<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More good movies (and music)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.happyinwater.com/life/archives/2005/06/11/more-good-movies-and-music/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.happyinwater.com/life/archives/2005/06/11/more-good-movies-and-music/</link>
	<description>It's quieter down here</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:39:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Morace</title>
		<link>http://www.happyinwater.com/life/archives/2005/06/11/more-good-movies-and-music/comment-page-1/#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Morace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.happyinwater.com/life/archives/2005/06/11/more-good-movies-and-music/#comment-15</guid>
		<description>The May issue of Discover Magazine wrote an article on invasiveness of species (http://www.discover.com/issues/may-05/cover/) and tried to take a more objective stance to the situation than is usually done these days in biology and ecology.  They were deluged with mail by people furious that the author would propose that they &quot;love&quot; alien species of that the real crime is against &quot;self-serving ideas of what nature is supposed to be.&quot;  To my delight, Discover shot back with a &quot;letter from Discover&quot; in the July issue (http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-05/departments/letter-from-discover/).  It is quite an enjoyable read and concludes with:  &quot;In teh end, what seems to have most offended readers was the mere asking of the question: Are invasive species really bad?  The editors of Discover believes it is a valid one, deserving to be asked aloud even by people who know where they stand.&quot;  I love it.

After strugglign with this issue personally during my training as a biologist I have simply come to accept that people seem to have the unique ability to abstractly shift their perspective from a variety of levels.  The person, the family, the school, the employer, the nation state, etc.  Each of these collectives have interests that need to be protected just like an individual.  From the biologist/ecologists/environmentalists I&#039;ve met who are very against invasive species I&#039;ve come to believe it is because they fall in a love with an eco system and begin to see things from its perspective.  They fight against its failing the same way a startup would throw itself against the sure fate of shutting down due to lack of funding.  They choose not to take a larger step back and look at the global system of life and evaluate judgments from the perspective.

This is no more strange to me, however, than people who take their children to see deer in the park and then wage a 365 day/year war against them in their yard with everything from poisons to weapons.  Humans seem to want things to be a certain way, and they seem willing to put in the energy to try and make things conform to their vision.  I&#039;ll end by recommending the book, _The Botony of Desire_ by Michael Pollan.  It is an excellent book and in what part discusses Apollonean vs. Dionysian concepts of beauty.  The former being man&#039;s desire to groom nature into his own perfect vision of what it should be, and the latter being the love of it for what it is in its &quot;natural&quot; state.  (Trust me, it is more interesting than I make it sound!) :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The May issue of Discover Magazine wrote an article on invasiveness of species (<a href="http://www.discover.com/issues/may-05/cover/" rel="nofollow">http://www.discover.com/issues/may-05/cover/</a>) and tried to take a more objective stance to the situation than is usually done these days in biology and ecology.  They were deluged with mail by people furious that the author would propose that they &#8220;love&#8221; alien species of that the real crime is against &#8220;self-serving ideas of what nature is supposed to be.&#8221;  To my delight, Discover shot back with a &#8220;letter from Discover&#8221; in the July issue (<a href="http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-05/departments/letter-from-discover/" rel="nofollow">http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-05/departments/letter-from-discover/</a>).  It is quite an enjoyable read and concludes with:  &#8220;In teh end, what seems to have most offended readers was the mere asking of the question: Are invasive species really bad?  The editors of Discover believes it is a valid one, deserving to be asked aloud even by people who know where they stand.&#8221;  I love it.</p>
<p>After strugglign with this issue personally during my training as a biologist I have simply come to accept that people seem to have the unique ability to abstractly shift their perspective from a variety of levels.  The person, the family, the school, the employer, the nation state, etc.  Each of these collectives have interests that need to be protected just like an individual.  From the biologist/ecologists/environmentalists I&#8217;ve met who are very against invasive species I&#8217;ve come to believe it is because they fall in a love with an eco system and begin to see things from its perspective.  They fight against its failing the same way a startup would throw itself against the sure fate of shutting down due to lack of funding.  They choose not to take a larger step back and look at the global system of life and evaluate judgments from the perspective.</p>
<p>This is no more strange to me, however, than people who take their children to see deer in the park and then wage a 365 day/year war against them in their yard with everything from poisons to weapons.  Humans seem to want things to be a certain way, and they seem willing to put in the energy to try and make things conform to their vision.  I&#8217;ll end by recommending the book, _The Botony of Desire_ by Michael Pollan.  It is an excellent book and in what part discusses Apollonean vs. Dionysian concepts of beauty.  The former being man&#8217;s desire to groom nature into his own perfect vision of what it should be, and the latter being the love of it for what it is in its &#8220;natural&#8221; state.  (Trust me, it is more interesting than I make it sound!) :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

