# The Eden Exercise



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Imagine you came over for a tour of my garden here in Southern California. How much value would you derive if all I had was lawn everywhere? Not much...right? Would you derive more value if there were a few palms? What if there were some epiphytes growing on the palms? How much more value would you derive if there were some chameleons crawling among the epiphytes growing on my palms? 

What variety of plants and animals would my garden have to have in order for you to derive the maximum possible value? 

Would you want to see Dendrophylax lindenii? You'd be out of luck because it can't grow outside here. However Dendrophylax funalis can grow outside here pretty decently. So should we hybridize/select towards your Eden? 

My garden is several organisms away from my Eden. For example, it doesn't have any Chameleons. Can it have Chameleons...should it have Chameleons? Do you want there to be a Chameleon that can thrive in my garden? If so, would you only want to see just one variety of Chameleon thriving in my garden? Why not two varieties? 

One of my orchid books describes a certain epiphytic species as being able to thrive where few other orchids can survive. How many epiphytic orchids should be able to thrive where few others can survive? How many epiphytic lizards should be able to thrive where few others can survive? 

Right now I'm trying to hybridize/select for epiphytic orchids that can thrive in colder/drier climates. That way...if I visit your garden...no matter where it is...it can be that much closer to my Eden. 

But if this strategy makes sense for epiphytic orchids...wouldn't it also make sense for epiphytic lizards? 

The future is unknown...nobody has a crystal ball. If we want to ensure that the future has the maximum variety of orchids and chameleons...it would behoove us to try and create the maximum variety of orchids and chameleons today. Doing so will hedge our bets.... so no matter if the future is colder/warmer/wetter/drier... we'll have combinations that are as close as possible to those conditions. 

Deng Xiaoping often said that he didn't care if a cat was black or white...what mattered was whether it caught mice. Would you care if a leafless orchid blooming on my tree wasn't exactly the same combination of inputs as the Ghost Orchid in the Florida swamps? Wouldn't you derive the same amount of value if it was superficially similar but more drought/temperature tolerant? Wouldn't you be less nervous knowing that these traits/characteristics/inputs weren't all in one basket? 

It wouldn't be Dendrophylax lindenii...it wouldn't be the same species...but it would be a closely related superficially similar orchid thriving on a tree in Southern California. Whatever we called it...Dendrophylax SoCal, or Bob, or 424343429335235544332...it would have the certain combination of traits which made it well suited for this habitat. And having this orchid thriving here in Southern California would increase the chances that these traits are going to make the future that much more valuable and interesting. More like Avatar and less like Bladerunner. 

So maybe think less about "species" and more about increasing the variety of awesome organisms suitable for different habitats. 

Speaking of which...the flask I purchased on ebay of Psychilis macconnelliae x Myrmecophilia thompsoniana arrived today. Each seedling in the flask is unique...each one is a different combination of inputs. It doesn't really matter to me what they are called...what matters is how well suited they are to my conditions. Does it mean anything that this cross hasn't already happened in nature? Nope, not a thing. There's always room for improvement.


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

This would be your Eden and not necessarily someone elses, as property values are not judged by the garden/yard no matter whats planted in it, however it does make a difference in the sale.. Having said that, We all strive to make our own world what we want in it, and makes each of us happy as an individual.. The world is what WE make of it.. 

There are those who make unbelieveable vivariums that look absolutley stunning, and others who prefer a much more simple set up, so I ask is the one worth more than the other to the inhabitant? If planting those wonderful things makes YOU happy, then you should by all means do it without hesitation, and people like me will admire it having the knowledge to appreciate the Eden you've created, whilst others will look with different eyes and just see some flowers, and nothing more.. 

Passions are individual, but I admire your Zeal and vision... Please post pictures of Eden from your prespective so that I can applaud and fully appreciate the fruits of your imagination..


----------



## bsr8129 (Sep 23, 2010)

what did i walk into here


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Given the potential moral/ethical implications you may find these threads interesting...

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/be...nic-pets-plants-glowing-frogs-especially.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/plants/154681-you-dave.html


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

bsr8129 said:


> what did i walk into here


I ask myself that every time I log in.


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

bsr8129 said:


> what did i walk into here


I wondering if epiphyte knows what he's walking into! 

Be ready for some heavy criticism.

John


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

Sirjohn said:


> This would be your Eden and not necessarily someone elses, as property values are not judged by the garden/yard no matter whats planted in it, however it does make a difference in the sale.. Having said that, We all strive to make our own world what we want in it, and makes each of us happy as an individual.. The world is what WE make of it..
> .


 He is not trying to promote his or anyone else's idea of a perfect eden but I think the point he is trying to make is, should we be hybridizing plants and animals in order for them to be able to thrive in habitats and climates that they were not able to before.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

*GREASER* said:


> He is not trying to promote his or anyone else's idea of a perfect eden but I think the point he is trying to make is, should we be hybridizing plants and animals in order for them to be able to thrive in habitats and climates that they were not able to before.


Right, but his explanation was much more fun to read.


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

*GREASER* said:


> He is not trying to promote his or anyone else's idea of a perfect eden but I think the point he is trying to make is, should we be hybridizing plants and animals in order for them to be able to thrive in habitats and climates that they were not able to before.


I was also making light of his comment, as I liked what he wrote.. We have been hybridizing animals and plants for years to change them to adjust to climates and situations different than what they're used to.. The list is long with both animals and plants.. There was another thread on here about genetics which touched on this a few days ago.. I have liked and admired many people on here quietly for quite some time, some more passionate than others... Its all good...

I think of all the Rose hybrids, or for example or dogs... Again, all in good fun, and for the record, I thought that the original comment was well written and thought out..


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Ornamental plants I have no problem hybridizing. The culture surrounding horticulture and plant hybridization is already very strong, and you can asexually keep species orchids alive and dividing for decades. 


I am NOT ok with the idea that you want to hybridize chameleons for drought tolerance to release into your yard. Southern California doesnt need any more invasive species. Plenty of Jacksons chameleons and anoles already around here.


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

frogparty said:


> Ornamental plants I have no problem hybridizing. The culture surrounding horticulture and plant hybridization is already very strong, and you can asexually keep species orchids alive and dividing for decades.
> 
> 
> I am NOT ok with the idea that you want to hybridize chameleons for drought tolerance to release into your yard. Southern California doesnt need any more invasive species. Plenty of Jacksons chameleons and anoles already around here.


I totally agree Jason. I have little problem with culturing hybrid plants, although I still have a greater appreciation for the "wild type" varieties. Animal hybridizing on the other hand, I have a BIG problem with. Why keep something unnatural when there is an alternative thats just as cool without the help of humans?

Jason, I haven't heard of Jacksons being in SoCal before! Very interesting, even if sad.

John


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

frogparty said:


> Ornamental plants I have no problem hybridizing. The culture surrounding horticulture and plant hybridization is already very strong, and you can asexually keep species orchids alive and dividing for decades.
> 
> 
> I am NOT ok with the idea that you want to hybridize chameleons for drought tolerance to release into your yard. Southern California doesnt need any more invasive species. Plenty of Jacksons chameleons and anoles already around here.





FroggyKnight said:


> I totally agree Jason. I have little problem with culturing hybrid plants, although I still have a greater appreciation for the "wild type" varieties. Animal hybridizing on the other hand, I have a BIG problem with. Why keep something unnatural when there is an alternative thats just as cool without the help of humans?
> 
> Jason, I haven't heard of Jacksons being in SoCal before! Very interesting, even if sad.
> 
> John


This is basically where I'm at also... The plant hobby has already embraced hybrids; plus the scope of that hobby both in number of people and number of species is huge compared to ours. Much harder to police then ours... and for that hobby the ship already sailed a long time ago. 

Also it should be noted:
Hybridization and selection pressures on species of both plants and animals to adapt to certain conditions is tricky when those things are going to be outside... At that point you risk not only introducing an invasive species, but possibly creating one! 


But we do create our own edens, and we'll have more and more power to do so. Glo fish, GFP axolotl, bioluminescent plants, technology in general (etc..etc...). 

I hope we get to have our cake and eat it too... but we're going to have to be very careful, and we'll likely suffer some missteps along the way. 

The future is here.


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

frogparty said:


> I am NOT ok with the idea that you want to hybridize chameleons for drought tolerance to release into your yard. Southern California doesnt need any more invasive species. Plenty of Jacksons chameleons and anoles already around here.


It's entirely possible that I'm wrong. It sure wouldn't be the first time and I doubt it will be the last. 

Where do you draw the line though? And how do you justify exactly where you drew it?

Let's imagine that you went back into time when Hawaii was created. And you are immortal and all powerful. Hmmm...I guess God. You could snap your fingers at anytime and an invisible force field would prevent any additional organisms from invading Hawaii. When would you snap your fingers? 

Would you snap your fingers now? Hopefully not...Hawaii only has three species of orchids...and none of them are epiphytes. How many epiphytic orchids around the world are trying to aim their pods in Hawaii's direction? It's like the biggest and longest game of darts...millions and millions of orchids over millions of years trying to hit the bulls-eye. It's such a relatively small target though. And the orchids are entirely at the mercy of the wind. The only reason that so many ferns are there is because they got a head start. Plus, they don't depend on sexual reproduction like most orchids do.

Hawaii's somehow "best" when the wind is in charge of determining which species are introduced? What's so special about the wind? 

Now let's imagine that you were Noah's wife. You see God (no longer you) tell your husband that he's going to destroy the world with a flood. God hands Noah a blank check and tells him that the animals are on their way. 

Noah's like, "I'm going to build a big boat and put all the animals on it!" What do you say? "That's nice dear"? Personally, if I was Noah's wife I would have told him to hedge his bets by building several boats..."Maybe you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket dear". Of course we're also assuming that God isn't going to protect the boats from sinking. This seems like a reasonable assumption given that he didn't protect the Dodo and a few others from extinction.

If you have any evidence that the current allocation of plants and animals is perfect...then please share it. From my perspective...there are too many eggs in too few baskets. And there are too many baskets that could have a far greater variety of eggs in them. California is one such basket. 

Of course there's plenty evidence that invasive species have caused problems. But you can't say that the introduction of a foreign organism will always be detrimental. Otherwise you're snapping your fingers at the beginning of Hawaii and snapping your fingers at Noah telling him that he better not let anybody off the boat. Well...I guess if you did the first the second wouldn't be necessary. Assuming of course that Hawaii was created after the Flood.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

epiphyte said:


> It's entirely possible that I'm wrong. It sure wouldn't be the first time and I doubt it will be the last.
> 
> Where do you draw the line though? And how do you justify exactly where you drew it?
> 
> ...


I think when deciding how or even if we should wield our power it often kinda boils down to the rate of change in a natural way vs that from human intervention. When species of plants and animals spread they initially do it in small numbers, and do it relatively slowly in most cases, oh and it is only happening with a few at any given time usually. Where when humans are involved we dump a bunch of new plant and animal species in what is often a small area, with more of them faster then what might ever get there in nature, and chances are we are or have introduced a lot of new species in just a few years or decades... Decades is a very short period of time as far as nature is concerned.* 1 new lizard species and 1 new plant species every 1000 years may not be a big deal to an ecosystem, but 10 in 100 years? ...hmm that might be trouble.*

Also effectively taking control of a species evolution to make it suit a particular ecosystem just because we like it, or even for a better reason is potentially very problematic for that ecosystem. If there isn't room for that species to slip in there without having a major impact on a bunch of other species and we don't have some way to manage that we could be in trouble... or at least some other species may be in trouble. 

Add the speed at which we operate vs nature (though we are not separate from nature in reality), and the fact that multiple invasive or at least foreign species are being added by us in a short time frame + whatever species that is happening for without human intervention and you are putting a heavy burden on an ecosystem to adapt. 

So we do a lot, we do it consecutively and we do it very fast, so that gives the ecosystem little time to adapt (+ whatever nature is doing on its own), and that potentially puts everything in danger... even us. 

