I don't believe in the theory of "freedom without responsibility" , and, besides, Mankind  ceased to be part of Nature when it ceased to be subject to natural selection. Once humans became domesticated, they were no longer part of the natural process.
 
Geoff > Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:12:19 -0600> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Letter From New Scientist Magazine> To: [log in to unmask]> > Geoffrey Purcell wrote:> > Sorry, I should have made clear that I meant that reintroduction of species to an area where they were previously extinct was OK, but that introducing species such as rats etc. to areas they never were a natural part of the ecosystem thereof, was a bad idea. Of course, ideally, one should really just reduce human intervention in Nature to near-zero levels as that would allow a balance to eventually appear on its own, but that would require much harsher laws to make slaughterers of wildlife suffer decades of imprisonment, a considerable expansion of the size of National Parks to allow animals to migrate to other wild areas etc. > > > > Geoff > >> > > > I cannot say that I'm a fan of tyranny in any form. Man is a part of > nature just as much as beavers dam up water sources, bees modify trees > habitats, etc. The idea that man is somehow out of place on earth or > that he should not be allowed to modify his environment is ludicrous. > As to national parks, there should be none. Property should be owned by > individuals who can choose to manage their resources to best advantage. > Some will choose one way, some another, their choice. If someone or > some group doesn't like the way a piece of property is managed, they can > buy it themselves and change it's management. The idea of "Shoot a > meal, go to jail" is a form of tyranny that I find unacceptable.> > Steve> 
_________________________________________________________________

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/