Perhaps this is a whole new thread, but what exactly do you mean by “wrong?” I think the concept of right or wrong only has meaning if someone enforces it (God zapped Onan for spilling his seed. Therefore it was wrong.) Right or wrong doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If, for the sake of progress, humanity destroys a species and you say “That’s wrong,” does it really matter if you can’t or won’t do anything about it?
Obligation to who? If we fail to protect them, the result is they die out. If their demise is known to be detrimental to our survival, then perhaps we are obligated to ourselves to preserve them. If their demise is not detrimental, or we don’t know, who or what will act upon us as a consequence of failing our “moral obligation”?
Even if it’s possible to escape? (Which it has in the past. The last case of smallpox was a scientific photographer who caught it in a lab where they had a sample).
**
Does that mean that if we help a species today, we have the right to exterminate it tomorrow??
What’s dangerous? A bumblebee can be dangerous too. So can a German Shepard…
In any event, Danielinthewolvesden, I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate with you. I wouldn’t be shedding any tears if smallpox were eradicated tomorrow.
IIRC, there is a ongoing debate on whether or not to kill off the remaining smallpox. It may actually behoove us to have a sample stored away in case we need it for some kind of vaccine (or whatever) in the future (for example, if there happened to be more we did not know about somewhere in the world or if a similar bacteria becomes a problem in the future, etc.)
Homo sapiens sapiens has imparted a cicatrix upon the face of the Earth. It is widely known that the actions of humanity have had ill ramifications on the future of other species. How could that not be the case? Without the most simple tools (e.g. the ability to use stone to obtain skins), our species would not be able to venture far beyond equator. Having developed such technology, our numbers have soared from a few million to a few billion. In light of the impact we have brought to this planet, I doubt that the Earth is designed to support a thousand-fold increase in a primary predator.
Sharks attack approximately 28 humans each year. Humans kill over a million sharks annually. This incongruity in numbers is a sign of imbalance. Consider the current mode of transportation. In the United States alone there are approximately 125 million automobiles. Habitats are destroyed and parsed solely for the sake of creating roads for those vehicles. Much of the remaining habitat is destroyed for agricultural purposes. As a species, homo sapiens sapiens has destroyed natural floral natural resources en masse to provide grounds for preferred vegetation. We have left concrete and asphalt in our wake. We now turn other species as natural resources to support our outrageous population.
Is it our duty to intervene in the endangerment and/or extinction of another species? The condition of a species is either directly or indirectly a state induced by our collective presence. Is it the fault of the panda that it cannot survive our conquest of this planet? Is it the fault of the primary aquatic predator that it cannot escape our technology when it once hunted uncontested? Is it the fault of the numerous rare species of plants that they grew in the path of “development”? We bear the onus.
Humanity cannot extricate itself from evolution, nor can it claim that the endangerment and/or extinction of another species is evolution when we have wrought such havoc on the environment. The design of evolution is unbeknownst to us. We are only aware of our designs and the detrimental effects they have had on this planet. Perhaps some of these species are on a course toward extinction. Perhaps some of these species are new introductions to the ecosystem. It is not our place to meddle with nature, but it is our duty to amend the seemingly irreparable damage which has ensued as a result of human nature.
When a species is eliminated, usually another extant species takes its place. Hence, when the brown rat was (accidentally) imported into the Hawaiian Islands, it destroyed several native species of birds. The niche that these species was taken over by others. Eventually (given enough time) a variant of one of these species will emerge and take over. This is not necessarily a bad thing (look at the horse in N. America. The problem really is that so many species are being eliminated, and in such a short time span.
But really, who mournes the passing of the dodo bird? And I can think about a few species that need eliminating ( black widow spiders, scorpions, my mother in law).
This seems so full of contradictions that I can’t even begin to sort them out. We cannot extricate ourselves from evolution, can’t know the “designs” of evolution, have no business “meddling with nature,” but have a duty to repair the “damage” we have done.
