NationStates Jolt Archive

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2042243,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1


Seriously, are we deliberately fucking nature over? :(

Take that, nature!

Take that, nature!

:eek:

I don't know about Indonesia, but I do know Malaysia's Environmental Agency sells protected species it catches from smugglers to whoever would buy them. Restaurants included.

Displaced from their rainforest habitat, the orangutans struggle to survive in the oil palm plantations and are regarded as an agricultural pest. Mindful of the potential loss in profits, farmers have carried out a vicious extermination program.

Michelle Desilets, director of the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation UK, said: 'They are left hungry so they go in search of food in the plantations and destroy the plants. They become easy targets. Some plantation owners put a bounty of $10 or $20 on the head of orangutans, which is worth a few weeks' salary for the workers.

'Workers don't usually have guns: the orangutans that get shot are the lucky ones. We've seen them beaten to death with wood sticks or iron bars, doused in petrol and set on fire, trussed up in nets or tied up with wire which cuts through their flesh. Often a mother is killed and eaten while its baby is sold on or kept as a pet. In the local plantations where we're working, the managers have now agreed not to offer the bonus. But there's still a macho thing about bringing down an adult male.'

:headbang:

I don't know about Indonesia, but I do know Malaysia's Environmental Agency sells protected species it catches from smugglers to whoever would buy them. Restaurants included.

...

...

Yeah, that's what I thought when I read about it. Heck, if you look at their local papers, the agency head himself is quoted as saying that a bunch of snakes under the protection scheme that they caught from smugglers would be sold to restaurants in China.

And the best part? He treated it as "business as usual, no crime, no foul"

Yeah, that's what I thought when I read about it. Heck, if you look at their local papers, the agency head himself is quoted as saying that a bunch of snakes under the protection scheme that they caught from smugglers would be sold to restaurants in China.

And the best part? He treated it as "business as usual, no crime, no foul"

Jeez...

Yeah, that's what I thought when I read about it. Heck, if you look at their local papers, the agency head himself is quoted as saying that a bunch of snakes under the protection scheme that they caught from smugglers would be sold to restaurants in China.

And the best part? He treated it as "business as usual, no crime, no foul"

"Let them eat snake." *nod*

"Let them eat snake." *nod*

LMFAO

That's clever enough to warrant more cookies. ;)

*takes control of Keebler, gives you to*

I do sometimes think...

What purpose do animals really serve us? Does it really matter if Orangutans cease to exist? If the world is populated by cows, pigs, sheep and chickens + any other random animal we fancy eating, what need for any other? If we can manufacture alternative food sources then even less need for other animals.

The natural balance? Who cares? I'm sure humans can cope without 90% of the animals around today. Same for plants.

In essence it's a lot of hand-wringing about poor animals but perhaps they should have evolved a bit quicker - (yah yah evolution happens to you....).

What purpose does the Orangutan serve apart from amusing us?

Well you know, if tree hugging commies hasn't blocked the effort for us to teach the Orangutans to defend themselves with rifles, then this wouldn't happen, now would it!

I do sometimes think...

What purpose do animals really serve us? Does it really matter if Orangutans cease to exist? If the world is populated by cows, pigs, sheep and chickens + any other random animal we fancy eating, what need for any other? If we can manufacture alternative food sources then even less need for other animals.

The natural balance? Who cares? I'm sure humans can cope without 90% of the animals around today. Same for plants.

In essence it's a lot of hand-wringing about poor animals but perhaps they should have evolved a bit quicker - (yah yah evolution happens to you....).

What purpose does the Orangutan serve apart from amusing us?

Well we could skin them and use their fur for clothes and coats.

Are you saying that you don't care if these moderately cute monkies die?

http://www.babyanimalz.com/images/orangatangs.jpg

Just FYI: I don't really care if they live or die either, I'm just being sarcastic.

If I could use Orangutans for some nice orange furry boots then great, but they're protected aren't they? No good for fashion either : )

If I could use Orangutans for some nice orange furry boots then great, but they're protected aren't they? No good for fashion either : )

and you know the tree hugging commies are just going to throw blood on you anyways.

I do sometimes think...