In the end short of rendering an ecosystem completely unable to sustain life, nature will eventually adapt and create and fill niches as needed given time, but even if life continues in the long term, the short term may see massive extinction events, entire food chains/webs disrupted or collapse, might even end up effecting geological and meteorological aspects of the ecosystem and in the end we are not seperate from the ecosystems we are in or around, so *if the $#!+ hits the fan it will likely effect us to.*

*So probably best to proceed slowly and carefully, and generally stay out of nature's way as much as we can till we get pretty good at using the power we have* unless it looks like we must absolutely intervene, but of course us being us, we have already had a detrimental impact and we will do stuff in an attempt to correct that (and maybe we should in many cases, or maybe not) and we will do other stuff to just make things "better" (maybe less of a good idea)... and often it will probably work, sometimes it will be a disaster for us and/or the ecosystem, and well who knows... *In us nature has created an extremely powerful agent of change. It remains to be seen if nature screwed up giving us this kinda power *

The next couple of hundred years seem like they may be where we determine whether or not our species is going to last... We live in interesting times


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

FroggyKnight said:


> I totally agree Jason. I have little problem with culturing hybrid plants, although I still have a greater appreciation for the "wild type" varieties.


I used to have a greater appreciation for species orchids...a FAR greater appreciation. I was a hard core species snob. 

But imagine I created a Dendrophylax hybrid that could naturalize here in Southern California. What's the difference? The hybrid would be an organism that survives in the wild. Why would it be inferior in any way? Wouldn't it be superior for its ability to thrive in a harsher environment? 

How many orchid hybrids wouldn't be able to survive in the wild though? How many of them are "pansies"? If an orchid is a pansy then I would still have some snobbery for it. But the only way to know if an orchid is a pansy is to subject it to a "reasonable" amount of nature (every orchid would be a pansy in the North Pole). 



FroggyKnight said:


> Why keep something unnatural when there is an alternative thats just as cool without the help of humans?


Here are some of the crosses that I've seen my Hummingbird try to create...

Bougainvillea x Geranium
Kalanchoe x Nematanthus
Echeveria x Aeschynanthus

Well...of course none of those would be here if it wasn't for humans. But the point is to illustrate the randomness of things that are created by nature. 

One species of lizard gets swept away in a flood right into the territory of another species of lizard. They mate and create a hybrid...which is fitter than both species. Now you've got a new species. It's somehow "cooler" because it was created by a flood rather than by humans? 



FroggyKnight said:


> Jason, I haven't heard of Jacksons being in SoCal before! Very interesting, even if sad.
> 
> John


Either he means that you can purchase plenty of Jacksons in Southern California or he means that they have naturalized in SoCal. I really don't think he means that they have naturalized here. If they have naturalized here I'd be interested to know exactly where it has occurred. 

If they haven't already naturalized here then I'd very much enjoy hearing an argument for why they shouldn't. 

What has definitely naturalized here are parrots...California Parrots. It makes me sad when they wake me up at the butt crack of dawn squawking right outside my window devouring all my figs. Naw, it doesn't make me sad. I don't think I'll ever get tired of seeing them. Are they beneficial though? From my perspective we're better off because it helps hedge our bets.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Yes.... There are specific areas.... LaJolla especially, where Jackson's chameleons have naturalized


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

I might need to make a trip back to my home state soon! Times are a changin'

How have the native species been affected by the introduced species? I would imagine that they have had a negative influence, if only a small one at this point.

John


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Dendro Dave...nice effort...but I'm just not seeing it. When I was stationed in Panama so many years ago...I remember being in the "prone" position behind some tree in the jungle. I counted 8 different types of ants crawling on me at the same time. Heh, each time I tell that story the number of ants increases. Maybe in reality there was only one type of ant...and it wasn't even on me. 

I think we might both agree that tropical forests are vanishing at an alarming rate. So we're losing biodiversity. Yet, we disagree that biodiversity losses in some areas should be offset by biodiversity gains in other areas. 

Here in Southern California...I have one tree with an incredible amount of biodiversity. Here's a photo of one section...


Sinningia cardinalis and Hoya serpens by epiphyte78, on Flickr

There's no other tree in Southern California that has more diversity. And I'd certainly love to be proved wrong. 

Should my tree be the exception? Or should it be the rule? If it should be a rule...should it only apply to trees in people's yards? 

If this degree of biodiversity is valuable in terms of plants...then why wouldn't it also be valuable in terms of animals? Why should there only be one species of ant on my tree? Is that really the optimal amount of animal biodiversity? Any more than that and the tree will explode? 

I imagine the Titanic sinking...there's throngs of people drowning...and you've got a large nearly empty boat right next to it. "Sorry, yes, we do have plenty of room...but we wouldn't want to upset the passengers we already have." Because one of your preexisting passengers is somehow worth 1000 people drowning in the ocean? 

If something is so rare...then don't protect it by trying to keep it one basket. Protect it by disseminating it far and wide. 

Check out this photo of an Aloe growing in its native habitat. If you like Aloes then maybe the photo might be kinda interesting. But if you zoom in you'll see a miniature Angraecum growing directly on the Aloe. How cool is that? Doesn't the epiphyte add value? 

How should the Angraecum be protected? I don't think preventing it from invading other suitable areas would be a good way of protecting it. In fact, I think that's the most harmful thing you could do. It's especially harmful because at first glance it might seem helpful. 

The best way to protect that miniature orchid would be to facilitate its invasion into other suitable habitats. Seeing it on Aloes shouldn't be the exception...it should be the rule. Just like seeing tree Aloes in the California wilderness should be the rule rather than the exception. 

But maybe I'm just getting carried away. I stuck a bunch of plants on my tree and now I want to stick a bunch of plants and animals everywhere. I'm like Christopher Walken in the SNL sketch..."more cowbell!". I just can't imagine visiting somebody's garden and saying, "woah, you went overboard with the biodiversity. This cloud of morpho butterflies is preventing me from seeing anything else." Even in the heart of the Panamanian jungle I was lucky to see a morpho butterfly. Same thing with orchids. 

We have enough varieties of butterflies and orchids here in Southern California? That can't be true. It sure doesn't sound true.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> How should the Angraecum be protected? I don't think preventing it from invading other suitable areas would be a good way of protecting it. In fact, I think that's the most harmful thing you could do. It's especially harmful because at first glance it might seem helpful.
> 
> The best way to protect that miniature orchid would be to facilitate its invasion into other suitable habitats. Seeing it on Aloes shouldn't be the exception...it should be the rule. Just like seeing tree Aloes in the California wilderness should be the rule rather than the exception.
> 
> ...


Sorry Epiphyte, I really don't see where you are going with this.

If you are so dissatisfied with the native flora and fauna around here, why not move to some place that naturally better suits your tastes?

You also keep using the term "invasion" in a positive light. How is a non-native, hybridized plant invading a local ecosystem a good thing?


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

> The best way to protect that miniature orchid would be to facilitate its invasion into other suitable habitats. Seeing it on Aloes shouldn't be the exception...it should be the rule. Just like seeing tree Aloes in the California wilderness should be the rule rather than the exception.


The problem with this thinking is that those plants would be displacing native vegetation. They would be using water and nutrients, hell, just a space in the sun that should be used by native flora. I'm sorry, but as someone who is constantly battling invasive species, and having to, on an every day basis, educate people on the importance of going native, I simply cannot get behind your argument. Sure, my yard has a lot of non-native plants in it, but the vast majority are from a 500 mile radius from here, and the exotic stuff is carefully selected as to minimize invasive potential.


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Dane said:


> Sorry Epiphyte, I really don't see where you are going with this.
> 
> If you are so dissatisfied with the native flora and fauna around here, why not move to some place that naturally better suits your tastes?


The logic is not to keep all your eggs in one basket. This way a local extinction will not be a total extinction. For example, right now Sobennikoffia is only in Madagascar. The more habitats outside Madagascar it is introduced to...the greater the chances of its survival. 

Think about the Dodo. If it had been introduced to other locations...then there's a greater chance that it would be extant. 

Of course the more common something is...the less need there is to introduce it to other locations. 



Dane said:


> You also keep using the term "invasion" in a positive light. How is a non-native, hybridized plant invading a local ecosystem a good thing?


It's a good thing if it increases the biodiversity and it's a bad thing if it decreases the biodiversity. But plants are always invading new territories...epiphytes are prime examples...so are cactus. If it was the case that plants and animals invading new territories was generally a bad thing...then the trend would be a decrease in diversity. 

Creating a hybrid epiphyte that could naturalize in Southern California would certainly be a good thing because it would increase our diversity. Plus, it would be a facilitation cascade. 

Clearly there aren't very many epiphytes in Southern California. But even in Panama there was plenty of room for introduced epiphytes. There were way way way too many trees without any epiphytes on them. 

With tropical forests vanishing...it's essential that we maximize the biodiversity of the remaining forests. If we get less bang for our buck from location A...it's necessary that we get more bang for our buck from location B. If a tree is cut down in one area...it's necessary that a tree be planted in another area. If a tree is cut down in one area...then epiphytes should be attached to a tree in another area. This isn't just important for biodiversity...and hedging bets...and facilitation cascades...it's also important for carbon sequestration. If Brazil is sequestering less and less carbon...then other countries need to sequester more and more carbon. This can be accomplished with the introduction of foreign and rare epiphytes.


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

epiphytes etc. said:


> The problem with this thinking is that those plants would be displacing native vegetation. They would be using water and nutrients, hell, just a space in the sun that should be used by native flora. I'm sorry, but as someone who is constantly battling invasive species, and having to, on an every day basis, educate people on the importance of going native, I simply cannot get behind your argument. Sure, my yard has a lot of non-native plants in it, but the vast majority are from a 500 mile radius from here, and the exotic stuff is carefully selected as to minimize invasive potential.


If a foreign plant or animal decreases biodiversity...then I would certainly be against its introduction. Like I said though, it can't be the rule that an introduced organism will decrease biodiversity. Otherwise we'd see a decrease in biodiversity every time a bird, collecting material for its nest, carried some strands of Spanish Moss into new territory. Same thing when the wind carries Pleopeltis polypodioides and Epidendrum conopseum into new territories...The Race to Canada.

We should help more epiphytes reach Canada sooner rather than later. This can be accomplished by hybridizing and by the introduction of more participants. It certainly can't be the case that they are all going to want to occupy the same exact location on a tree. Otherwise that Angraecum wouldn't be the only epiphyte on that Aloe. If you've run across other photos of epiphytes growing on Aloes...then please feel free to share them.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> The logic is not to keep all your eggs in one basket. This way a local extinction will not be a total extinction. For example, right now Sobennikoffia is only in Madagascar. The more habitats outside Madagascar it is introduced to...the greater the chances of its survival.
> 
> Think about the Dodo. If it had been introduced to other locations...then there's a greater chance that it would be extant.
> 
> ...


Yeah, guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. We are on totally different pages on this issue. 
You don't seem to appreciate the impact that invasive species can have, even with the best intentions. Please don't start hybridizing and attempting to introduce species to established environments.


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Dane said:


> Yeah, guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. We are on totally different pages on this issue.
> You don't seem to appreciate the impact that invasive species can have, even with the best intentions. Please don't start hybridizing and attempting to introduce species to established environments.


Unless I'm presented with convincing arguments and evidence...then I will continue hybridizing to create a wider variety of epiphytes that can thrive where few other plants can survive. And I'll encourage others to do the same. Of course you're welcome to try and persuade others that doing so is a mistake. Free discussion is pretty wonderful like that. 



> But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. - J.S. Mill, On Liberty


The way I see it is that the bus has one passenger...but you're trying to convince me that all the seats are taken...all the niches are filled...every microhabitat is occupied...there's absolutely no room for improvement. But there's always room for improvement...even if you don't see where that room is.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

epiphyte said:


> Dendro Dave...nice effort...but I'm just not seeing it. When I was stationed in Panama so many years ago...I remember being in the "prone" position behind some tree in the jungle. I counted 8 different types of ants crawling on me at the same time. Heh, each time I tell that story the number of ants increases. Maybe in reality there was only one type of ant...and it wasn't even on me.
> 
> I think we might both agree that tropical forests are vanishing at an alarming rate. So we're losing biodiversity. Yet, we disagree that biodiversity losses in some areas should be offset by biodiversity gains in other areas.
> 
> ...


