IP: Re: Re: Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: "Larry Andrew" <LLAndrew () powersurge net>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Subject: Re: Re:  Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:02:57 -0500
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>
> Dave,
> I forwarded the "Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?" message to a few
> friends, one of whom responded with the following thoughts.
> Larry Andrew
> ============================
> (snip)
>
> [the author] is on to something potentially vitally important both
> ecologically and economically.  Examples of well-meaning goofs that brought
> disaster are as follows:
>
> 1.  In 1904, Chinese chestnut trees were imported into New York City.  A
> fungus living in the bark of the trees destroyed nearly to extinction the
> single most valuable tree species of North America - the much mourned
> American Chestnut.  They grew fast like pine, but the wood was strong,
> light,
> and rot resistant.  In mature forests, chestnuts were often 1/4 of the total
> tree count.  Now, only dead stumps and a few sprouts remain.  Old folks cry
> when they are reminded of the event.
>
> 2.  English settlers brought their "beloved" pet birds over to the new world
> - English sparrows and starlings.  These two dirty, raucous species kicked
> the lovely and docile bluebird from 99% of its natural habitat.  Bluebirds
> now live almost exclusively in man made houses which must be guarded to keep
> the English sparrows away.
>
> 3.  Goldfish were imported for obvious reasons -- hence the infamous carp
> invaded our waters.
>
> They ought to leave well enough alone, or at least be verrrrrry careful.
>
> (remainder snipped)
> =================
> Lawrence L. Andrew
> 211 East 12th Street
> Sumner, IA  50674
>
> LLAndrew () powersurge net
> ==================================================
> ----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
> To: ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com <ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com>
> Date: Thursday, June 24, 1999 9:43 PM
> Subject: IP: Re: Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?
>
>
> > > X-Sender: sb () popmail gbn org
> > > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:20:44 -0800
> > > To: farber () cis upenn edu, ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com
> > > From: Stewart Brand <sb () gbn org>
> > > Subject: Re: IP: Who needs Monarch Butterflies anyway?
> > >
> > > Sigh.  Rifkin is, as usual, largely wrong and greatly overstated.
> Remember
> > > the Recombinant DNA panic of the 1970s?  Same issues, same alarm, same
> > > rumors.  No actual harm occurred apart from the panic.
> > > "Genetically-modified!" scares some people the same way "Internet!" scares
> > > other people.  (Lefties are knee-jerking at the corporate angle of
> > > genetically modified, while Righties knee-jerk at the out-of-control angle
> > > of the Internet.  Both developments are mainly great good news for
> > > civilization.)
> > >
> > > I was trained as a ecologist back when it was a science only.  I do
> > > encourage caution and controls and the like, but emphatically not
> freakouts
> > > and bans.  The biologists I know these days are rolling their eyes at the
> > > Rifkinesque alarm in Europe.  Check the current cover story in The
> > > Economist.
> > >
> > > By the way, Monarch butterflies are famously adaptive.  Their caterpillars
> > > are the only insect that can metabolize the ferocious natural insecticide
> > > in milkweed.  They keep that poison in their tissues to gag birds who try
> > > to eat them.  That's why Monarchs are bright orange and fly slow, to
> > > advertise how poisonous they are.