What purpose do animals really serve us? Does it really matter if Orangutans cease to exist? If the world is populated by cows, pigs, sheep and chickens + any other random animal we fancy eating, what need for any other? If we can manufacture alternative food sources then even less need for other animals.

The natural balance? Who cares? I'm sure humans can cope without 90% of the animals around today. Same for plants.

In essence it's a lot of hand-wringing about poor animals but perhaps they should have evolved a bit quicker - (yah yah evolution happens to you....).

What purpose does the Orangutan serve apart from amusing us?

:rolleyes:

I won't waste much time because your type will never learn.

Extinction of one animal doesn't sound like much. However, it also means their environment is also under the attack of "development" It means others species are under assault as well. It's just we have people watching the Orangs.

Mass-Extinction happens from the elimination of a few key species.

You mentioned domesticated animals. How are you going to feed them if say the population of bees shrinks dramatically? Which BTW there is a problem with whole hives disappearing in the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/business/27bees.html?ex=1330232400&en=3aaa0148837b8977&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

One action tends to affect many things.

That's the point, why the need for ANY animal?

Does grass grow through bees? I don't think so. We can intravenous drip all our farm animals anyway?

My point is, what basis do we have for the protection of animals being as we can easily survive without them?

That's the point, why the need for ANY animal?

Does grass grow through bees? I don't think so. We can intravenous drip all our farm animals anyway?

My point is, what basis do we have for the protection of animals being as we can easily survive without them?

http://www.babyanimalz.com/images/orangatangs.jpg

Because they're cute and have good comedy value, but if you're asking if they have any real value that we can actually use, then.......no.

What purpose do animals really serve us?

increase the amount of intrinsic value in the world

And He said you would control the earth the plants and the animals for your own comfort...
Then what the f* of these monkeys?

Ha! To have something to talk about? Human misery is not funny enough? Killing your stupid dog or sh*ty cat is more sport...

After Indians, Jews and Arabs... now animals....
Time to turn to... Spanish, Usians, whitties etc...

My point is, what basis do we have for the protection of animals being as we can easily survive without them?

there is more to life than mere survival, and there is more to value than direct utility to humans

That's the point, why the need for ANY animal?

Does grass grow through bees? I don't think so. We can intravenous drip all our farm animals anyway?

My point is, what basis do we have for the protection of animals being as we can easily survive without them?

Like I said. Never learn.....

I do sometimes think...

What purpose do animals really serve us? Does it really matter if Orangutans cease to exist? If the world is populated by cows, pigs, sheep and chickens + any other random animal we fancy eating, what need for any other? If we can manufacture alternative food sources then even less need for other animals.

The natural balance? Who cares? I'm sure humans can cope without 90% of the animals around today. Same for plants.

In essence it's a lot of hand-wringing about poor animals but perhaps they should have evolved a bit quicker - (yah yah evolution happens to you....).

What purpose does the Orangutan serve apart from amusing us?
I just got done watching the Planet Earth documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpDc4Knoqw) on the Discovery Channel, and I was quite moved by it. From the arctic to the rainforest, from the mountaintops to the deepest oceanic vents, there is a complex web of life that self-supports and self-regulates. Keystone predators feed off of the vast herbivore herds, sustaining themselves while ensuring that overgrazing does not occur. Rainwater flows thousands of miles into the Kalahari Desert, turning the dusty plains into a waterworld filled with animals. Organic material from dead fish filters down into the depths of the ocean like snow, nourishing all sorts of strange and beautiful creatures.

And all this organized itself on its own. Something from nothing. A complex system out of a random soup of chemicals. Earth's ecosystem is the greatest miracle in this universe, far greater than anything we could ever create, and still beyond our full understanding.

We're destroying this miracle, piece by piece. Each piece, each species, may seem inconsequential, but it's the overall trend that's important. The biosphere is far more powerful and majestic than any god I've ever heard of, and I can't think of anything more heinous than allowing it to go to ruin for trivial, unnecessary things like palm oil, pets, or machismo.

