is no doubt an incredibly naive question, but how long will it
> take before humans and their artifacts are considered part of
> "nature"?
> 
> ///ark
> 
> Mark Wilden
> Web Applications Developer
> California Academy of Sciences
> 
> _______________________________________________
her 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