How often would it actually come up that a person were to find an endangered spider in their house?
Some of those animals are not endangered, but if you don’t think people care about the rhino you’re just not paying attention. The plight of the rhinoceros is a popular cause.
Sure, there are people who care more about animals with cute furry faces than they do scaly, slimy, and bitey animals. But are these people harming the animal rights movement?
There are plenty of bee-keeping geeks out there who really care about their bees. They don’t care about cats and dogs. They don’t care about saving the great blue whale. They just care about bees. Are these people hypocrites? Are they part of the problem? Or are they just passionate about one thing, but not everything.
:eek:
Not OUR taters!!??!!
:eek:
Actually, the OP isn’t the one setting up a straw man. This is known as Charismatic megafauna, and it appears to be very much a thing in environmentalism.
No. You’ve misunderstood the concept. Just read the first sentence of your link a few more times.
And this sentence from the second paragraph:
Well, I for one, think it’s high time that we change our environmental laws and regulations and treaties so that they protect not just cute endangered species, but ugly ones as well.
I know, right? Whoever heard of anybody giving a crap about the rhinoceros. I mean, everyone at my hunting lodge is all like “Pfft? Rhinos? Of course I’m going to wipe them out. They aren’t cute!”
Exactly. The “cute” animals are used in PR campaigns to achieve goals like protecting an entire ecosystem.
For example… Let’s say I want to raise money to protect an area of rainforest because it has an endangered warty toad, and a very rare stink bug. Am I going to get a lot of money by selling my stink bug poster, or my warty toad stuffies?
No. Because people are biased and stupid, and don’t care about ugly things.
So as someone who actually values these ugly critters, I “sell” the concept of saving this corner of the rainforest by showing pictures of cute monkeys and brilliant green tree frogs.
I think the pitting needs to be towards the members of the general public who only give money to worthwhile environmental projects if there are “cute” animals involved, and NOT towards the environmental groups who must use these biases to effectively fundraise.
Also you can sing it to the tune of Deutschland Uber Alles:
CHAR-IS-MA-TIC
MEG-A-FAUNA
MEGAFAUNA
IN THE WORLD
Good luck getting it out of your head, though.
Speaking as someone who has murdered millions of fruit flies in pursuit of his PhD, I’ve gotta say I’m OK with the status quo. I’m fine with not having animal rights people picketing my lab.
Consider me one these people.
I’ll gladly eat a hamburger 'cause cows are ugly as fuck and serve no purpose other than to get fat and feed us.
But I do feel sympathy for animals that provide companionship to humans. Cats, dogs, fish, turtles…any animal that brings happiness and elicits care from humans.
Those animals do serve a purpose to us and I don’t think they should be subject to unnecessary pain or torture.
Does this mean that little Suzie’s favorite little oinker should be saved from the guillotine?
Maybe it does. Maybe it is critical that we separate ourselves emotionally from the things we eat. I think animal activism taken to extremes is counter-productive and unjustifiable rationally.
can’t beat a spider hatch.
dozens of moving dots.
Makes one wonder how they ever got protection for the Florida Manatee. Maybe one of the ugliest animals out there.
I want a warty toad stuffie! (That’s a Britishism, right? “Stuffie?” It’s a cute word!)
Then again, my favorite stuffed animal when I was a little girl was a vulture, so I’m one of the weird ones.
I don’t want to de-rail this thread, but that in itself is illogical reasoning.
Take pigs. Pigs are far more intelligent than dogs or cats. Every pig has the *potential *to provide companionship and comfort to a human being. To a lesser extent, almost every animal - cows, chickens, geese, lambs - could hypothetically become even more beloved than a conventional pet.
The only thing separating Fluffy or Fido from a hotdog are societal conventions - one is raised in a comfortable environment, coddled and socialized, while the other is raised in a factory farm and eaten. We could eat dogs. We could eat cats. They could serve that purpose; in many cultures, they do. Again, I don’t want to be The Annoying Activist - believe me, I’ve eaten plenty of meat - but pretending you’re taking the logical, rational position by having your culture’s values deeply ingrained in you doesn’t make much sense.
In fairness, dogs have been bred as companion animals for 40,000 years, and cats for nearly 10,000. That’s a societal convention, sure…but one with a lot of mileage behind it.
Fair enough. But there are actually quite a few people with pigs as pets - I’ve read that they bond to their owners strongly. And humans have been working on transforming pigs from giant, wild, violent boars with huge tusks to pink meat sacks for a long time. The point I was trying to make was that the way we decide what’s a-OK to fry up and what sleeps next to us at night is a bit erratic, and not too rational.
and pigs have more similarity to humans than many animals.
I’m against animal rights. They outnumber me around here and the last thing I want is them arming themselves.