Epiphytes etc. is right... You're underestimating the complexity of the issue. It's rare if not impossible to add a plant without taking away something from another plant and/or animal. Same goes for adding an animal to an ecosystem. Chances are that is going to effect many other plants and animals in some way. And don't forget bacteria, fungi and viruses... Those things exist in, on, and around other plants and animals and may have a negative impact on native flora and fauna if introduced.

For example let's say you find an orchid from over seas you like and that might survive where you live, so you import a bunch of them and they come in with some orchid disease or are harboring a bacteria, virus, or fungi that will kill other plants or animals... Now you've exposed all those native plants and animals to not only this new plant, but to all the new germs and stuff associated with this plant. Maybe they kill your favorite native plants, or kill the pollenator of some of your favorite native plants... Now was introducing that cool new plant worth it?

Viruses may mutate, bacteria adapt, fungi do whatever fungi do... and all of a sudden the eco system around your house is thrown into turmoil. Now multiply what you did x a bunch of other people doing it all over the world, and you've thrown the global environment into chaos.... Who lives on this earth? ...We do, and you've just thrown it into chaos. Crops start dying, animals start dying, weather patterns change, geological events like massive erosion due to lack of plant roots start happening, and in the end people will be effect. 

That's a worst case scenario, but things like that are very likely to happen to some degree in many places. *You're suggesting we play a very short sighted and dangerous game, with very little understanding how the rules of that game actually work.
*


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Buffelgrass

Tamarix spp.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> Unless I'm presented with convincing arguments and evidence...then I will continue hybridizing to create a wider variety of epiphytes that can thrive where few other plants can survive. And I'll encourage others to do the same. Of course you're welcome to try and persuade others that doing so is a mistake. Free discussion is pretty wonderful like that.


Not long ago the Everglades were free of Nile monitors, Iguanas, or Burmese pythons, yet the niche existed for them. Now they are present. Good thing, or bad thing? 
Intorduced pants can pose the same risk to native flora/fauna/foodwebs.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

The simple fact is that bucket biology is bullshit. 

I understand wanting nice epiphytes for your backyard and trees. Great, fine, I understand that. 

Trying to " save the rainforest" with hybrid plants spread throughout non indigenous habitats is just about the saddest idea Ive heard today. 

Dont ever think you can do batter than nature and milleniums of natural selection. Nature should be left natural. No introduced plants, no introduced animals PERIOD. It NEVER works out to the benefit of anything. 

Sure, the Jacksons chameleons in La Jolla arent likely hurting anything, nor are they likely to be a detriment to anything in Hawaii, nor are the day geckos. 

HOWEVER- just because you CAN... doesnt mean you SHOULD. You could accidentally introduce a virus, pathogenic mite, worm etc that could spread to native reptile populations and wreak havoc in a very short amount of time. You could introduce a non native plant that native pollinators perfer over the native species, and if thery bloom concurrently, the native plants wont be as effectively pollinated and cause ecosystem shift. 

I urge you to take some ecology/ environmental science/ terrestrial ecology classes at your local university if youre having trouble grasping these concepts


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

epiphytes etc. said:


> The problem with this thinking is that those plants would be displacing native vegetation. They would be using water and nutrients, hell, just a space in the sun that should be used by native flora. I'm sorry, but as someone who is constantly battling invasive species, and having to, on an every day basis, educate people on the importance of going native, I simply cannot get behind your argument. Sure, my yard has a lot of non-native plants in it, but the vast majority are from a 500 mile radius from here, and the exotic stuff is carefully selected as to minimize invasive potential.


Invasive species have been proven harmful time and time again.. There are reasons plants and animals grow in certain areas and not others. I understand your sentiment, and Zeal, as when I first responded to your post. You cannot possibly know the impact of such until its too late, as for example the python problem in Florida, which is now out of control or the Jumping Carp problem when has decimated the southern rivers having killed many native species, or the musscle problem in the great lakes, or the lampray problem... Monsanto already fooling around with changing plants, and examples go on and on...

Rats, Termites, Cockroach all not naitive, but invasive. Can you imagine the plants around millions of years ago? Before humans? Many of which went extinct naturally which is what makes our world.. We have made too many alterations as far as I am concerned, and the many who have voiced reasonable explanations to your post... You have diversified a tree, but you don't really know for sure what the long term is for that tree, and if you have altered that trees life span, as you are experimenting, and asking others to participate in this folly... Isn't it better to observe speicies in the natural habitat? To me thats what makes the world a wonderful place, and trust me when I say, I have seen much of it... You have so much wonderful flora in Ca which cannot grow or thrive elsewhere, and it seems not enough for you... Its the same reason we do NOT mix darts, to preserve thier natural lines.. If you basterdize a plant, its not the same plant it was in nature, even if the conditions are right otherwise many Super smart scientists would have thought of this long ago... Orchids have divercity, and there are many speicies all of which wonderful and glorious, and we have learned to keep them.. This is a privalidge, not a right...IMO


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Sirjohn said:


> Invasive species have been proven harmful time and time again.. There are reasons plants and animals grow in certain areas and not others. I understand your sentiment, and Zeal, as when I first responded to your post. You cannot possibly know the impact of such until its too late, as for example the python problem in Florida, which is now out of control or the Jumping Carp problem when has decimated the southern rivers having killed many native species, or the musscle problem in the great lakes, or the lampray problem... Monsanto already fooling around with changing plants, and examples go on and on...
> 
> Rats, Termites, Cockroach all not naitive, but invasive. Can you imagine the plants around millions of years ago? Before humans? Many of which went extinct naturally which is what makes our world.. We have made too many alterations as far as I am concerned, and the many who have voiced reasonable explanations to your post... You have diversified a tree, but you don't really know for sure what the long term is for that tree, and if you have altered that trees life span, as you are experimenting, and asking others to participate in this folly... Isn't it better to observe speicies in the natural habitat? To me thats what makes the world a wonderful place, and trust me when I say, I have seen much of it... You have so much wonderful flora in Ca which cannot grow or thrive elsewhere, and it seems not enough for you... Its the same reason we do NOT mix darts, to preserve thier natural lines.. If you basterdize a plant, its not the same plant it was in nature, even if the conditions are right otherwise many Super smart scientists would have thought of this long ago... Orchids have divercity, and there are many speicies all of which wonderful and glorious, and we have learned to keep them.. This is a privalidge, not a right...IMO


I think you replied to the wrong "epiphyte" ...but good points


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

Dendro Dave said:


> I think you replied to the wrong "epiphyte" ...but good points


Thanks Dave, I am still figuring out the threads... I really like and follow many of your comments...


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Dendro Dave, no, I value markets because I do not underestimate complexity. Putting too many eggs in one basket is the logical consequence of underestimating complexity. The Irish potato famine was a perfect example of underestimating complexity. Another perfect example was the 30 million people that died during the Great Leap Forward. Every war that occurs is a perfect example of underestimating complexity. 

Right now we don't have a market in the public sector. Based on your understanding of complexity...would you say that this is a good thing? Do you think preventing people from shopping for themselves results in a greater variety and quantity of goods? 

Here's a hint...



> One would think that man could find enough variation in the orchid family, as it occurs in nature, to more than satiate his taste for variety. Yet man's appetite for variety is never appeased. He has produced over two times as many hybrids, in the past 100 years that he has been engaged in orchid breeding, as nature has created species in her eons of evolutionary effort. - Calaway H. Dodson, Robert J. Gillespie, The Botany of Orchids


...and another...



> If we now turn to consider the immediate self-interest of the consumer, we shall find that it is in perfect harmony with the general interest, i.e., with what the well-being of mankind requires. When the buyer goes to the market, he wants to find it abundantly supplied. He wants the seasons to be propitious for all the crops; more and more wonderful inventions to bring a greater number of products and satisfactions within his reach; time and labor to be saved; distances to be wiped out; the spirit of peace and justice to permit lessening the burden of taxes; and tariff walls of every sort to fall. In all these respects, the immediate self-interest of the consumer follows a line parallel to that of the public interest. He may extend his secret wishes to fantastic or absurd lengths; yet they will not cease to be in conformity with the interests of his fellow man. He may wish that food and shelter, roof and hearth, education and morality, security and peace, strength and health, all be his without effort, without toil, and without limit, like the dust of the roads, the water of the stream, the air that surrounds us, and the sunlight that bathes us; and yet the realization of these wishes would in no way conflict with the good of society. - Frédéric Bastiat, Abundance and Scarcity


Are parrots really that different though? Our naturalized parrots want an abundance of figs...and they spread the fig seeds accordingly. Hummingbirds and bees want an abundance of flowers...and they do their part to help ensure that there is an abundance of flowers. Nobody wants a scarcity of the things they value...so they sacrifice accordingly.

I think if the issue of fungus truly concerns you...if you truly believe it will result in a scarcity of things that you value...then perhaps you would have started a thread where you've encouraged the boycott of the orchid nurseries that import orchids. If this issue truly concerns you, you would know exactly which nurseries import orchids. I haven't seen such a thread. Instead, I've seen numerous threads where people have wanted a greater abundance of awesome orchids...where they heap praises on the nurseries that do import orchids. If you've raised your concern in any of these threads...please share the links. 

Because I, like many others, also want an abundance of awesome orchids...I've started threads to try and help people understand the important relationship that orchids have with their associated fungus...


Orchid Fungus Symbiotic Relationship by epiphyte78, on Flickr

And I've started threads that document orchid seeds that have germinated on my tree because of this fungus...


Symbiotic Orchid Germination 1a 008 by epiphyte78, on Flickr

I've also shared an article that describes a market for fungus. Value is decreased when exchange is limited. 

This forum would decrease the amount of value created if we could only read and reply to threads created by people in the same country. Just like our country would be worse off if we could only exchange goods and services within the country. Just like the world would be worse off if people couldn't vote with their feet. Just like the world is worse off because people can't vote with their taxes.

I've studied and lived in developing countries. They don't develop by protecting them from foreign "ideas" (products, services, companies, etc). Systems aren't strengthened by limiting competition and exchange...they are made stronger by subjecting them to stress. This is the concept of antifragility. Differentiation and diversity and variety follows from facilitating exchange. The opposite follows from underestimating complexity.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

You are missing the point entirely.

1) Hybridizing orchids/plants for your backyard- I think its fine, but dont expect them to spread and DO NOT encourage them to spread to natural ecosystems!!!! I dont care if you dont understand why not. If I find out that you are, Ill report you to California fish and wildlife for invasive plant distribution


2) Economics seems to be driving your thinking, not an understanding and appreciation of the natural world and ecosystem complexity- this kind of thinking has DEVASTATED ecosystems around the globe for well over a century now, and its time to end that style of thinking

3) Anyone that loves orchids knows about the mycorrhizal relationship between fungi ( often very specific fungi) and the germination of orchid seed. This type of relationship doesnt benefit the tree at all, since its not a mycorrhizal fungi associated with the tree roots. I dont know what point you're trying to argue but there is no economic value to the fungi associated with orchid roots. 
4) I love orchids, and love to have them available to me for purchase, but I DONT WANT them taking over native ecosystems, displacing native species, hybridizing with native orchids in certain areas of the country, distracting pollinators, etc etc. 
Introduced plants CAN, HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE to be potential vectors for pathogenic plant fungi, viruses and insect pests that can do nothing but harm natural ecosystems


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

frogparty said:


> The simple fact is that bucket biology is bullshit.
> 
> I understand wanting nice epiphytes for your backyard and trees. Great, fine, I understand that.
> 
> Trying to " save the rainforest" with hybrid plants spread throughout non indigenous habitats is just about the saddest idea Ive heard today.


