INTRODUCTION = ?

That´s the place to discuss on sytematics, distribution, etc.

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Berislav Horvatic » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:40 pm

Ilian Velikov wrote:... introduction by human activity whether "deliberate or accidental" is as natural as introduction by any other species (e.g. the example with amphibian spawn and birds).

I liked that very much.
Once I was in the field on the island of Krk together with Christoph Riegler from Vienna, and I termed a female snake as being "pregnant". He warned me that (for animals!) one should say "gravid" instead of "pregnant", and I asked back: "But what's the difference?!" He smiled and said: "Actually, there isn't any..." (Of course there isn't.)

But...that's just my over-active human brain thinking what some might call controversial thoughts ;)

No, no, it's quite OK, totally natural for a primate with a big brain like ours. (That could initiate an interesting
discussion in it's own right, but no, not here and now...)
Berislav Horvatic
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:35 pm
Hometown: Zagreb
country: Croatia

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Karim Chouchane » Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:15 am

Ilian Velikov wrote:What I meant by "natural" or "un-natural" is that I'd argue that introduction by human activity whether "deliberate or accidental" is as natural as introduction by any other species (e.g. the example with amphibian spawn and birds).

According to a generally accepted definition, the adjective "Natural" can be defined as referring to something which is not the result (either directly or indirectly) of human culture. A human introduction would therefore be un-natural by (this) definition. Otherwise you should also argue that species extinctions caused by human activities whether "deliberate or accidental" are as natural as other extinctions.

Do you have any documented evidences of amphibians dispersion by birds? In this case I would be very interested.
Karim Chouchane
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:04 am
Hometown: Grenoble
country: France

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Ilian Velikov » Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:27 am

Karim Chouchane wrote:According to a generally accepted definition, the adjective "Natural" can be defined as referring to something which is not the result (either directly or indirectly) of human culture.


Yes, I know what the definition is by the books, but that was not what we were talking about. Rather expressing some personal abstract thoughts and views on things which are of course absolutely subjective and a matter of opinion. But, hey, if we only kept to the definitions written by those before us and don't ask "new" questions science would not progress very much, would it? There's plenty of definitions that have been "generally accepted" but are being questioned and are starting to change (like the definition of "species" to mention one).

Karim Chouchane wrote:Otherwise you should also argue that species extinctions caused by human activities whether "deliberate or accidental" are as natural as other extinctions

Yes, I would argue that.

Berislav Horvatic wrote:Do you have any documented evidences of amphibians dispersion by birds? In this case I would be very interested.

Not exactly. This would be very hard to test and/or document. However, I'm pretty sure it happens. I know saying this goes against the scientific code of conduct of having solid proof, but I'm not trying to convince you whether it is true or not. Here's a couple of articles about crustaceans dispersal by water fowl:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10750-012-1160-7

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10452-013-9461-0

If it happens with shrimp and fish I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to happen with amphibians. Here's a discussion among scientists (unlike me) on the subject if you want to know what they think:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_scientific_proof_that_water_fowl_can_transport_fish_eggs_from_one_water_body_to_an_other
Ilian Velikov
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:19 pm
Hometown: Pravets
country: Bulgaria

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Berislav Horvatic » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:05 pm

Karim Chouchane wrote:According to a generally accepted definition, the adjective "Natural" can be defined as referring to something
which is not the result (either directly or indirectly) of human culture. A human introduction would therefore
be un-natural by (this) definition.

ANY human introduction? "Culture" is a very "slippery" notion, not only in this context. I suppose that here it
should mean "no ships, no cars, no airplanes,... in short, no gadgets produced only by humans (with their "culture")
and all other species lacking them. What about a naked Pleistocene hunter transporting something, on purpose or
not? Or a today's naked hunter in Kalahari, doing the same, for that matter? Where's the borderline?
Berislav Horvatic
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:35 pm
Hometown: Zagreb
country: Croatia

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Ilian Velikov » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:14 pm

Berislav Horvatic wrote:What about a naked Pleistocene hunter transporting something, on purpose or
not? Or a today's naked hunter in Kalahari, doing the same, for that matter? Where's the borderline?


