I'd have to say that humans are a fabulous success story. Compared to the oaks, we increased our chances in winning the reproductive lottery enormously, not having to expend so much energy creating vast numbers of candidates for survival or seeing so many of our candidates fall prey to parasites, predation or mishaps. Result: 8 billion of us which may or may not be too good a thing, but is possibly more members than some oak species. The only thing we sacrifice is longevity- none of us live two hundred years, but within fifty years we'll probably have that condition licked as well.
A world filled with humans and only a few oaks - I'd rather have the reverse.
Human reproduction is strong evidence for the value of sociality in its various forms. Low fecundity coupled with high survival, and pow! you get a lot of critters. I'm with you on your preference for fewer humans and more oaks. As for extending lifespans, count me out, but please do remember me in 200 years....
The goal should be more health, not more longevity. Each generation is occupying its niche longer and blocking the emergence of the next gen for too long!
I'm impressed by your artwork. A necessary skill for naturalists in the 19th and early 20th century but rarely employed any more. Sometimes a good drawing is better than a photograph.
I used to try to teach drawing from observations in the introductory biology lab, but it was pretty hopeless. You are right, sometimes a drawing is better than a photograph. My favorite examples are from The Insects of Australia in which most of the insects are shown as stippled pen-and-ink drawings. Many showed a mind-boggling level of skill.
I'd have to say that humans are a fabulous success story. Compared to the oaks, we increased our chances in winning the reproductive lottery enormously, not having to expend so much energy creating vast numbers of candidates for survival or seeing so many of our candidates fall prey to parasites, predation or mishaps. Result: 8 billion of us which may or may not be too good a thing, but is possibly more members than some oak species. The only thing we sacrifice is longevity- none of us live two hundred years, but within fifty years we'll probably have that condition licked as well.
A world filled with humans and only a few oaks - I'd rather have the reverse.
Human reproduction is strong evidence for the value of sociality in its various forms. Low fecundity coupled with high survival, and pow! you get a lot of critters. I'm with you on your preference for fewer humans and more oaks. As for extending lifespans, count me out, but please do remember me in 200 years....
The goal should be more health, not more longevity. Each generation is occupying its niche longer and blocking the emergence of the next gen for too long!
Too right Baird!
If I'm around in 200 years I won't remember anyone. If I have my druthers I'll be an oak!
An excellent choice, Monseigneur!
Thanks for sharing, this is great
I'm impressed by your artwork. A necessary skill for naturalists in the 19th and early 20th century but rarely employed any more. Sometimes a good drawing is better than a photograph.
I used to try to teach drawing from observations in the introductory biology lab, but it was pretty hopeless. You are right, sometimes a drawing is better than a photograph. My favorite examples are from The Insects of Australia in which most of the insects are shown as stippled pen-and-ink drawings. Many showed a mind-boggling level of skill.