Because then we will be able to deal with an intelligent being rather than a deity where one thinks a transition to nonexistence or rather the supersenuous thing in itself. It could assit in making pure what is but practical(as to other kinds) and in my guess still analytic no matter the art in the defective representation given by a physical telology not really tastefully cultured by society as of yet. I will discuss this directly in reference to habitations throughout the food chain if Mike's proposal is opened.
A like kind or baramin system is needed because man-made purposes of life need to be seperable from natural purposes. We are a long way from saying what a creature's attribute might be FOR in man's sense let alone ethically keeping ourselves from exploting that possible synthetic knowledge. Gould was well aware that the population question needs to be addressed and I dont see a nonwar solution if we dont start to expand the ablility of scientists to predicate.
I am well aware of a sense in which not even the "genus" exists but the methodology has focused on the form i think over form-making and translation in space as one(by inappropriate analysis(procedural) of "programs" and methods not represenative of history). But these categories (the class etc) might exist with respect to products of intelligence suseptible to teleogical criticsm even if they would not be but paraphyletic and less usefull for those trying only to figure out the change in the forms' form-making that for baraminic reasons possibly and man-made physical teleogical connections might be polyphyletic. I dont think we can say for sure that the disrespect for species in a common panbiogeography is not due to natural purposes ALREADY observed by biogeographers. There just is not a science of this because evolution in its post pop sociobiology is too reactive to the metaphysics prior to the ethics that it has a hard time expanding its boundaries. That it is incapable of so doing I have in no way found. It just requires a little massaging.
Mick, I am beginning to notice that the way Percy has this board working it is difficult to get this conversation beyond transitions from the hypothetical to the categorical imperative. The point of adding a like kind kind of goes the other way.
Kant said, "The first thing that must be designedly prepared in an arrangement for a purposive complex of natural beings on the earth would be their place of habitation" but as long as we insist on Systematics rather thanalso Discontinuity Systematics we might never get to the topography where the baramin but not the monophyly divide out the designed from the undesigned habitations or niches. Man is certainly permited to do somethings to the earth and change it but if we dont know what the geographic collection localities might be desigend TO we can little know if we get the method of historical guessing correct either. The future can help with the past. Of course if we waffle long enough academically we might get forced scientifically to develop such, on data of life on Mars etc but it is silly to think about this life equally on Mars or a Moon off the outer solar system planets. There will be some kind of barrier.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-12-2005 04:30 PM
™ Version 4.2