Not every change made to the environment should be seen as damage. Changes to an ecosystem are not necessarily bad or good except when judging from the point of view of a particular species or group of species. We have the ability to help or harm different species, but not the duty to do so or refrain from doing so. If there is a moral onus upon us, it is self-imposed, not dictated to us by nature. Regardless of what you may hear from some sources, man could not destroy all life on this planet even given the concerted efforts of the entire race. We can alter its path drastically, perhaps to the point where we could not survive, but life itself would adapt and continue.
Whenever a species can, it will expand its boundaries and exploit the resources of its new environment, and it will continue to do so until those resources will no longer support expansion. The balance of nature that is so often invoked is not some grand juggling act that we are barging in on. We are included within it. When the placental mammals moved southward and outcompeted their marsupial counterparts in South America, the indigenous creatures became extinct. That is the nature of evolution, and it remains the same with us in the picture. Our moral obligations to the snail darter, panda, or any other species whom we have outcompeted is nil from an evolutionary standpoint.
I am not saying that we have no business helping out a species that we have endangered, or even one in danger through causes other than human activity. What I am saying is that we should be clear what our motivations are. The giant panda could easily harbor a bacterium in its gut that will develop into a devastating killer of human beings. The next species of wildflower that we kill off may possibly have the cure for cancer in its cells. We have no way of knowing, ultimately, what will result from our actions. We can make educated guesses (and uneducated ones as well), but that’s about it. In the meantime, we change our environments to suit our needs, exploit the resources we can, and keep expanding until such time as it is no longer possible for us to do so, just like every other living thing out there does.
I fail to see the contradictions you find apparent in the text you quoted. The species homo sapiens sapiens is a part of evolutionary processes. We are not privy to the results the process of evolution will yield. We have a technological capacity which has brought about changes in the environment. We should not play the role of a deity to ensure the continuing existence of a species for the sake of doing so; however, we do have an obligation to moderate our own nature.
I agree.
The onus may be both imposed by nature and self-imposed. I personally feel it is our responsibily to curb actions which result in the annihilation of a particular species; however, nature will seek to correct itself. Our actions will have repercussions.
I agree. Consider populations of deer and wolves. Given an abundant food supply, the population of the deer will increase. Given the increase in deer, the population of the wolves will increase. When the deer are decimated by the excessive population of wolves, the wolves will begin to die as a result of inadequate food supply. Thus, the exploitation of resources is kept in check.
Humans have a technological capacity which enable us to stretch these rules. We can import food from other locations so that we may sustain ourselves in a fashion which evades the deer-wolf cycle. We can clothe ourselves to that we may sustain ourselves in climates for which the human body could not normally survive. In that regard, we are attempting to omit our presence from the “grand juggling act”.
From an evolutionary standpoint, we do not have an obligation, but in the interest of our species (and interests non-species-centric), we have an obligation to ensure the survival of other species.
If one clears fifty acres to construct a parking lot, what is the result? We are aware of the consequences of our actions, but we fail allow those repercussions to be a concern. If the concern is not immediate, we do not permit it to affect us. We do not care about that fifty acres, but when we act in such a fashion for the one thousandth time, the ramifications become more apparent.
The difference between our expansion and the expansion of other species is that as deer and wolf populations wax and wane, they impact other species minimally. As we continue to expand through technological means, we impact nearly all species.
Anyway, your second point (killing species that harm humans)is one I often debate over with others & seldom reach consensus. I still think it goes back to my first comment in this thread…either (1) it violates the other species’ right to exist or (2) we don’t know how it will affect the overall ecosystem that we ourselves need to survive (if we kill all the preditors, then we’ll be up to our ears in rabbits…metaphorically speaking). The response I get is usually (1) so what? and (2) well then we can just control the other species that get out of hand. Controlling nature…yeah, right. Plus, why take on that task (controlling pests) when it’s already done for free by other species?
And all the old remnants of the Jurassic fauna? The marsupials, who should have all been whiped out long ago? Are you suggesting that speeding up the process makes it ok? Nearly every animal will eventually lose it’s niche and become extinct, we’re simply speeding up the natural process. With that logic we can kill off anything.
The truth of the matter is that Condor’s may be a rare bird, but they would be far more numerous today if it weren’t for DDT, and humans killing them. In light of that, I think we should bring them back to health. If nature then want’s to take it’s course, it can do so.
Can anyone identify an environment on this planet, or others, that has been affected positively by human activity? There are NONE! From any point of view, our activity affects that environment negatively, except in our eyes. We may improve some environments, but only after we have wrecked them first.
It’s funny how we think about saving a flower because it may be useful to us in some way at some later date. What about life that is worthless to us, is anyone crying about that (like the smallpox argument above)? It makes me sick how people drive around with the WWF (World Wildlife Federation) Panda sticker on their Ford Excursions, which inhale dozens of flies and mosquitoes every day. What makes one species more worth saving than another? Just because one is “cuter” than another? That it manages to give us pleasure by looking at it?
Also, think about the fact that there are millions more species that have gone extinct in this planet’s history than exist today, some succeed for a while, some not. Some win, some loose. Will humans put the final nail in the coffin of the Panda, the condor, or the small-pox virus based on our hunger for material, space, and safety? Who’s to say. Species are dying out every single day without notice. New ones are appearing all the time.
As for the Panda, yes, I think we should intervene on it’s behalf to keep the species going. Hell, it worked for the North American Bison, who went through a serious genetic bottleneck earlier this century. But again, why did we intervene? Simply because the animal pleased us in some way? It would be impossible to present any argument for saving an animal purely on science alone, there will always be an emotional element. Besides, the Panda is cute.
This is definitely a better way to to say it. The phrases “design of evolution,” “meddle with nature,” and “repair the damage” are all ones I disagree with on the face of it. The paragraph I quoted in my last post seemed to be saying that we could not know what was in store, but should not change things except to try and undo any changes we have already made.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nen *
**
Agreed that our actions have repercussions we cannot foresee, and that nature may counteract what we have done in ways very detrimental to us. This is an argument from the standpoint of having a duty to ourselves to protect other life. But the moral duty to protect other creatures for their own sakes is a value judgement we adopt voluntarily. There is no duty to do so imposed from the outside.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nen *
**
Well, I only see this as an expansion of territory and resource base. Instead of limiting our territory to a geographically bound habitat, we have expanded until it includes most of the globe. But, the same rules still apply to us. When resources diminish, we will feel the consequences. Our attempt to opt out of the game is illusory.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nen *
**
True enough. We act individually, and impact collectively. It’s one of the problems we have always had as a species that we have a very hard time predicting what the sum of the parts will look like. Even once we are done, it is hard at times to pluck the threads of human action from the larger tapestry of what has gone before. Regardless, people keep going, building, expanding willy nilly. That drive is part of us, exactly as it is for all other life around. What we haven’t figured out just yet is how we can (as a species) preserve what needs preserving, or even tell what those things are.
I will grant you that the duty to protect other species solely for the sake of continuing their existence has moral implications, but the survival of our species is dependent on the survival of other species, thus the obligation isn’t necessarily morally motivated.
I agree that humanity cannot escape this balance. That point is precisely what I was attempting to convey; however, the more our population waxes, the more catastrophic the waning portion of the cycle will seem.
I disagree. How can we not be aware of what needs to be preserved or how to accomplish that preservation? It is the drive of human nature to which we succumb and thereby elect to not establish preventative measures pertaining to the continued existence of other species. Negligence is not synonymous with a lack of understanding.
Well, this very thread is an example. While everyone agrees that we need to preserve something, there is massive disagreement as to exactly what, how much, and in which instances. Some folks want every life form and every scrap of untouched land preserved and sanctified, while others think that the snail darter just isn’t particularly important in the grand scheme of things. While Americans are loudly shouting that the rain forest needs preserving, Brazilians think there’s still plenty to go around and are chopping away. (I realize there are folks on both sides in both places, but just grant me the generalizations as an illustrative tool.) Heck, even if all the scientists agreed that we were undergoing global warming, it’s a far cry from that agreement to agreeing just how we were to all act to prevent it.
So, while we all understand on a fundamental level that we are dependant on the other life around us, we still are worlds away from agreeing just what that entails in our everyday lives as individuals, corporations, and nations. Is it enough to recycle? Can I clear a lot and build a home? Is it better to use paper or plastic? Should we put a damn here or 100 miles upstream? What limit should we allow duck hunters this year? How can we best control this crop parasite? These sorts of questions are the ones we need to get better at answering from the smallest scale to the largest before I would concede that we are truly attempting to balance our actions with the environmental status quo in surrounding ecosystems.
Well, I think it depends on the species and whether or not we are the cause of the extinction, like the whales, fur seals, sea turtles, Tigers, Rhino, Manatee’s, Gopher Turtles and Elephants.
Now some species, as far as I am concerned, can be done away with, like sharks. Living along the sea coast, I’m pretty much aware of them and the danger they pose. If the most dangerous of the species were to vanish, I would have no problem with that. Besides, with diminishing fish schools, such an occurrence might produce a boom in fishing.
Alligators and Crocodiles. I have no use for them. I admire them, from a great distance, but they’re worse than sharks in Australia and Florida. I get very tired of finding 'gators in almost every mud puddle in the State. Even in man made lakes, eventually one or two will move in making swimming an experience. They’re on golf courses, in rivers and streams, in every swamp, in ditches, canals and, sometimes, swimming pools. They are brutal eating machines and they get big.
I, like many, carry a gun if I paddle a canoe or shallow boat along a fresh water river beyond heavily developed areas and if I go ashore, I have to watch carefully for any signs of them. It used to not be that way before they were protected.
In Australia - where the people are a bit nuts anyhow – crocks kill people frequently and in India, they slaughter scores each year.
I’m not real happy with bears either, finding them to be the biggest danger in the North American forests, especially the Grizzly. There are scores of stories about Bears killing or injuring campers, hikers and hunters. When going into Grizzly country, I think I could agree with a hunter sporting a fully automatic M-16 for protection – or a tank.
The disargreement of which you speak is founded in ignorance. Why would an individual deem the snail darter important without appropriate education? Our species must become both education about and respectful to other species.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ptahlis *
While Americans are loudly shouting that the rain forest needs preserving, Brazilians think there’s still plenty to go around and are chopping away.
The rain forest is being cleared to make room for the expanding agrarian society. The crops are necessary to provide nourishment for an increase in human population. How many species become extinct each day for this reason alone? There may be disagreement about whether preservation is appropriate, but I believe that those who are against such action are belligerent and negligent. It is either a lack of education or blatant disregard for the ecosystem which allows such individuals to indulge in the “drive” which imparts such ill ramifications.
The extinction of a species is usually recognized as a problem, albeit not necessarily unanimous. Our lack of agreement on how to rectify the problem is founded in greed. How can we let nature impede the debauched side of human nature?
I will reiterate, “It is the drive of human nature to which we succumb and thereby elect to not establish preventative measures pertaining to the continued existence of other species.”
Our defunct species has attempted very little to accomplish anything remotely resembling the achievement of balance.
Oh, where do I start? How many people are attacked by sharks? Maybe a dozen or so every year, out of 5 billion people on planet earth? Farktrekker, you are hundreds of times more likely to be killed by a car than you are by a shark. Every year a few dozen toddlers drown in buckets of water…baby looks into the bucket, tips over and falls head first into the bucket…kicks and squirms but can’t get out…drowns. Let’s eliminate buckets!
The idea that exterminating the sharks will increase the food fish. Did you know that sharks are food fish? We are currently at or past the maxiumum sustainable fish harvest. We are almost certainly going to have to scale back fishing in the next decades as we will find that fish stocks are dwindling. Every fish we eat means one less to reproduce, right? This is the kind of attitude that they used in China…birds steal grain, right? So they had a campaign to eradicate songbirds. But guess what? Birds eat bugs. The result was a disaster…crops ruined by insect infestation, insect-borne disease…
**
So since you don’t like alligators we should exterminate them? Sure they get big. Sure they are everywhere. Good! Let’s put it this way. Isn’t it more fun camping with alligators around? If you wanted to live in a city then why go camping? Why not just pave over the fucking trees and swamps and put in parking lots?
How many people are killed every year by bears? Less than a dozen. Do you really find bears to be the biggest danger in North American forests? I would say that humans are a much bigger danger. I would guess your chances of being killed by another human in the North American forests are easily dozens of times greater than your chance of being killed by a bear. I grew up in Alaska. To people who complained about being scared of the bears we used to say, “If you don’t want to have bears around, what are you doing in Alaska?” Why not just go home?
Anyway, an M-16 is a stupid weapon against bears. They can easily take many light wounds from an automatic weapon without stopping them from ripping your head off. You’d be much much better off with a high-powered hunting rifle, you’ll only get one shot anyway so it better count. You have to aim, not just splash the landscape with small caliber bullets.
What is wrong with some people? “Bears, black widows, dodos, jellyfish…I don’t like them, they’re ugly, so we should exterminate them!” No, they are not ugly, they are beautiful. I understand the idea that we should only save animals if it benefits humans. Well, animals benefit me because I think they are beautiful and interesting. The world is a dimmer, poorer, less interesting world because there are no thylacines, no dodos, no sea cows, no passenger pigeons, no mammoths, no moas, no ground sloths. Animals benefit humans directly because we appreciate them. Maybe some of you couldn’t care less, but these animals have value to humans because I am a human and I value them. Therefore, even by pro-extermination logic, these animals should be saved.
What caused the species decline is irrelevant. Maybe you all can’t see the value in saving the largest flying animal on earth, but this is a decision that we can’t unmake if we change our minds later. “Oh, well, it would have been worth it to save the condor after all…too bad we were so short sighted back in the '00s…well, let’s get on with the shark eradication program…” You may feel that a species has no value so it is morally acceptable for you to exterminate it. But other humans may have other ideas, and once the species is extinct there is no turning back. What if you change your mind later? But deciding to do nothing is irrevocable.
I’m not an animal rights person…I’ve chopped the heads off of many a chicken and watched them flop around the yard before I gutted them and popped them in the stew pot. I have no problem shooting deer, or hunting, or killing mice that get into the cupboard. But I’d sooner destroy a priceless Michelangelo than allow the panda to go extinct. The panda serves no economic function, but so what? I make money in order to get the things I want out of life. Why read the SDMB? You aren’t making money from doing so, are you? Why get married, have kids…you don’t get money from that do you? No, you earn money in order to support your family, to allow you to buy a computer and discuss things, or play games, or whatever. A panda is a beautiful animal, and I enjoy having them exist, even though it may cost money. That’s what money is for.
FarTrekker, Marcie and I bike at the Shark Valley portion of the Everglades National Park quite a lot. Alligators, some of them quite large, often sun themselves on the paths so that bikers and hikers have to go around them. We hardly ever get killed and eaten by alligators and we don’t even carry guns.
Marcie and I like to snorkel on the reefs off of Key Largo and although we often see sharks, we hardly ever get killed and eaten by them.
We often spend time in water that is said to harbor salt water crocodilles. Since I have yet to see one, I cannot attest to their propensity for killing and eating me.
Marcie lived in Homer, Alaska for a while and although she often saw bears, she hardly ever got killed and eaten by one. I was not a part of her life at the time, although I wish I had been.
I suppose the sharks, gators and bears you encounter must be far more vicious than those I have been around. I think I will just continue to treat them with respect and hope they extend the same for me.