And if you insist on thinking selfishly, consider this: we survive on the ecosystem even as we destroy it. What do you think Earth would be like if "90%" of the plants and animals were gone? It would be stark, sterile, and alien. All the familiar patterns of life would die out. We'd be in a wasteland. And I doubt that any amount of hydroponics could sustain us comfortably in such an environment (or lack thereof) for long.

That's the point, why the need for ANY animal?

Does grass grow through bees? I don't think so. We can intravenous drip all our farm animals anyway?

My point is, what basis do we have for the protection of animals being as we can easily survive without them?

TBF explained this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12471721&postcount=16)

Are you saying that you don't care if these moderately cute monkies die?

First things first...orangutans are apes, not monkeys.

Second...I think it's time for the noble ape to fight back...can you say

"Right Turn, Clyde" (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/20/apes_wideweb__470x342,0.jpg)

First things first...orangutans are apes, not monkeys.

Second...I think it's time for the noble ape to fight back...can you say

"Right Turn, Clyde" (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/20/apes_wideweb__470x342,0.jpg)

Well we did try to teach them to defend themselves with rifle, but they ended up shooting each other, plus the tree huggers didn't like it very much.

First things first...orangutans are apes, not monkeys.

Second...I think it's time for the noble ape to fight back...can you say

"Right Turn, Clyde" (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/20/apes_wideweb__470x342,0.jpg)

love those movies

That's the point, why the need for ANY animal?

Does grass grow through bees? I don't think so. We can intravenous drip all our farm animals anyway?

My point is, what basis do we have for the protection of animals being as we can easily survive without them?
You assume far too much about our ability to live comfortably on this planet. Why can't we live on the moon? Why not Mars? Sure, we could build geodesic domes and hydroponic farms and life-support systems if we wanted to. But how would such a colony fare if its supply line to Earth were cut off? How long could the people survive with technology alone?

My point is that these "useless" plants and animals create the resources and nutrients that we need to survive. The whole "circle of life" thing wasn't just something they made up for Lion King, you know. We can grow crops because of fertilizer, which comes from the organic remains of dead animals. We can breath because of the world's forests, which convert carbon dioxide into oceans of oxygen. Grasses and plants control erosion and keep the environment stable. And the oceans? What do you think they'd be like if all the fish died out?

People muse on the meaning of life all the time. And whatever other purposes they devise, there's one essential fact: we all live. Life is geared toward perpetuating and improving life. Strengthening it and spreading it further. Life is a fight against entropy, the struggle to increase complexity and balance in the face of emptiness and waste. Anyone who advocates the abuse of life, or who doesn't care about the destruction of life, is about as evil as one can get in my book. People talk about being inhuman... what about being anti-life? How much worse can one be?

And if you insist on thinking selfishly, consider this: we survive on the ecosystem even as we destroy it. What do you think Earth would be like if "90%" of the plants and animals were gone? It would be stark, sterile, and alien. All the familiar patterns of life would die out. We'd be in a wasteland. And I doubt that any amount of hydroponics could sustain us comfortably in such an environment (or lack thereof) for long.

even if we could survive it (which we probably could, if not very well), that world wouldn't be as worth living on as this one. this is a better world on any number of levels. beauty, for one.

TBF explained this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12471721&postcount=16)

No he didn't - he explained that ecosystems are complex and rely on each other to survive - I'm saying humans are at a point where we don't need them, Rh and FS at least answer the point.

I just got done watching the Planet Earth documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpDc4Knoqw) on the Discovery Channel, and I was quite moved by it. From the arctic to the rainforest, from the mountaintops to the deepest oceanic vents, there is a complex web of life that self-supports and self-regulates. Keystone predators feed off of the vast herbivore herds, sustaining themselves while ensuring that overgrazing does not occur. Rainwater flows thousands of miles into the Kalahari Desert, turning the dusty plains into a waterworld filled with animals. Organic material from dead fish filters down into the depths of the ocean like snow, nourishing all sorts of strange and beautiful creatures.

And all this organized itself on its own. Something from nothing. A complex system out of a random soup of chemicals. Earth's ecosystem is the greatest miracle in this universe, far greater than anything we could ever create, and still beyond our full understanding.

We're destroying this miracle, piece by piece. Each piece, each species, may seem inconsequential, but it's the overall trend that's important. The biosphere is far more powerful and majestic than any god I've ever heard of, and I can't think of anything more heinous than allowing it to go to ruin for trivial, unnecessary things like palm oil, pets, or machismo.

And if you insist on thinking selfishly, consider this: we survive on the ecosystem even as we destroy it. What do you think Earth would be like if "90%" of the plants and animals were gone? It would be stark, sterile, and alien. All the familiar patterns of life would die out. We'd be in a wasteland. And I doubt that any amount of hydroponics could sustain us comfortably in such an environment (or lack thereof) for long.

QFMFT!!!!!

This story makes me want to cry. It tears my heart into peices to see what we are doing to this planet. Its our only home, and we are destroying it.

For those like Barringtonia, i want you to think of it like this. Earth is like a house. And we are going through removing everything that makes it a house. For example, letting an animal go extinct is like removing funiture out. Letting land be filled with trash is like ripping up the carpet. Seems like small, and insignificant at first, but after all of its gone, all we have left is an empty house, with just a memory of what it was behind. Its just an empty building. What made it a house, what gave it life and a reason to exist is now gone and its just a frame, empty and devoid. That's what we are doing with earth. I pray to God that we can stop this trend and restore earth to its former glory.

No he didn't - he explained that ecosystems are complex and rely on each other to survive - I'm saying humans are at a point where we don't need them, Rh and FS at least answer the point.

Of course we need them. What if(rather what will happen when) our technology fails and some great catastrophy wipes out all our advancements. If we don't have a stable enviroment we are fudged in so many ways. Quit being silly and think for a minute.

Of course we need them. What if(rather what will happen when) our technology fails and some great catastrophy wipes out all our advancements. If we don't have a stable enviroment we are fudged in so many ways. Quit being silly and think for a minute.
Too late

Too late

Because his mentality, like most other people, revolves mostly around three words.

Me, me, me.

Of course we need them. What if(rather what will happen when) our technology fails and some great catastrophy wipes out all our advancements. If we don't have a stable enviroment we are fudged in so many ways. Quit being silly and think for a minute.

Fair point - but then you're also seeing animals as a utility, they have no intrinsic value to us other than helping us survive should a great catastrophe wipe out our technology.

I understand the point about 'sterile wasteland', but humans can and do live with no animal contact and enjoy life fully through interaction with other human beings. We eat animals but we have alternatives no as animal rights people always point out. We don't need animals.

I still don't see that animals are essential to humans

Fair point - but then you're also seeing animals as a utility, they have no intrinsic value to us other than helping us survive should a great catastrophe wipe out our technology.
Ever heard of peak oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil)? :/

I understand the point about 'sterile wasteland', but humans can and do live with no animal contact and enjoy life fully through interaction with other human beings. We eat animals but we have alternatives no as animal rights people always point out. We don't need animals.
So... what? Only urban and suburban Westerners count as humans? I assure you that there are many billions of people throughout the world that depend on animals to survive.

Besides, just because the average Westerner doesn't interact with animals on a daily basis doesn't mean we don't depend on them. The biosphere (all forms of life working as a metabolic system) produces all of our food, water, and air. Life is not on Earth because it is habitable -- Earth is habitable because there is life on it. If we ever screwed up badly enough to permanently destabilize Earth's ecosystem (and reports are not sounding good (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2147223.shtml)), it would become much more difficult to support any life, much less human life. There would be drought, famine, and death on an unprecedented scale.

I suggest you skim some of the following short articles:
Nature's services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature%27s_services)
Value of Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_Earth)
Holocene extinction event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)
Food web (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain)
Ecocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocide)

The point about urban living is that we can live without animals not that we are living without animals.

Secondly, the earth has gone through great changes yet life has persisted, I think it's a lot more persistent than we're led to believe.

I need some time to read your articles before I can respond but for now.

The point about urban living is that we can live without animals not that we are living without animals.

Good luck living an urban life when there isn't a viable biosphere to grow your crops in.


Secondly, the earth has gone through great changes yet life has persisted, I think it's a lot more persistent than we're led to believe.

Sure, the earth will be there. Whether we'd be there or not is a different story entirely. If we don't want to go the way of the dinosaurs, we'd better find a way of preserving our ecosystem real quick or shuffle large amounts of the population off planet.

The point about urban living is that we can live without animals not that we are living without animals.
And where do urban dwellers get their food? I don't think the grocery stores grow it themselves. And the air? What's up with that? They have some special self-cleaning atmosphere? Don't even get me started on commerce...

My point about Westerners is that we depend on the ecosystem indirectly. Everything is connected and interdependent. Clearcut the rainforests? Less moisture, more carbon dioxide. This affects the climate. The rains lessen. Less rain means fewer crops. No crops means no food -- for animals and for humans. Humans starve, although the rich nations try to get by. Meanwhile, herbivores and predators are dying by the billions. The food chains collapse, famine is everywhere. The environment destabilizes. Grasslands turn to deserts. Weather turns for the worse. All these disruptions strain the economy and ruin the fortunes of countless nations. Etc.

And that's just the land. Dump pollutants into the ocean and overfish, and you have an equally bad effect on marine life. Dead zones and lethal algal blooms spread across the seas. Island nations starve. The oceans turn to lifeless poison. And where does the rain come from, again? Anybody remember the water cycle?

Secondly, the earth has gone through great changes yet life has persisted, I think it's a lot more persistent than we're led to believe.
Aye. But there's a big difference between "abundant, healthy life" and "life barely clinging to survival". Cockroaches and bacteria could survive a nuclear war, but that wouldn't make such a world any more pleasant.

I need some time to read your articles before I can respond but for now.
Okay.

Conveniently, the disappearance of one of man's closest relatives will help to disprove evolution. :)

Seriously though, this shows that you have to do shit in a sustainable and responsible way. Slash and burn is not a good way to do business.

Well you know, if tree hugging commies hasn't blocked the effort for us to teach the Orangutans to defend themselves with rifles, then this wouldn't happen, now would it!
lol

I don't know about Indonesia, but I do know Malaysia's Environmental Agency sells protected species it catches from smugglers to whoever would buy them. Restaurants included.

For the win.

Well you know, if tree hugging commies hasn't blocked the effort for us to teach the Orangutans to defend themselves with rifles, then this wouldn't happen, now would it!
*cough* (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_that_don%27t_exist%2C_but_should#Armed_monkey) :D

Well you know, if tree hugging commies hasn't blocked the effort for us to teach the Orangutans to defend themselves with rifles, then this wouldn't happen, now would it!

Well, we tried with gorillas and body armor first. They couldn't get the hang of guns just yet.

http://www.partydomain.co.uk/d-commerce/media/FancyDress/Animal/SM41259.jpg

HUMANS will be extinct in another 35 years if we don't stop using combustion to generate energy and propel transportation!

=^^=
.../\...

HUMANS will be extinct in another 35 years if we don't stop using combustion to generate energy and propel transportation!

=^^=
.../\...

A small loss. :)

'I WOULDN'T TRUST THE MARKET . . .'


Vin Suprynowicz

March 31, 1999

My column of March 26 on New York state "endangered species" bureaucrats fighting efforts by a business owner there to fence rattlesnakes off his property, brought the following from an Eastern reader:

"One of the worst columns that I've read from Vin. Libertarians have never been able to address species loss and extinction well. Applying 'property protection' to species protection has never been shown to be a viable method of species recovery. Animals do not recognize property lines and do not neatly fit into game parks and reserves, regardless of ownership.

"The answers are never short and sweet. That irritates ideologues.

"One idea of incorporation of a species and allowing this corporation the right was derided in this (Internet) discussion group. Remember the 'turtles can sue' thread?

"Rather than being blinded by ideology, I suggest that policy makers look at the solutions that are most effective at protecting species. Not all species are readily marketable; consequently, I wouldn't trust the market to preserving unpopular species. Relying on the whims of short-sighted marketeers is not good public policy and merely shrugging shoulders when a species is threatened due to human activity is not an option."

I replied:

Ah, so if you can't figure out a way to award voting and property rights to animals, you're now an "ideologue."

How about this for "addressing species loss and extinction well":

Nature's God tries out thousands of new species, all the time, and in this process of trial and error thousands go extinct and are "lost." This is a good thing. If this process weren't ongoing, sudden environmental changes could easily wipe out all life on earth. Thank goodness there were a few little mammals around to take over after the meteor wiped out all the dinosaurs. But didn't those mammals probably fill an environmental niche created when an earlier, less successful form of saurian went extinct? Do we really wish that little misfit lizard had been "preserved"?

This process seems to have worked out just fine for many millions of years, before it ever occurred to any smug city dweller with time on her hands to try and interfere. There wouldn't have been room for homo sapiens and some of our favorite eating species, like cows and piglets, if Nature hadn't wiped out all kinds of dinosaurs and trilobites and slimy, crawling things to make room.

Now some will say, "Those earlier species were a mistake." But "mistake" is an odd attempt to impose a moral judgment on a natural process. Thomas Edison (who I do not mean to compare to "God," in any other sense) didn't make "thousands of mistakes" in trying to find the right stuff from which to manufacture light-bulb filaments. The failures were not "mistakes," but part and parcel of the natural process of trial and error.

Besides, earlier species were able to keep "life" going when the world presented a totally different environment, and then pass the torch along to species better suited to new conditions ... as our species doubtless someday will, whether we like it or not.

This "species loss and extinction" is natural, and part of the "will" (or natural evolution) of God or Nature, whichever name you prefer. Certainly, we are free to attempt to educate our fellow men in the concept that shooting every individual of a given rare animal for its fur or plumage is short-sighted. We can urge them to establish private property claims and then husband these resources in a way that will enrich their progeny.

But to attempt otherwise to interfere in any way with this process of ongoing "species extinction" is stupid, hopeless, evil, prideful, counterproductive, likely to be used to justify terrible tyrannies by smug "green" zealots self-assured in the righteousness of their bizarre cause, and an unjustified interference with the will of Nature's God, by creatures too stupid to have any CHANCE of understanding what results their interference might produce ... assuming they had any real power to stop such processes, which is highly doubtful.

The argument is made that some minor species may yet turn out to contain a biological ingredient which can cure cancer. (Not a hint of anthrocentrism there, I hope?) But this only reveals much of the fraud of "species protection" as now practiced. There is NO genetic difference between the Northern Spotted Owl and spotted owls in general — the only difference is where they live, and some minor variations in coloring, probably due to climate.

Therefore, given that "southern" spotted owls are plentiful, the "species protection" folks, if they were honest, should be telling us, "OK, the genetic heritage is secure, you can go ahead and shoot and kill every Northern Spotted Owl you find."

But they don't. Oh no. Instead, "species preservation" is expanded to mean that the "species" must be preserved in every micro-habitat where it's now present (no matter by what historical accident — like "threatened" non-native horses in Nevada.) In truth, this is merely an excuse to block all further land development for human use, anywhere — a blatant cheat, scam, and fraud.

(Besides which, we are presented in effect with a choice of sharing our world with only one of two distinct groups of species — those feeble, failing critters which will soon go extinct, and the stronger, more robust ones which would subsequently develop to fill their empty ecological niches. By "preserving" the first set, we prevent the second set from ever being born. Now: If we're going to be pragmatic about this, in which group of species are we more likely to find our proverbial "cure for cancer"? Here's a hint: You have a choice between two piles of pearl oysters. One has already been shucked. The other is fresh and unopened ...)

Why should "policy makers" (our virtually hereditary rulers, like Algore the Second), and their armed thugs be encouraged or empowered to "find effective means to protect species"? "Protecting species" is the goal of a religion known as Environmentalism and its zealots. Our Constitution forbids our government from doing anything to promote the causes of (to "establish") any specific religion.

"The market" is simply a way of describing the results of an endless series of private voluntary transactions judged to be mutually beneficial by free (human) traders. The market does a great job of preserving species. Once uses were found for cattle and goats and carrots and various types of mushrooms, human beings voluntarily took it upon themselves (as a source of "profit") to propagate and preserve these species, to develop endless genetically engineered varieties of them, to protect (by buying and putting up "private property" signs) the habitats of those species which cannot be easily propagated "in captivity," etc.