Where do you think hybrid plants get their genes from? From some alternate universe? From a distant planet? The goal isn't just to save the maximum amount of genetic diversity...it's to increase the total amount of genetic diversity. This requires hedging bets. It requires putting the greatest variety of eggs in the greatest quantity of baskets. 



frogparty said:


> Dont ever think you can do batter than nature and milleniums of natural selection. Nature should be left natural. No introduced plants, no introduced animals PERIOD. It NEVER works out to the benefit of anything.


So the wind and parrots can determine the allocation of plants...but humans cannot? That doesn't make a lick of sense. 

Nature tries a lot of different combinations of inputs (genes, traits, characteristics). Some are successful (fit)...many are not. Orchids are so successful because they've embraced the numbers game like none other. An orchid pod can contain a million seeds. Each seed is a unique combination of inputs. The greater number of attempts/chances...the greater the chance of finding successful combinations of inputs.

Somehow humans shouldn't participate in this process? Hummingbirds and bees should determine which orchids are crossed...but humans should be forbidden from doing so? Because...? Hummingbirds and bees know what they are doing? 



frogparty said:


> You could introduce a non native plant that native pollinators perfer over the native species, and if thery bloom concurrently, the native plants wont be as effectively pollinated and cause ecosystem shift.





frogparty said:


> I urge you to take some ecology/ environmental science/ terrestrial ecology classes at your local university if youre having trouble grasping these concepts


LOL...let me get this straight. The supply of food increases...yet the pollinator population size would stay the same? Honestly, you should get a refund on those classes. Seriously. What university was it? I'm going to call your professors and determine whether this is what they really taught you. 

It's so sad/funny that I'm going to copy and paste it...



frogparty said:


> You could introduce a non native plant that native pollinators perfer over the native species, and if thery bloom concurrently, the native plants wont be as effectively pollinated and cause ecosystem shift.





frogparty said:


> I urge you to take some ecology/ environmental science/ terrestrial ecology classes at your local university if youre having trouble grasping these concepts





frogparty said:


> You are missing the point entirely.
> 
> 1) Hybridizing orchids/plants for your backyard- I think its fine, but dont expect them to spread and DO NOT encourage them to spread to natural ecosystems!!!! I dont care if you dont understand why not. If I find out that you are, Ill report you to California fish and wildlife for invasive plant distribution


I attached a Tillandsia three stories high on my tree in order to encourage it to spread to natural ecosystems. The first seed pod opened today. 

I also have orchid roots all over my tree...and many of those roots contain foreign fungus...which sends spores all over Southern California. 

Are you going to report me? Or are you simply going to make idle threats? 



frogparty said:


> 2) Economics seems to be driving your thinking, not an understanding and appreciation of the natural world and ecosystem complexity- this kind of thinking has DEVASTATED ecosystems around the globe for well over a century now, and its time to end that style of thinking


Let's review...



frogparty said:


> You could introduce a non native plant that native pollinators perfer over the native species, and if thery bloom concurrently, the native plants wont be as effectively pollinated and cause ecosystem shift.





frogparty said:


> I urge you to take some ecology/ environmental science/ terrestrial ecology classes at your local university if youre having trouble grasping these concepts


Your thinking reveals a complete ignorance of basic biological concepts. And economics as well. The supply of food for an organism increases...yet its population size does not? Seriously? The size of a population is independent of its food supply? Really? The two aren't positively correlated? 



frogparty said:


> 3) Anyone that loves orchids knows about the mycorrhizal relationship between fungi ( often very specific fungi) and the germination of orchid seed. This type of relationship doesnt benefit the tree at all, since its not a mycorrhizal fungi associated with the tree roots. I dont know what point you're trying to argue but there is no economic value to the fungi associated with orchid roots.


I argued that people should grow orchids on trees because this will increase the supply of orchid fungus...and a greater supply of orchid fungus will increase the supply of orchids. I even drew a diagram. 



frogparty said:


> 4) I love orchids, and love to have them available to me for purchase, but I DONT WANT them taking over native ecosystems, displacing native species, hybridizing with native orchids in certain areas of the country, distracting pollinators, etc etc.


Maybe this will help you understand the concept...



> Organisms do not necessarily, or even generally, inhabit the geographic area best suited to their attributes. Since organisms (and their areas of habitutation) are products of a history laced with chaos, contingency, and genuine randomness, current patterns (although workable, or they would not exist) will rarely express anything close to an optimum, or even a "best possible on this earth now" - whereas the earlier notion of natural theology, with direct creation of best solutions, and no appreciable history thereafter (or ever), could have validated an idea of native as best. Consequently, although native plants must be adequate for their environments, evolutionary theory grants us no license for viewing them as the best-adapted inhabitants conceivable, or even as the best available among all species on the planet. - Stephen Jay Gould, An Evolutionary Perspective on Strengths, Fallacies, and Confusions in the Concept of Native Plants


Although I'm not optimistic you'll grasp this...given that you don't seem to understand that the population size of an organism is largely dependent on its supply of food. But, you're not the only one participating in this discussion...so there's always the chance that others will grasp Gould's argument.


----------



## JPccusa (Mar 10, 2009)

Since this is a controversial topic, let me remind everyone posting and/or tempted to post on this thread... 


> Difference of opinion = good and welcome.
> Violating DB's User Agreement = bad and will bring you consequences.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> Systems aren't strengthened by limiting competition and exchange...they are made stronger by subjecting them to stress. This is the concept of antifragility.



Are you trying to make a connection with this philosophy to ecology and human interference with it? I hope not.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

epiphyte said:


> Dendro Dave, no, I value markets because I do not underestimate complexity. Putting too many eggs in one basket is the logical consequence of underestimating complexity. The Irish potato famine was a perfect example of underestimating complexity. Another perfect example was the 30 million people that died during the Great Leap Forward. Every war that occurs is a perfect example of underestimating complexity.
> 
> Right now we don't have a market in the public sector. Based on your understanding of complexity...would you say that this is a good thing? Do you think preventing people from shopping for themselves results in a greater variety and quantity of goods?
> 
> ...


How did we switch to market economics ...Nature doesn't give a crap about our economy or what we want, but what we want and do will still impact the environment and that will impact us. 

If you're talking about doing this as to create more markets, larger and more diverse market economies that will ultimately benefit people by providing jobs, food, and personal enrichment that may or may not be true in the short term but doing so could have long term and dire impact on the natural ecosystems. So maybe we have our personal eden for 50-200 years, then the food web collapses and the ecosystem implodes around us... there goes eden 

Also growing hybrid orchids in a greenhouse or in your home is different then unleashing them outside. If they are pretty much kept out of the outside ecosystem they have minimal impact, but if you're out there seeding your yard with all kinds of foreign plants and their associated viruses, bacteria, and fungi you are putting your local ecosystem at risk. How much risk is debateable, but you're trying to play the game without really understanding how it is played.

As for fungi and other micro organisms I'm not paranoid about them if that is what you mean, but especially given your understanding of how intergral they are to some orchids, you should understand that microorganisms like that are a major part of the foundation for all ecosystems, and screwing around with them tends to have a domino effect that eventually reaches us, and often not in a good way. 

*Do you really believe that we are knowledgeable enough to just go around introducing and/or engineering all kinds of plants and animal species and introducing them outside without it having dire consequences, not just to the plants and animals out there but also eventually to us?* If so that is naive. There are already lots of instances where we've screwed this up and it hasn't just impacted the plants and animals negatively, but also the people of the area. 

The truth is we haven't been at plant and animal hybridization and introduction on such a massive scale as we are right now for very long on the time scale that nature operates on (or geological time), and we have no idea of the long term impacts... To advocate more of that for our own personal eden, and suggest we have the wisdom to do that responsibly is foolish and naive at best. 

*You're essentially talking about playing god on a massive scale when we so far our efforts to do so have been pretty shotty at best. *


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

There's always the chance that this is just a lengthy troll thread.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

One thing you seem to keep missing is that hybridization, and introduction of new plants and animals or microorganisms into new areas that happens naturally, happens by a set of processes that nature has built into a system of checks and balances, one of those is time. The different time scales that humans operate under vs what happens natural is a major point that you need to understand makes what we do radically more dangerous then when similar things happen in nature over much longer time scales. 

There is a big differences between a few frogs floating on a log over to a new island over the period of several hundred years and eventually establishing a population there over then next couple thousand years VS us dumping 500 frogs onto some new island in a day. Look at cane toads... People who might have considered Australia to be their personal Eden now get to watch natural wild life, pets and even some humans die of poisoning.

With time nature will adapt, not given that time the very diversity you want to encourage is put at risk through massive extinction events and then nature has to fix our mess and start building back the diversity it had then proceed from there.

So what you're suggesting is something that puts the very things you claim we need at risk... More diversity, because we frankly aren't smart enough or responsible enough to play god on such a massive scale as we currently are and get it right, let alone expand on those efforts.

*We're already basically doing what you want, and we're screwing it up and damaging diversity probably at least as often as we get it right, and you want to do more *


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

1) hybridizing ornamental plants has nothing to do with increasing diversity for the benefit of the gene pool, it has everything to do with aesthetics of the consumer. And in fact, youre NOT INCREASING GENE DIVERSITY, YOU ARE LIMITING IT TO SELECTED TRAITS. 

2) You should NOT be determining what plants get sown where outside your own garden. Whether parrots or the wind spreads invasive plants is beyond our control, but YOU can control whether YOU knowingly spread invasive species into foreign ecosystems.

3) So, yes, youve increased the number of flowering plants SHORT TERM. BUT if those pollinators no longer favor native vegetation over introduced species, then YES, you will see a die off of native plants, and the overall number of available nectar sources etc will decline. AND when non natives displaces natives out of niches that other species not directly affected by pollinator choices utilize, then you can have MASSIVE ecosystem impact. Your overall food availability doesnt increase, in fact, in a short amount of time it will DECREASE, and the genetic diversity of the ecosystem will DECREASE accordingly. Thats where you need to look at multi generational ecology 

4) Theres a big difference between an already established fungus spreading to a single tree vs it spreading to multiple trees through sporulation or hyphal fragmentation. And theres really no benefit to the ecosystem beyond growing non native orchids if it did spread. THERE IS the potential that this non native fungus can outcompete other native fungi that some other native organism relies on though. 

5) Youre arguing that although native plants are well suited for their habitat, they may not be best suited vs other species ( introduced, invasive, hybridized) so you should just go ahead and introduce new plants with no thought to the ecosystems developed over millions of years to rely on those plants? THATS ignorant. 








epiphyte said:


> Where do you think hybrid plants get their genes from? From some alternate universe? From a distant planet? The goal isn't just to save the maximum amount of genetic diversity...it's to increase the total amount of genetic diversity. This requires hedging bets. It requires putting the greatest variety of eggs in the greatest quantity of baskets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Imagine if parrots all pooped in toilets...or wore tiny diapers. Or just imagine that, for whatever reason, none of the seeds in their poop ever germinated. Would this increase, decrease or have no impact on their supply of food? Clearly it would decrease not only their food quantity...but variety as well. 

Yet somehow our quantity/variety of food would increase if we stopped sowing seeds? Of course it wouldn't. If we want an abundance of anything...we sacrifice accordingly. 

I want the future to have an abundance of wild orchids just like parrots want the future to have an abundance of figs. Yet somehow parrots have the right to freely sow their fig seeds but I don't have the right to freely sow my orchid seeds? Parrots can try to ensure that the future more closely matches their Eden but I cannot? 

If you folks believed in God...then your argument would at least make some sense. You could tell me that he's got the whole world in his hands...and that I should stand aside and put my faith in his perfect plans. All I have to do is sacrifice to him and he's going to take care of everything for me. Then it would be at least somewhat logical when you argue that we should lean not on our own understanding. 

But none of you are making that argument. This is your argument...

1. No effort
2. ? 
3. Abundance

What's step 2? If it's not me or any other human...and it's not God...then who or what is making the effort to ensure that the future wilderness has an abundance of the plants and animals that match my preferences? Who knows my Eden preferences better than I do? Some parrot? Some parrot out there knows exactly what my Eden would look like? How did this parrot come to have this information? Is this parrot omniscient? Is there an invisible parrot on my shoulder that I don't know about? Even if some parrot does somehow have this information...what possible incentive would this parrot have to allocate its limited resources away from its own Eden? 