Exactly! There is no borderline. We are as animal as any other animal on this planet, gadgets or not.
Ilian Velikov
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:19 pm
Hometown: Pravets
country: Bulgaria

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Berislav Horvatic » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:51 pm

Now, Ilian, don't be an extremist yourself. The concepts might be "slippery", the borderlines smeared-out,
but we do need them in science. All our "boxes" or "drawers" are artificial, we know that, but still have to
use them. Cum grano salis, if possible. That's the very reason for the above discussion as well.
Berislav Horvatic
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:35 pm
Hometown: Zagreb
country: Croatia

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Ilian Velikov » Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:03 pm

Sure, I'm all for science. Don't get me wrong.
Ilian Velikov
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:19 pm
Hometown: Pravets
country: Bulgaria

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Berislav Horvatic » Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:12 pm

Ilian Velikov wrote:Sure, I'm all for science. Don't get me wrong.

I didn't, not in the least. I liked your reasoning very much, it (re)opened the right questions.
Sometimes this granum salis has to be quite a big granum, but that's the cross we have to
bear, not only in science, but especially in science.
Berislav Horvatic
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:35 pm
Hometown: Zagreb
country: Croatia

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Karim Chouchane » Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:19 pm

Berislav Horvatic wrote:ANY human introduction? "Culture" is a very "slippery" notion, not only in this context. I suppose that here it should mean "no ships, no cars, no airplanes,... in short, no gadgets produced only by humans (with their "culture")

No culture is not a slippery notion at all. Here It should mean the result of any aspect of human culture.

and all other species lacking them.

No it does not implies that there are no animal cultures.

What about a naked Pleistocene hunter transporting something, on purpose or not? Or a today's naked hunter in Kalahari, doing the same, for that matter? Where's the borderline?

This is quite racist! Both the Pleistocene hunters and and the bushmen are human and have a culture!

I understand perfectly your point: human should be considered as an animal like any other so its culture should be included in "nature". BUT once you have said that, they are solid reasons to exclude the results of human culture from result of other natural phenomenon: the timescale at witch theses phenomenons occur (e.g. isolation of an island for millions of years vs extinction of its endemics in decades) and their magnitude.

Otherwise everything could be qualified as natural and this word wouldn't have any significance.

These definitions have a big importance especially for conservation biology because if an anthropologic introduction or extinction become something "natural" then you might also consider that we should just let the natural process append.
Karim Chouchane
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:04 am
Hometown: Grenoble
country: France

Re: INTRODUCTION = ?

Postby Berislav Horvatic » Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:29 pm

Karim Chouchane wrote:
What about a naked Pleistocene hunter transporting something, on purpose or not? Or a today's naked hunter in Kalahari, doing the same, for that matter? Where's the borderline?

This is quite racist! Both the Pleistocene hunters and and the bushmen are human and have a culture!

Please, don't use terms like "racist" so lightly, as well as incorrectly. Otherwise you'll soon end up with "fascist"
and alike. Young people like you are, it seems, overdosed with terminology like that, and use it ... see above.
Of course Homo sapiens in Pleistocene had some kind of culture, but that was not my point at all. Also, WHEN
did this damn "HUMAN culture" emerge for the first time? And "take it over", from "purely natural evolution"?
(BTW, I'm one of those who don't believe in "COevolution of culture and "purely natural" evolution" regarding
Homo sapiens. With this disbelief of mine I'm in quite a respectable company, though.)

I understand perfectly your point: human should be considered as an animal like any other so its culture should be included in "nature".

That's a highly controversial thesis that has been very much discussed, for more than a century at least, within some other circles of human mental activities.
I bet the admins would not allow it to be much expanded here and now...
In any case, I do not endorse it, as such, whatever "culture" might mean. But it is a "slippery" concept, I insist on that. And I avoid it whenever possible. Sorry, old school. And certainly not a postmodernist.

BUT once you have said that, they are solid reasons to exclude the results of human culture from result of other natural phenomenon: the timescale at witch theses phenomenons occur (e.g. isolation of an island for millions of years vs extinction of its endemics in decades) and their magnitude.

?! Logic? If "human should be considered as an animal like any other so its culture should be INCLUDED in "nature""
(which I didn't say), then where are "the solid reasons to EXCLUDE the results of human culture from result of other natural phenomenon & c."?! If I've understood Ilian right, he thinks there are no such solid reasons at all. Personally,
I do understand what you INTENDED to say, but...

Otherwise everything could be qualified as natural and this word wouldn't have any significance.

In my personal opinion, it does not. Which doesn't prevent me from living and doing science. Grin and bear it.
Berislav Horvatic
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:35 pm
Hometown: Zagreb
country: Croatia

PreviousNext

Return to Theoretical Section

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests