Graybill vs gray bill
Pre-note: The title is stretchy.... there are lots of endangered birds described as having gray bills, but none actually named the Graybilled Snipplesnorter or whatever. I still couldn't resist the rhyme.

Uncommon Descent has been focusing productively on the definition of "species" as a preserver of Darwinian nonsense. Even Darwin wasn't sure of the concept; he wrote his big book in an attempt to clarify it, but didn't succeed. Since then, every new layer of knowledge makes it harder to draw the lines that Darwin proposed.

UD asks:

So what, exactly, is the value of the concept of “speciation” anyway, apart from appeasing US school boards and Euro science boffins? None of this would matter much if all that was at stake was tenure somewhere for an academic non-entity who is more likely to be a victim of than a promoter of the current campus war on the intellectual life.

But what about preserving biodiversity and, explicitly for example, endangered primate groups like orangutans?

Clearly we need to distinguish types of animals and plants for all sorts of purposes. Most importantly we need to know which plants are poisonous and which animals are dangerous. Next, farmers and ranchers need to know which breeds or varieties are likely to flourish in various conditions, and which types are weeds or invaders that need to be removed.

Those crucial lifesaving distinctions usually fall below the current methods of defining species. Danger and poison and hardiness vs weediness break along lines of variety or breed at least as often as they change with species. (eg dogs and wolves are both Canis lupus.)

Biodiversity is a COMPLETELY HARMFUL goal. There's no evidence that keeping one subgroup alive in one location benefits anyone. The "legal" measures we take to keep a privileged group alive ALWAYS do harm to EVERY animal and plant in the area. "Endangered" "species" "laws" have exploded forest fires. Even without total destruction, REAL DARWIN says that a rare group is dying out because it's not adapting. Keeping it alive prevents better adapted groups from moving into the area and HALTS REAL EVOLUTION.

If we could eliminate the whole biodiversity paradigm, we could return to the older practice of controlling hunting and fishing and poaching.

= = = = =

Poaching is where Graybill's Law enters the picture. Why are poachers common in African countries? Because the governments of those countries have fallen into the Graybill trap. Colonial masters want each country to have EXACTLY ONE RESOURCE or ONE SKILL, so we can control price and production totally. We don't want slave countries to have a wide range of production and commerce. Result: Normal farmers and ranchers can't trade through legal channels. Result: Illegal farmers and ranchers flourish.

The global treaties on biodiversity multiply the effect by stiffening the illegality of illegal ranching, which makes it even more valuable and more common.

Globalists want to FORCE diversity in the non-human part of nature. Globalists want to FORCE monocultures in the human part. Both forcings are wrong. In all parts of nature the best approach is to let natural feedback take care of things most of the time, stepping in only to damp down monopolistic actions. A fishing fleet shouldn't be able to kill all the fish in the Amazon, and Amazon shouldn't be able to kill all the companies in the world.

Labels: skill-estate

  ¶ 8:47 AM