No no no no no...it's nonsensical to simply rely on faith that the wilderness in the future will match our preferences. The output depends on the input. If we aren't allowed to input our preferences then the output can't possibly be even close to optimal. Even parrots are smart enough to grasp this concept. Well...perhaps they don't grasp the concept but their actions are this concept. They don't just sit back and expect the bees to be their Eden representatives. Parrots take a very active role in trying to ensure that the future has an abundance of the things that match their preferences. 

Is their effort perfect? No, of course they make mistakes...just like we would. But just because parrots are fallible is not adequate reason to prevent their participation in the preference revelation process. 

Again, the Eden Exercise. What do you want there to be an abundance of in some natural habitat 100 years from now? Do I know the answer? Nope. How could I? Does nature know the answer? Nope. How could it? It's not a sentient being that can somehow know how many orchids you would exchange for a PDF. 

It's the same exact thing with public goods. Somehow the supply of public goods is going to match our preferences even though we aren't allowed to shop for ourselves in the public sector? Uh...what's Step 2? Voting? Because voting and shopping are equally effective at accurately communicating our preferences? If this is true...then we could free up an incredible amount of time by replacing all shopping with voting.

Parrots are free to represent themselves in nature...which greatly increases the chances that the supply of food will match their preferences. If you take away their ability to choose which fruit trees they visit...then it's a given that the supply of food is going diverge away from their preferences. 

So parrots and countless other animals have the freedom to disseminate the seeds that match their preferences...and the trend has been towards greater diversity. Why does their sowing freedom lead to greater diversity but ours would not? Removing parrots from the preference revelation process would decrease diversity...but removing humans from the same process increases diversity? That's nonsensical. 

Here's the nutshell...

Me(orchid seeds) + Parrots(fig seeds) + n(x) = output

If you remove my complex preferences...or the parrots' complex preferences...then the output will be less valuable. It will not be as accurate. It will be more wrong than right. The future would have a scarcity of figs (from the perspective of parrots) and/or a scarcity of orchids (from my perspective). 

So we definitely are worse off by removing ourselves from the preference revelation process. Unless Step 2 is somehow better. But so far nobody has described what Step 2 is. If you know what Step 2 is...and it's that good...then please share it with me! Otherwise I'm going to unintentionally decrease the value of the output by spending my limited time actively and imperfectly trying to ensure that the future has an abundance of wild orchids. If you know that Step 2 guarantees an abundance of wild orchids...then please don't hide Step 2 under a bushel.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

To the OP; in an environmental sense, are orchids, epiphytes, and "your own preferences" the only things you care about? If so, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Again, I'm calling troll on this thread.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Seriously, some of his responses makes me feel like I`m in some Alice in Wonderland
fairly tale.

Not that there`s anything wrong with that


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> Seriously, some of his responses makes me feel like I`m in some Alice in Wonderland fairly tale.


After reading the thread, I feel like I just took a tour of the insane asylum ... the delusional thought processes presented here are just mind numbing. 

Personally, I'd like to see zebras in the Antarctic, polar bears in Panama, and palm trees in Alaska. I shall have dominion over the world and all that is natural shall "match my preferences" ... until it is no longer natural. 

On a more serious note - In most cases, humans are the cause of decreasing biodiversity. The best way humans can increase biodiversity is to get out of the way and quit trying to manipulate the environment to our own "preferences".


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

epiphyte said:


> Imagine if parrots all pooped in toilets...or wore tiny diapers. Or just imagine that, for whatever reason, none of the seeds in their poop ever germinated. Would this increase, decrease or have no impact on their supply of food? Clearly it would decrease not only their food quantity...but variety as well.
> 
> Yet somehow our quantity/variety of food would increase if we stopped sowing seeds? Of course it wouldn't. If we want an abundance of anything...we sacrifice accordingly.
> 
> ...


This is what the equation really looks like...
*Naive human meddling + ecosystem = less diversity in the long run.*

"2" isn't ??? ...It's letting nature do it's thing which generally increases diversity in the long run, because "1" isn't "no effort"... It is actually "stay out of the way because we tend to screw things up". Then "3" = diversity/abundance, because nature has a system in place that works reliably, where as our work is shotty at best. 

We've already shown that when we do what you are suggesting, we generally screw it up and in the long term the abundance/diversity decreases. 

Also you again fail to understand how important a factor time is... 
Those parrots and their fig spreading behavior evolved over thousands of years. The environment had time to adapt because the change was slow.

You going outside spreading a crap ton of orchids around in a few days doesn't give the ecosystem time to adapt without potentially having dire consequences.

How can you not see the difference in what you wanna do vs how nature does it on it's own? 

Basically you're advocating something akin to a PETA member walking up to a zoo and letting all the animals go free into the country side... Which would be a disaster for most of the animals, and the local ecosystem. Basically Donn is right, your thinking is either delusional and/or your understanding of the underlying principles is so lacking that you just aren't capable of understanding the ramifications of what you propose.


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

It probably started in the 1980s, with a few tropical fish hobbyists thinking they were doing the humane thing by dumping unwanted pets in the coastal waters of Florida. But introducing the lionfish, which is native to the Indo-Pacific, to the Atlantic Ocean has turned out to be one of the cruelest and most catastrophic tricks ever played on an ecosystem. Now, with the fate of numerous species hanging in the balance, a new paper in the journal Ecological Applications says that scientists have for the first time found a practical way to control the problem.
Introducing alien species to any habitat can quickly lead to catastrophe, both for wildlife and for us: Not even counting invertebrates, such as Asian long-horned beetles, that are killing off great swaths of forest, invasive species now cost the American public $120 billion every year.

Thought this was an interesting article under the circumestance 
Yahoo!


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> Seriously, some of his responses makes me feel like I`m in some Alice in Wonderland
> fairly tale.
> 
> Not that there`s anything wrong with that


John, you can follow the white rabbit and see more of what the Mad Hatter has to say here:

Epiphytes and Economics

Caution: May lead to psychedelic fits of rage


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Dendro Dave, yes, it's entirely possible that I'm delusional... stupid... slow... wrong... crazy... high... whatever. I've accepted these possibilities long ago. And I'm pretty sure that it should count for something that I recognize and appreciate that these things are entirely possible. 

Embracing my fallibilism doesn't prevent me from acting though...it just helps me appreciate the value of solely relying on persuasion to try and convince others of the merits of my preferred course of action.

Let's try and tackle the topic of preference revelation from the perspective of public goods. I like using public goods as an example because it allows us to kill two birds with one stone. Errr...isn't it better to say that we can attach two epiphytes to the same branch? 

With our current system...people can't shop for themselves in the public sector. In other words, they can't share their direct input. From your perspective this is ok though because somehow the supply of public goods (output) will still match our preferences. 

Here are two possibilities...

1. voting allows people to accurately communicate their preferences
2. congresspeople are omniscient

I don't think you believe the second possibility...so do you believe the first possibility? If so, what evidence do you have to support your belief? Personally, I've extensively researched the topic and have found plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example...



> Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponets of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likley be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy


The supply of public goods won't match our preferences because we aren't given the freedom to accurately communicate what our preferences are. Shopping allows us to accurately communicate the intensity of our preferences...and we're not allowed to shop in the public sector...so the supply of public goods won't match the actual demand for public goods. 

This is what my study has led me to believe. 

Now here you are telling me that the supply of nature will match our preferences even though we don't have the freedom to accurately communicate what our preferences actually are. If this is true when it comes to the supply of nature...then it should be true when it comes to the supply of public goods.

So please explain to me why you have faith that the supply of public goods will match our preferences. In other words, please explain why you have faith that the supply of public goods will be optimal. In other words, please explain why you have faith that the allocation of public goods will be efficient. 

I wouldn't be surprised if I overlooked some obvious concept. My study and research was probably quite shoddy.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

epiphyte said:


> Dendro Dave, yes, it's entirely possible that I'm delusional... stupid... slow... wrong... crazy... high... whatever. I've accepted these possibilities long ago. And I'm pretty sure that it should count for something that I recognize and appreciate that these things are entirely possible.
> 
> Embracing my fallibilism doesn't prevent me from acting though...it just helps me appreciate the value of solely relying on persuasion to try and convince others of the merits of my preferred course of action.
> 
> ...


Well you overlooked the fact that I basically said nothing about having faith that the supply of public goods will match our preferences. Frankly the ties that bind your economic related statements and your nature/eden statements are ambiguous and tenuous at best. I thought you might be trying to say that more natural diversity through human efforts would lead to larger and more diverse market economies, but in truth I'm not really sure what the hell you're trying to say. So some clarity would be good there if this debate is to continue. *What do you want exactly? ...without all the flowery language and philosophical quotes *

And as far as nature matching our preferences, I was most recently only discussing the very general preference for diversity/abundance that you implied you wanted, which nature tends to do that on it's own. Then there was my supporting point that when we try to do it we tend to screw it up and that leads to less diversity/abundance in nature. So by doing the things you propose we will most likely end up with less diversity and abundance in the long run.

*"Embracing my fallibilism doesn't prevent me from acting"...* You're right, and that is part of the problem. Even though we are well aware of how much people have screwed up various ecosystems we still don't have as many controls against damaging practices like a bunch of wackos seeding the country side with foreign microorganisms, plants and animals... Or worse yet engineering them to survive where they don't belong and then unleashing them.  You just gloss over the invasive species arguments, like they don't matter. You ignore the fact that nature operates on a much slower time table thus giving time for ecosystems to adapt. 

It seems to boil down to you thinking it is ok to remake the world as you'd like it, and you seem to think that we are actually responsible and knowledgeable enough to do that without causing major ecological disasters... In which case you're just dead wrong, because we've proved time and time again we tend to do more harm then good when we try that.

You need to be more clear on exactly what you want to do with nature, and the economy... and then tell us how that might be achieved without major ecological catastrophe and/or present evidence that we are knowledgeable and responsible enough to do it safely. So far basically everything I know says your ideas are naive, irresponsible and ultimately dangerous if they were enacted on massive coordinated way.

Also...
What about the practical concerns beyond the potential for ecological disaster. Maybe my idea of eden is introducing a microorganism that destroys your orchids. Or I could take a fruit bat and genetically engineer it to eat orchids and live in California. How do you deal with conflicts where one person's idea of eden doesn't match your own?

*And Lastly... (I'd really like to hear your answer to this question)*
If this statement is true... 


epiphyte said:


> "it's entirely possible that I'm delusional... stupid... slow... wrong... crazy... high... whatever. I've accepted these possibilities long ago. And I'm pretty sure that it should count for something that I recognize and appreciate that these things are entirely possible."


Then what makes you think you are knowledgeable and responsible enough to wield the power and right to even attempt to create your eden? You don't seem concerned at all about the potential damage such practices could have, so really why should anyone be ok with you attempting this?


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

epiphyte said:


> Dendro Dave, yes, it's entirely possible that I'm delusional... stupid... slow... wrong... crazy... high... whatever. .


That's the first damn thing you said that made any sense to me


----------



## BrainBug (Aug 25, 2010)

epiphyte said:


> Imagine if parrots all pooped in toilets...or wore tiny diapers. Or just imagine that, for whatever reason, none of the seeds in their poop ever germinated. Would this increase, decrease or have no impact on their supply of food? Clearly it would decrease not only their food quantity...but variety as well.
> 
> Yet somehow our quantity/variety of food would increase if we stopped sowing seeds? Of course it wouldn't. If we want an abundance of anything...we sacrifice accordingly.
> 
> ...


I'm totally imagining a villain from an Adult Swim cartoon or perhaps the plot of the next Despicable Me.


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Dendro Dave said:


> Well you overlooked the fact that I basically said nothing about having faith that the supply of public goods will match our preferences.


Why don't you have faith that the supply of public goods will match our preferences? 



Dendro Dave said:


> Frankly the ties that bind your economic related statements and your nature/eden statements are ambiguous and tenuous at best. I thought you might be trying to say that more natural diversity through human efforts would lead to larger and more diverse market economies, but in truth I'm not really sure what the hell you're trying to say. So some clarity would be good there if this debate is to continue. *What do you want exactly? ...without all the flowery language and philosophical quotes *


I wonder how many times in this thread I've said that we shouldn't keep all our eggs in one basket. For example, Dendrophylax lindenii is in one basket... Florida. Maybe you have faith that nature will somehow ensure that the future will have an abundance of this orchid in the wild...but I don't share your faith. Therefore, I think that this orchid should be placed in several different baskets. The more baskets that it's placed in...the greater the chances that there will be an abundance of this orchid in the future.



Dendro Dave said:


> And as far as nature matching our preferences, I was most recently only discussing the very general preference for diversity/abundance that you implied you wanted, which nature tends to do that on it's own.


Again, I don't share your faith that nature, on its own, will ensure that the future will have an abundance/diversity of the plants and animals that match my preferences. Nature isn't a mind reader. Nature doesn't read the minds of parrots and then *poof*...the appropriate variety and quantity of fig trees magically appears. Nature isn't God. You seem to be assigning some sort of intelligent design aspect to nature. 



Dendro Dave said:


> Then there was my supporting point that when we try to do it we tend to screw it up and that leads to less diversity/abundance in nature. So by doing the things you propose we will most likely end up with less diversity and abundance in the long run. You just gloss over the invasive species arguments, like they don't matter.


Humans make mistakes but parrots are perfect? Whatever a parrot does leads to greater diversity/abundance? Whatever a parrot introduces...whether it's a fig, fungus, bacteria or virus...there will be more diversity and abundance in the long run? 

I've said it more than once that I want there to be greater variety/abundance of plants and animals. So I don't support introductions that will decrease variety/abundance. And I find it absurd to believe that somehow parrots make less mistakes than humans do. 



Dendro Dave said:


> You ignore the fact that nature operates on a much slower time table thus giving time for ecosystems to adapt.


I ignore the fact by flying all over the world attaching foreign epiphytes to native trees? Maybe I ignore the fact by encouraging everybody in Florida to grow their foreign orchids on trees...which will facilitate the spread of foreign fungus spore...which will facilitate the germination of foreign orchid seeds on native trees? If foreign orchids start naturalizing in Florida...or anywhere else...I doubt you'll be able to give me 100% of the blame/credit. 

Just like I doubt that I can give parrots 100% of the blame/credit for the fig seedlings growing all over my yard. 



Dendro Dave said:


> Also...
> What about the practical concerns beyond the potential for ecological disaster. Maybe my idea of eden is introducing a microorganism that destroys your orchids. Or I could take a fruit bat and genetically engineer it to eat orchids and live in California. How do you deal with conflicts where one person's idea of eden doesn't match your own?


Because parrots and bees and hummingbirds all have the same exact idea of Eden? Eden is Eden because there's so much variety/abundance that everybody is as happy as a kid in a candy store. Like I said, the greater the variety of preferences inputted, the greater the value of the output (Eden). Removing the preferences of humans from the input will certainly decrease the value of the output. Just like preventing people from shopping in the public sector will certainly decrease the value of the output (public goods). 



Dendro Dave said:


> *And Lastly... (I'd really like to hear your answer to this question)*
> If this statement is true...
> 
> 
> Then what makes you think you are knowledgeable and responsible enough to wield the power and right to even attempt to create your eden? You don't seem concerned at all about the potential damage such practices could have, so really why should anyone be ok with you attempting this?


Markets work because your influence over how society's limited resources are used is determined by the total amount of value you create for others. For example, the amount of resources that fig trees use is determined by the total amount of value they provide for the animals that eat their fruit. The greater the quantity of animals that eat figs...the more fig seeds that will be sown...the greater the quantity of fig trees...the more resources that they will use.

If you think that the way I'm using my resources is harmful...then you boycott me and encourage others to do the same. The less money I have...the less influence I'll have over how society's limited resources are used. 

If I had a ton of money...I'd buy hundreds of acres near McAllen Texas and create my Eden. I'd hire an army to sow a gazillion epiphyte seeds on all the trees...and then see which seedlings survived the winters. I'd also have my army sow 1000s of coconut palm seeds as well. Alas, I don't have a ton of money. And clearly I'm terrible at selling the idea of Eden. So, I'll continue to work on my garden...and hope that my mini Eden will inspire others.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

epiphyte said:


> I wonder how many times in this thread I've said that we shouldn't keep all our eggs in one basket.
> .


At least one too many for me


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

This thread has inspired me to create my own line of SAFE (tm) invasive species that have no danger of negatively impacting the local environment.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> I
> If you have any evidence that the current allocation of plants and animals is perfect...then please share it. From my perspective...there are too many eggs in too few baskets. And there are too many baskets that could have a far greater variety of eggs in them. California is one such basket.


So how are you determining the value of which species to add and which species you can sacrifice if one added begins to displace it? For example, one of the threats to California's tiger salamanders are non-native tiger salamanders... 



epiphyte said:


> Of course there's plenty evidence that invasive species have caused problems. But you can't say that the introduction of a foreign organism will always be detrimental.


Your equating natural range extensions versus those facilitated by anthropogenic reasons... I think that is a pretty big reach. 
It should be noted that an increase in biodiversity does not mean that the local ecosystem(s) carrying capacity can handle the number of increased species. This also does not mean that increased biodiversity is an indication with a healthy ecosystem. 

You may be interested in Disturbance and change in biodiversity 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> I wonder how many times in this thread I've said that we shouldn't keep all our eggs in one basket. Therefore, I think that this orchid should be placed in several different baskets. The more baskets that it's placed in...the greater the chances that there will be an abundance of this orchid in the future.


There are multiple ways to accomplish this with out 
1) attempting to modify a species through line breeding (since you will not be saving that species but in all probability "creating" either an intergrade or a new one... 
2) risking ecological catastrophe via loss of native species 

In effect what you are discussing is a combination of assurance colonies and gene banking.... Unfortunately, the mass market doesn't engage in practices that ensure good prospects for genetic diversity in captive colonies. 



epiphyte said:


> Humans make mistakes but parrots are perfect? Whatever a parrot does leads to greater diversity/abundance? Whatever a parrot introduces...whether it's a fig, fungus, bacteria or virus...there will be more diversity and abundance in the long run?


If the parrot is translocated then the fault isn't with the parrot, it's with the idiot that translocated a species into a novel environment.. for example the introduction of starlings and house sparrows resulted in a decrease in avian biodiversity in urban and suburban centers.... 




epiphyte said:


> the amount of resources that fig trees use is determined by the total amount of value they provide for the animals that eat their fruit. The greater the quantity of animals that eat figs...the more fig seeds that will be sown...the greater the quantity of fig trees...the more resources that they will use.


Okay, this paragraph is almost worthy of being on the website of a certain purveyor of dart frogs... 

Actually, no... the more species you have competing for the figs is going to result in a decreased biodiversity over time as the resources of each tree is finite (and not based as much on the animals as the environment). If the number of fig trees increase as you allege, then you are displacing other trees which provide other required resources and the forest is moving towards a predominately fig climax forest.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I love you Ed.....


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

Can't believe thought process behind op's post. I myself am an avid fisherman. I have been fishing the river systems of Indiana my whole life. The last say 4 years I have seen a noticeable decline in popular river species here. Some say why? It's due to the accidental introduction of the Asian carp. They escaped their research ponds due to flooding. Now they are a serious threat to many water ways including the Great Lakes. As was stated before nature is slow in change so things have time to equal out. Now I'm in no way saying that mankind has no place in the spreading of species but mankind is impatient and quick to want what he wants. With no thoughts of the impact it has until its to late. We are then left scrambling to find a fix. And quite frankly your Eden is not my Eden so on and so on. We should all be careful of things we do concerning the natural order of things.
Sorry for rant but have seen consequences of non intentional invasive species


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> that *I want* there to be greater variety/abundance of plants and animals.
> an abundance/diversity of the plants and animals *that match my preferences*.
> *I want *the future to have an abundance of wild orchids
> Who knows my Eden *preferences better than I do*?
> ...


^^^ See the issue here?

What if *I* don't want your invasive hybridized crap in *my* backyard or *we* don't want them in *our* parks, forests and preserves?



epiphyte said:


> Nature isn't God.


Many would argue that it is.

But, either way, neither are you!


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Basically every word you said in that last post reinforced my belief that you are naive and have no concept of the risks and potential dangers involved if we all did what you advocate.

You completely missed or didn't bother to actually address most of my points. You just talked past them, around them... Like you were having a conversation with yourself rather then actually addressing my points. 




epiphyte said:


> Why don't you have faith that the supply of public goods will match our preferences?
> I don't even know what you mean by this. You have not clearly stated how this relates to your personal Eden. It is like you're having two conversations that are unrelated and making only the most tenuous and ambiguous connections at best. You need to be more clear in what this eden economy should/would look like in your mind and how we get there without putting our own survival at risk since most of the practices you advocate could lead to ecological disaster.
> 
> 
> ...



*Ed... Run... This guy will make your head explode *


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendro Dave said:


> *Ed... Run... This guy will make your head explode *


Dave, 

It's not that bad... in some respects what he is trying to argue is that total biomass is equivalent to biodiversity and that it is an indication of a healthy ecosystem and therefore by packing various local ecosystems with selected "cultivars" he is protecting both local and non-local species. 

The problem in short, is that 
1) by definition he is not advocating a climax ecosystem. This means that it isn't in a steady state and there will be losers and winners with his additions.... 
2) instead he is putting forth that we could protect more species by seeding as many habitats as possible which ignores the problem of ecological succession and that his (and other's) backyard(s) is/are a heavily disturbed habitat and thereby a very poor choice in which to put species or cultivars he wants to "protect"... 

Instead, he should work with groups that engage in habitat protection and gene/germ plasm/seed banking as this is a much more stable way to engage in preservation of species/cultivars he wants to protect (well species that aren't heavily invasive or extremely aggressive in growth)..... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> Dave,
> 
> It's not that bad... in some respects what he is trying to argue is that total biomass is equivalent to biodiversity and that it is an indication of a healthy ecosystem and therefore by packing various local ecosystems with selected "cultivars" he is protecting both local and non-local species.
> 
> ...


It is the impenetrable delusional thinking, naivety and cavalier attitude towards the risks that has just Awed me. Just one of those people that has a shield around them that repels anything they don't wanna hear no matter how valid it is.

I get the idea of wanting your own personal Eden. We do that with our gardens/yards, our homes and even keeping pets like dart frogs. We basically are already engaged in what he wants to do, but to go about it in such an irresponsible manner and on a massive scale outside our own yard and home... Just seems nuts to me.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Wasn't this a Star Trek movie and they created Eden in a cave inside of a hollow planet? This is rationalization beyond belief....well he could have been run over by a bus so I decided to shoot him. Doing this outside with a million unknown outcomes with about 950,000 of those bad to really bad, thanks for risking WHAT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU....maybe you should take a vote!!!


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

markpulawski said:


> Wasn't this a Star Trek movie and they created Eden in a cave inside of a hollow planet? This is rationalization beyond belief....well he could have been run over by a bus so I decided to shoot him. Doing this outside with a million unknown outcomes with about 950,000 of those bad to really bad, thanks for risking WHAT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU....maybe you should take a vote!!!


Yes... and that planet was destroyed


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Ed said:


> So how are you determining the value of which species to add and which species you can sacrifice if one added begins to displace it? For example, one of the threats to California's tiger salamanders are non-native tiger salamanders...


If we added an epiphytic orchid to California...then what plants would be displaced? The only possible candidates would be a couple native Polypodiums. What are the chances that the foreign epiphytic orchid and native epiphytic ferns would compete for the same exact microhabitat in the same exact habitat? 

How many different foreign epiphytes would we have to add to California before we started experiencing diminishing returns? Whatever that number is...we're not even remotely close to approaching it. 

