[APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough

Wed Mar 5 08:25:09 CST 2008

Hello,
    I beg to differ.
    To argue that we must harmonize with plants begs the question that we are separate from plants, i.e., not just a part of a natural order that includes us within a system. My hope is that humans realize, scientifically and ethically, that they not distinct from, but rather a part of, nature.
    This conversation begun by Craig is fascinating to me as I'm certain it is to others following it. 

Cheers,
Grace Lilly
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gena Fleming 
  To: Chang, David 
  Cc: Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company ; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:53 AM
  Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough

  Dear All:

  We absolutely must have a sense of values, of "good" and "bad".    The objectivity of science is a deeply ingrained myth.  Yes, modern day science has thrown off the shackles of religious doctrine.  But in the vacuum created by undeclared beliefs, other motives and vested interests have been happy to grab the rudder and guide the science boat through selective, directional funding of scientific research.

  This discussion is going round and round and will continue to go round until we find a way to articulate what our underlying presumptions and values are.  

  Do we really think that divesting ourselves of values is going to lead to a better world?  The path of objectivity is not to deny our value-laden beliefs:  it is to declare them openly and thereby make them open to scrutiny, discussion, and refinement. 

  Such is the basic principle underlying any philosophic discussion of integrity. 

  When premises are not up for discussion, we leave philosophy and enter theology.

  When premises are consistently claimed to be non-existent, we have  theology mixed with mental illness. 

  I do not believe the scientists in this discussion are objective.  At least I hope they're not! 

  For me,  the question is not "Which plant/organism is the enemy?"      Rather, the question is ---- how can we harmonize human interaction with plants for the sake of agriculture and other human needs with the inherent biologic resilience, integrity, wisdom and safeguards offered by wildness?

  best regards,

  Gena

  On 04/03/2008, Chang, David <dchang at co.santa-barbara.ca.us>             Bob: 

    I concede that neutral language is more scientific and objective, but did we catch you in a Freudian slip?  

    Your statement, "Although this article is not good news," contradicts your usual stance.  Are we, conservation and biodiversity freaks, getting through to you?

    A partial rebuttal to your argument below is that humans aren't the only judges of ecosystems.  

    David

    -----Original Message-----
    From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Bob Beyfuss
    Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:22 PM
    To: Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
    Subject: Re: [APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough

    Hi Craig and all,

    Replaced is the correct term.

    Destroying implies a value judgment that the invasive plants are "bad" and 

    the plants that they are replacing are "good". In science there are no 

    "good" or "bad" plants as there are no "good" or "bad" ecosystems. Nature 

    lovers may not like or may not find attractive the ecosystems that occur, 

    for example, in a vacant lot in an inner city but that does not make those 

    ecosystems "bad'. There are particular ecosystems that humans want to 

    protect for many reasons and that is fine but these are human value 

    judgements. If a scientist studying any particular ecosystem did not know 

    ahead of time that it was dominated by invasive, exotic plants, it would be 

    impossible for he or she to determine if the plants present on site were 

    native or exotic based on the biology of the plants and their 

    interactions.  Let me cite a real life example to make my point. A few 

    weeks ago a client called me looking for information on how to eradicate 

    invasive, Asiatic bittersweet that she had found on her property.  I asked 

    her if she was certain that it was the Asiatic variety and not the native 

    bittersweet. She replied that she no idea how to distinguish them. I asked 

    her if it turned out that the bittersweet on her property were the native 

    variety, would she still want to eradicate it? Her answer was "of course 

    not". Her only criteria for wanting to eradicate the plant was the 

    supposition that it was exotic. In my mind that is not a good reason to 

    eradicate anything, especaill\y when there are no guarantees that the 

    plants eradicated will not be replaced by something even less desirable. 

    When science is reduced  to name calling to provoke an emotional response, 

    it is not science.

    Bob

    At 03:13 PM 3/4/2008, Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company wrote:

    >Dear All,

    > 

    >I am very surpised to read the discussions on the semantics, of what to

    >call exotic plants and their impacts on local native ecosystems.

    > 

    >I can only speak from the California perspective, where 99% of the

    >understory of our native ecosystems between 2 and 2,000 feet elevation,

    >have been replaced by over 1,000 species of exotic plants.

    > 

    >What do you call that effect, using words that express such a complete

    >extermination of native ecosystems, within only 150 years or less?

    > 

    >Ecosystem genocide?  Permanent native vegetation extinction, continuing

    >through geologic time?

    > 

    >Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333

    > 

    > 

    >_______________________________________________

    >PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list

    >APWG at lists.plantconservation.org

    >http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org

    > 

    >Disclaimer

    >Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the 

    >opinion of the individual posting the message.

    Bob Beyfuss wrote:

    > Although this article is not good news, it is refreshing for me to see 

    > the term "altering" instead of "destroying" "devastating" and other 

    > pejorative terms.

    > 

    _______________________________________________

    PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list

    APWG at lists.plantconservation.org

    http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org

    Disclaimer                                                                

    Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message.

    _______________________________________________
    PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
    APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
    http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org

    Disclaimer
    Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message.

  -- 
  Gena Fleming, MS, LAc
  www.plantbyplant.com 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
  APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
  http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org

  Disclaimer                                                                
  Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20080305/d6e221eb/attachment.html>