Regarding salamanders...animals aren't my area of expertise...epiphytes are. I have no idea of the variety and abundance of salamanders in California and outside California...or the type of conditions they require. But if there was an exclusively epiphytic foreign salamander...then all things being equal...I would lean towards adding it...given that we don't have many exclusively epiphytic native predators. This is why I tentatively support the naturalization of chameleons in California. Our native lizards are primarily terrestrial and chameleons are primarily epiphytic. 

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, quite a few participants in this discussion seemed to latch on to the idea that I advocate adding whatever wherever. I definitely do not advocate or support thoughtless introductions. Such a position is easy to attack though, so I doubt those who've built their convenient strawman will abandon their approach. 

It's funny though because these same people will then turn around and worship nature despite the fact that no thought ever goes into a natural (non-human) introduction.



Ed said:


> Your equating natural range extensions versus those facilitated by anthropogenic reasons... I think that is a pretty big reach.
> It should be noted that an increase in biodiversity does not mean that the local ecosystem(s) carrying capacity can handle the number of increased species. This also does not mean that increased biodiversity is an indication with a healthy ecosystem.
> 
> You may be interested in Disturbance and change in biodiversity
> ...


Thanks for sharing the paper...I read through it but didn't find much of relevance...at least in terms of the argument that I'm trying to make. Of course this doesn't mean that relevance doesn't exist...so feel free to share a passage and show its relevance to this discussion.



Ed said:


> There are multiple ways to accomplish this with out
> 1) attempting to modify a species through line breeding (since you will not be saving that species but in all probability "creating" either an intergrade or a new one...
> 2) risking ecological catastrophe via loss of native species
> 
> In effect what you are discussing is a combination of assurance colonies and gene banking.... Unfortunately, the mass market doesn't engage in practices that ensure good prospects for genetic diversity in captive colonies.


Let's say that I crossed Dendrophylax lindenii with Sobennikoffia robusta. Dendrophylax lindenii or Sobennikoffia robusta would have a seed pod with perhaps one million seeds inside. Imagine if 150,000 of those seeds germinated and matured. What would happen if I attached 50,000 of the siblings to trees in Sobennikoffia robusta's native habitat in Madagascar, another 50,000 to trees in Dendrophylax lindenii's native habitat in Florida and the rest to trees near McAllen, Texas? 

First off, if the two species are capable of crossing...and not being able to cross was the only criteria for a "species"...then we could say that I didn't actually cross two species....I crossed two subspecies or varieties of the same species. Where the line is technically drawn is mostly academic. If the two orchids aren't capable of crossing...then they are too distantly related. If the two orchids are capable of crossing...then they aren't that distantly related. If the two orchids are capable of crossing and their offspring are not sterile...then they are even more closely related. So there's clearly a continuum of familiarity. 

The idea of a "species" is useful...especially when it comes to categorization and communication...but it's not very helpful when it comes to conserving or expanding the gene pool. People can be fixated on the fact that two species are different...without bothering to understand or determine just how different they really are. 

Secondly, it's extremely likely that the 50,000 in each of the three locations would be whittled down considerably. I doubt I'd manage to attach every sibling to suitable microhabitats on the trees. So maybe 25% would establish and survive...and maybe 25% of those would thrive enough to bloom.

Thirdly, there's the matter of pollinators. Perhaps lindenii's pollinator won't pollinate any of the siblings in Florida. If this is the case...then the siblings are all dead ends. Eventually they will all die off without passing on their genetic material. 

It's doubtful that the 50,000 siblings in Texas would be pollinated...as there aren't any native epiphytic orchids in Texas. But I guess that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a suitably sized and curious moth there. 

If we assume that some of the siblings in both Florida and Madagascar are pollinated...then things get interesting. Which combination of inputs would be the fittest? What are the chances that the parents would be fitter than their children? If the parents are fitter than their children...then no progress would be made. If the children were fitter...then there would be progress. How much progress would be made? How do we define progress? 

Out of all the states in the US...Florida has by far the most epiphytes. But in absolute terms...the quantity of epiphytic species in Florida is really low. 

As I see it...in terms of epiphytes...the US is a large and nearly empty basket. There's plenty of room for improvement/progress. I think it would be beneficial if we filled this basket up. We could introduce select foreign species to Florida and southern Texas...and nature would select the fittest ones and move them north, east and west. As the colonizers adapted to new habitats...they would differentiate...and the gene pool would expand. 

Biodiversity gains in the US would offset biodiversity losses in other parts of the world. As other parts of the world sequestered less carbon...the US would sequester more carbon. Plus, an abundance of epiphytes in the US would have numerous positive externalities (facilitation cascades). 



Ed said:


> Actually, no... the more species you have competing for the figs is going to result in a decreased biodiversity over time as the resources of each tree is finite (and not based as much on the animals as the environment). If the number of fig trees increase as you allege, then you are displacing other trees which provide other required resources and the forest is moving towards a predominately fig climax forest....


If the US moves towards being a predominately epiphyte climax country...how much of the blame would you place on me? 

If the US implements tax choice...how much of the blame would you place on me? 

Markets work because the output (the allocation of resources) reflects the widest possible variety of inputs. If the US ends up with an orchid on every tree...then believe you me...it wasn't because I personally attached an orchid to every tree. In order for the US's epiphyte basket to fill up...it would take many many many people choosing to sacrifice the alternative uses of their limited resources.

It would really help if you read up on the opportunity cost concept and what it means for resources to be efficiently allocated. This is one of my favorite sources...Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Seriously, your ramblings seem almost familiar. Rick?


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> It would really help if you read up on the opportunity cost concept and what it means for resources to be efficiently allocated. This is one of my favorite sources...Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation.


It's odd that you would site this as one of your favorite sources because it in no way in promotes the introduction of exotic or invasive species. In fact, the document repeatedly emphasizes the need for conservation, species protection, and sustainable use.

Let me draw your attention to a few passages in your own reference:

_"Two significant *causes of biodiversity loss* arise from the trade in endangered species and *biological invasions*. The former depletes the biodiversity asset base in the 'exporting' country, reducing viable populations, and t*he latter results in inter-species competition for space and food supplies*."_

_"The issue of *biological invasions* is complex. *Preventing new invasions is an issue of restricting import of any species that will compete with endemic species"*._

_"The policy relevance of valuation information is extensive, but might include: 
- demonstrating the value of biodiversity: awareness raising;
- land use decisions: for conservation or other uses;
- setting priorities for biodiversity conservation (within a limited budget);
- *limiting biodiversity invasions;*
..."_

I would also direct your attention to:

Perrings, C., D. Williamson and S. Dalmazzone (2000). _The Economics of Biological Invasions_, Cheltham: Edwards Elger. 

The Economics of Biological Invasions - Google Books

This reference is used by "one of your favorite sources".


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> Unfortunately, for whatever reason, quite a few participants in this discussion seemed to latch on to the idea that I advocate adding whatever wherever. I definitely do not advocate or support thoughtless introductions. Such a position is easy to attack though, so I doubt those who've built their convenient strawman will abandon their approach.


Hmm, "let's review":



epiphyte said:


> I attached a Tillandsia three stories high on my tree in order to encourage it to spread to natural ecosystems. The first seed pod opened today.
> 
> I also have orchid roots all over my tree...and many of those roots contain foreign fungus...which sends spores all over Southern California.


I could pull some more quotes from your blog, but I think my point is made.


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

It does not take a genius to understand that any introduced species (flora or fauna) changes the environment in a negative way. European starlings, pigeons, English sparrows, bullfrogs, cane toads, Elodea, Tree-of-heaven(Ailanthus altissima), English Ivy, kudzu, the list goes on and on. I have seen 1st hand since I've have done wildlife control for many years in Maryland. Starlings/English sparrows are are the worst.


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

How could I forget, I've been doing pest control for years also. What about the impact of Norway rats, house mice, German roaches, Oriental roaches, stinkbugs, ladybugs, roof rats and many more? Eden, I don't think so.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Epiphyte,
something that may not have occurred to you would be the potential for FWS or the Dept. of Agriculture to restrict or eliminate legal trade of the plants in question (and probably several other species) if they are discovered to be flourishing in a non-native habitat, whether or not they are determined to be immediately injurious. 
I realize that you will probably just gloss over this argument, as you have every other intelligent post in this thread, but given your self-centered views, maybe the possibility of no longer being able to acquire the plants that tickle your fancy will have some impact?


----------



## Sirjohn (Jan 1, 2014)

Mantella71 said:


> How could I forget, I've been doing pest control for years also. What about the impact of Norway rats, house mice, German roaches, Oriental roaches, stinkbugs, ladybugs, roof rats and many more? Eden, I don't think so.


I already brought these up earlier, and you can include termites to that... All have argued with Epyphite but to no avail... I have given up on responding, but can't help but keep reading as its like a bizzare thread.. 

Someone said earlier this may be a troll thread.. People trying to preserve our eco system and environment and this guy keeps insisting on introducing foreign species of orchids reagrdless of what anyone has to say.. Scientists, Reasercher, Biologists and many learned others have condemned this type of thinking, but no... Epiphyte is going to recreate the wheel to suit his own narcissistic views. Maybe someone will cut down that damn tree, or better yet one of his experiments will kill it if they have'nt started poisoning it already..

Its a shame that someone thinks like this, but irrisponsibility seems to fit best. Just because you can does'nt mean you should.. 

His examples poor, citing parrots who do not leave their relative areas, or ants who do not mix with other species as they will kill eachother... On and on, as I have been following this thread from the very start.. When I saw the tree, I knew there was a problem... 

Everyone can get a license to drive, but few drive well, and some are quite reckless...


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

Right on Sirjohn. Sorry I only read part of this ridiculous thread.  Glad others out there feel the same.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> what plants would be displaced? The only possible candidates would be a couple native Polypodiums. What are the chances that the foreign epiphytic orchid and native epiphytic ferns would compete for the same exact microhabitat in the same exact habitat?


Given that you claim to be an “expert” regarding epiphytes, you’re ignoring a huge number of important epiphytic organisms in just California alone… Based on your statement above, for some reason, you perceive the epiphytic niches to be open…. This is not the case, I suggest you consider the huge biodiversity of coevolved lichens as part of the problem. Changing the diversity of lichens is a problem as they are important for many factors including capturing nutrients for transfer to the trees. Are you familiar with a bottom up trophic cascade? This is in no small part why I pointed out that you are confusing biomass with biodiversity…. 

As for which species would be impacted, that would require rigorous control conditions where the potential invasive organism cannot escape into the environment at large. 



epiphyte said:


> How many different foreign epiphytes would we have to add to California before we started experiencing diminishing returns? Whatever that number is...we're not even remotely close to approaching it.


This is a belief statement without any supporting evidence.. particularly since you have conveniently ignored the huge number of lichens that already inhabit those niches.. (and this is before we even consider things like mosses.. or other organisms..). You are also conveniently ignoring the facts of a trophic cascade or impact on other organisms… For example, a good study indicates that epiphytes are significant contributors to shade under colonized trees which can significantly impact not only productivity (see for example the differences in shade grown coffee http://www.aseanbiodiversity.info/Abstract/51009953.pdf )... Given the significant changes in productivity, it is pretty clear that we can extrapolate out that it most likely will change species diversity under and in the trees…. 



epiphyte said:


> Regarding salamanders...animals aren't my area of expertise...epiphytes are. I have no idea of the variety and abundance of salamanders in California and outside California...or the type of conditions they require. But if there was an exclusively epiphytic foreign salamander...then all things being equal...I would lean towards adding it...given that we don't have many exclusively epiphytic native predators. This is why I tentatively support the naturalization of chameleons in California. Our native lizards are primarily terrestrial and chameleons are primarily epiphytic.


Again, you are making assumptions that niches are empty and/or can support additional predation impacts when in all probability they cannot… For example, birds are significant predators in arboreal niches (attempting to use epiphyte to describe a vertebrate is ridiculous…). Your position again, supports decreasing biodiversity, when you change the species that make up a ecosystem, you are disrupting the ecosystem… That is why I suggested you check out the impact of disturbed habitats on biodiversity… (which you promptly claimed was not relevant).. disturbed habitats are not stable and are particularly sensitive to disruption and colonization by species which are adapted to rapid colonization (What used to be called a R strategist).



epiphyte said:


> Unfortunately, for whatever reason, quite a few participants in this discussion seemed to latch on to the idea that I advocate adding whatever wherever. I definitely do not advocate or support thoughtless introductions. Such a position is easy to attack though, so I doubt those who've built their convenient strawman will abandon their approach.


Given all of the factors which you are either glossing over or are ignoring, it is pretty funny that you are trying to pass it off as a strawman argument… Your pretty clear that you are/have been/will be adding organisms to the environment because in your opinion, it is a good way to assure species survival, and that the niches are vacant…



epiphyte said:


> First off, if the two species are capable of crossing...and not being able to cross was the only criteria for a "species"...then we could say that I didn't actually cross two species....I crossed two subspecies or varieties of the same species. Where the line is technically drawn is mostly academic. If the two orchids aren't capable of crossing...then they are too distantly related. If the two orchids are capable of crossing...then they aren't that distantly related. If the two orchids are capable of crossing and their offspring are not sterile...then they are even more closely related. So there's clearly a continuum of familiarity.


You are aware that this is a bunch of BS being used as a rationalization? 



epiphyte said:


> The idea of a "species" is useful...especially when it comes to categorization and communication...but it's not very helpful when it comes to conserving or expanding the gene pool. People can be fixated on the fact that two species are different...without bothering to understand or determine just how different they really are.


Actually it’s enormously important for conservation… I suggest you read up on outbreeding depression and in addition, why the release of cross bred species is a bad idea… Within plants, you can even get significant issues within a species if you cross different local adapted populations…. 
Your attempt to dismiss species as a concept here is just more BS to rationalize your choices.



epiphyte said:


> Secondly, it's extremely likely that the 50,000 in each of the three locations would be whittled down considerably. I doubt I'd manage to attach every sibling to suitable microhabitats on the trees. So maybe 25% would establish and survive...and maybe 25% of those would thrive enough to bloom.


And only a hundred starlings were released in Central Park in 1890 and have turned into the ecological problem and loss of species diversity in the US (as well as many other countries).. In 1935, 3000 cane toads were released in Queensland Australia with huge negative impacts on a large amount of wildlife… Japanese Honeysuckle was introduced in the early to mid 1800s and has since become a huge issue.. Attempting to justify your argument that the vast majority will die isn’t the position you think it is… 



epiphyte said:


> Thirdly, there's the matter of pollinators. Perhaps lindenii's pollinator won't pollinate any of the siblings in Florida. If this is the case...then the siblings are all dead ends. Eventually they will all die off without passing on their genetic material.


I’ll tell you what, you write up the proposal to study all the potential pollinators in all three locations and perform controlled studies on the pollinators to support your point, get it put into a respected peer reviewed journal and I’ll consider it as a valid argument. Right now, it’s a what-if statement without even any supporting argument. 



epiphyte said:


> If we assume that some of the siblings in both Florida and Madagascar are pollinated...then things get interesting. Which combination of inputs would be the fittest? What are the chances that the parents would be fitter than their children? If the parents are fitter than their children...then no progress would be made. If the children were fitter...then there would be progress. How much progress would be made? How do we define progress?


Translation into conservation language.. the offspring are able to displace more organisms than the parents..



epiphyte said:


> Out of all the states in the US...Florida has by far the most epiphytes. But in absolute terms...the quantity of epiphytic species in Florida is really low.


Based on what data? You’ve been pretty selective on how you attempt to define epiphytes all targeted to ignore all of the inconvenient other species that are going to be impacted. There are even more epiphytic organisms in Florida… 



epiphyte said:


> As I see it...in terms of epiphytes...the US is a large and nearly empty basket. There's plenty of room for improvement/progress. I think it would be beneficial if we filled this basket up.


This is pure and utter BS. There is a huge diversity of things like lichens that are important for multiple parts of the ecosystem that you are willing to just plow under. 



epiphyte said:


> Biodiversity gains in the US would offset biodiversity losses in other parts of the world. As other parts of the world sequestered less carbon...the US would sequester more carbon. Plus, an abundance of epiphytes in the US would have numerous positive externalities (facilitation cascades).


Really? You haven’t even accounted for the diversity losses in your plan as of yet 



epiphyte said:


> If the US implements tax choice...how much of the blame would you place on me?


Still ignoring the fundamental issues… Sorry, the economic argument isn't going to pull me off the fundamental flaws in your understanding of local ecosystems and other flaws.... You may want to reevaluate your claims that the niches are 
1) empty
2) adding species isn't detrimental.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

One wacko playing johnny appleseed in his backyard doesn't scare me to much, (though it is possible he could do significant damage to local ecosystems). It's the fact that the OP is advocating that other people do this, like they are trying to start some movement, but the methodology at work here is flawed and irresponsible. If a lot more people did this, like he actually did manage to start a movement and people applied this methodology to other plants and animals it would likely result in multiple ecological disasters.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I think the OP should just move to Singapore or Malaysia and grow lots of Vandas, and other epiphytes in his front yard and call it a day


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

Ed said:


> Still ignoring the fundamental issues… Sorry, the economic argument isn't going to pull me off the fundamental flaws in your understanding of local ecosystems and other flaws.... You may want to reevaluate your claims that the niches are
> 1) empty
> 2) adding species isn't detrimental....
> 
> ...


Perhaps you have a fundamentally better understanding of ecology than I do. This could certainly be the case. But is it possible that you grasp ecology but you don't grasp economics? Nope. A resource is a resource...and some uses of resources provide more value than other uses. So it's easy enough to determine how well you grasp ecology by determining how well you grasp economics. Just answer the following question...

Would you say that it would be beneficial/desirable/valuable for America to block the invasion of all foreign products, services and people? 

If you do understand ecology...then this should be really easy for you to answer...because ecology deals with numerous species but the question I posed to you only deals with one species. If you can definitively answer the question for 1000s and 1000s of species...then you should be able to definitively answer the question for one species.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Thank you for a response that was under 5000 words and didn`t include Unicorns, fairies and Parrots in diapers.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> Thank you for a response that was under 5000 words and didn`t include Unicorns, fairies and Parrots in diapers.


Yet somehow it still made my head hurt.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Dane said:


> Yet somehow it still made my head hurt.


And didn't address any questions or anything pointed out to him since his last post. Like a true pro troll.

Parrots and figs, parrots and figs, .... squawk ... parrots and figs.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> But is it possible that you grasp ecology but you don't grasp economics? Nope. A resource is a resource...and some uses of resources provide more value than other uses. So it's easy enough to determine how well you grasp ecology by determining how well you grasp economics. Just answer the following question...
> 
> Would you say that it would be beneficial/desirable/valuable for America to block the invasion of all foreign products, services and people?
> 
> If you do understand ecology...then this should be really easy for you to answer...because ecology deals with numerous species but the question I posed to you only deals with one species. If you can definitively answer the question for 1000s and 1000s of species...then you should be able to definitively answer the question for one species.


 Trying to compare human culture and the way we use resources compared to that of other species is dangerous. Our larger brain has enabled us to create culture and we handle our use of resources very differently, we are not acting on genes alone. The way you are using human economics to compare the way another animal uses resources is what I would consider ANTHROPOMORPHISM


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

epiphyte said:


> Perhaps you have a fundamentally better understanding of ecology than I do. This could certainly be the case. But is it possible that you grasp ecology but you don't grasp economics? Nope. A resource is a resource...and some uses of resources provide more value than other uses. So it's easy enough to determine how well you grasp ecology by determining how well you grasp economics. Just answer the following question...
> 
> Would you say that it would be beneficial/desirable/valuable for America to block the invasion of all foreign products, services and people?
> 
> If you do understand ecology...then this should be really easy for you to answer...because ecology deals with numerous species but the question I posed to you only deals with one species. If you can definitively answer the question for 1000s and 1000s of species...then you should be able to definitively answer the question for one species.


You are attempting to make an apples and oranges comparison since you lack sufficient data to be able to determine the value of any displaced species (since you also don’t know which species may be displaced). If you displace a “keystone” species, the economic costs can be catastrophic over time or if you displace a species that has a direct commercial value. Were you aware that a surprisingly large group of lichens have significant value for use as a dye? Or that a number of them are part of a multimillion dollar medical trade or are part of investigations for medical uses…. In addition they are important as indicators of environmental health… 
Can you place a dollar value for the loss of each species that your indiscriminate attempts to introduce novel species may impact? Given that there are potentially a thousand species of just lichens in California, what dollar value do you place on them and their potential uses? 

Some comments 
Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

edwardsatc said:


> And didn't address any questions or anything pointed out to him since his last post. Like a true pro troll.
> 
> Parrots and figs, parrots and figs, .... squawk ... parrots and figs.


I just ignored the backhanded insult about knowledge of ecology... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

epiphyte said:


> Regarding salamanders...animals aren't my area of expertise...epiphytes are. I have no idea of the variety and abundance of salamanders in California and outside California...or the type of conditions they require. But if there was an exclusively epiphytic foreign salamander...then all things being equal...I would lean towards adding it...given that we don't have many exclusively epiphytic native predators. This is why I tentatively support the naturalization of chameleons in California. Our native lizards are primarily terrestrial and chameleons are primarily epiphytic.


Just a little note, THERE ARE NO EPIPHYTIC ANIMALS. Chameleons and others are arboreal.

Also, you REALLY need a better understanding of ecosystems as a whole before you continue your arguments here. Don't fight with Ed. You will lose.

John


----------



## epiphyte (Jan 25, 2011)

*GREASER* said:


> Trying to compare human culture and the way we use resources compared to that of other species is dangerous. Our larger brain has enabled us to create culture and we handle our use of resources very differently, we are not acting on genes alone. The way you are using human economics to compare the way another animal uses resources is what I would consider ANTHROPOMORPHISM


Nope, economics doesn't have different rules for humans and different rules for bees. Same thing with species on other planets.

An alien species doesn't crawl from the muck one day and build an intergalactic space cruiser the next. In between these two events is an extremely messy process of trial and error...mistakes and discoveries. 

How long does this process take? The rate of progress depends on the rate of discovering new and better uses of society's limited resources. And this depends on the variety of perspectives and freedom.

If an alien species all think alike...then they aren't going to see different uses of society's limited resources. If an alien species all think differently...it will be for nothing if they don't have the freedom to use their limited resources in different ways. 

So, by the time an alien species has progressed to the point of developing an intergalactic space cruiser...they will be enlightened enough to see the positive correlation between freedom and progress. 

Therefore, if an alien spaceship visits our planet tomorrow...then chances are pretty good that they would be more interested in trading than taking. 

Closer to home...yes, China could enslave us and take all our resources. This would benefit them in the short run...but in the long run they would be far worse off because they couldn't benefit from all the American innovation that would have occurred had they not taken our resources. 

This is known as Xero's Rule. 

Both Socrates and Jesus were killed for thinking differently...and we don't have the freedom to choose where our taxes go. So, as a species, we aren't enlightened enough to see that trading is far more valuable than taking.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

epiphyte said:


> So, by the time an alien species has progressed to the point of developing an intergalactic space cruiser...they will be enlightened enough to see the positive correlation between freedom and progress.


I`ll be the judge if they`re enlightened or not thank you.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Ho ... ly ... Sh$t ! We've ventured into the twilight zone.

From parrots to alien economics and intergalactic space travel. 

Time for me to leave this thread. 





epiphyte said:


> Nope, economics doesn't have different rules for humans and different rules for bees. Same thing with species on other planets.
> 
> An alien species doesn't crawl from the muck one day and build an intergalactic space cruiser the next. In between these two events is an extremely messy process of trial and error...mistakes and discoveries.
> 
> ...


----------



## FroggyKnight (Mar 14, 2013)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> I`ll be the judge if they`re enlightened or not thank you.


LOL

John


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

*This thread is getting way off topic and is now closed.*


----------