As long as private property ownership is allowed, hardly anything of real value ever vanishes. Even in Africa (and directly contradicting our correspondent's claim that "Applying 'property protection' to species protection has never been shown to be a viable method of species recovery,") relatively free Tanzania finds it no longer has any threat of looming elephant extinction since it allowed villagers to claim a "private property right" in the nearest elephant herd, charging fees for those who wish to hunt or merely photograph them. Only in socialist Kenya, where no private ownership of elephants is allowed, does poaching continue to threaten the extinction of the local herds. (See Ike Sugg's Elephants and Ivory, available from www.lfb.org in San Francisco for $12.95; 800-326-0996.)

"The market" again turns out to be the answer, whereas the model of "selfless government protection unsullied by the dirty profit motive" proves a disaster at every turn.

Private "tiger farms" have been proposed in Southeast Asia, where owners could raise tigers in a semi-wild state, harvesting only at sustainable rates to fill the needs of the Chinese medical market, zoos, etc. Their incentive to preserve viable prides to pass on to their heirs would be enormous, and their private security against poachers would doubtless be formidable. Of course, "conservationists" — who are really only state-socialists in a green cloak — have fought this proposal tooth and nail, asserting that such "ownership" of animals is inherently evil — and thus helping to drive the tiger near extinction in many areas, since what no man may own will simply be used up by the first poacher, in a race to beat the second poacher, no matter how many "laws" are passed.

The free market allows bunny-huggers to pool their funds and buy any land they consider "environmentally sensitive" — as the Nature Conservancy often does. However, that would require these "greens" to put their own money where their mouths are, giving up some of their vacations and BMWs in exchange for part ownership of some desolate desert canyon or mosquito swamp. Not only that, faced with the economic reality that they can't buy and "save" EVERYTHING, they would then have to set priorities and CHOOSE whether to spend millions buying prime commercial real estate in Southern California to save the Delhi sands-loving fly, or rather to let the miserable maggots go and instead spend their money buying up some peaceful riverbank near Tucson, thus preserving dozens of rare songbirds.

(I'd go with the brightly colored songbirds, myself. At least you could enjoy an occasional picnic.)

But they don't want to CHOOSE, and back the real-world economic costs of their choices with their own bank accounts, do they?

Instead, "I wouldn't trust the market to preserving unpopular species" is merely another way of saying, "I propose to force OTHERS to fund my casual warm and fuzzy whims, seizing money from the unwilling to use in forcing private property owners to kneel before and honor (however reluctantly) the dictates of my particularly religious priesthood, by having armed agents threaten them with jail if they do anything with their own land which threatens to harm or even irritate the snails, bugs, weeds, and venomous pests which live there, since under my religion — which I now want armed government agents in really big trucks to impose by force — the survival of these obscure molds and leeches is more important than the so-called 'liberty' of a property owner to do what he wants on and with his property, so long as he harm no other human."

"Merely shrugging shoulders when a species is threatened due to human activity is not an option," we are told. Ah, but throwing California farmers in prison for running over rats with their farm machinery IS "an option," apparently, and a darned good one.

Oh, these statists, these acolytes of the Cult of the Omnipotent State. It wasn't the METHODS that were the problem, apparently, when an earlier generation of big-government goons said "Rather than being blinded by ideology, I suggest that policy makers look at the solutions that are most effective at eliminating Jews, Slavs and other subhuman races from our midst," or "I wouldn't trust the market to force these darned Ukrainians to give up their precious private property deeds and join in our cooperative farming schemes, as laid down by Comrades Marx and Engels. No, relying on the whims of short-sighted marketeers is not good public policy, and merely shrugging shoulders when these stubborn Kulaks stand in the way of our grand scheme for a workers' paradise is not an option."

No, no, the only problems were the GOALS of Herrs Hitler and Himmler, Comrades Stalin and Dzerzhinsky — eliminating various non-Aryan races, or imposing that earlier, less subtle form of communism. THOSE were evil. But the METHODS these gentlemen pioneered for government agents to use in imposing a "brave new vision" on an unwilling populace — propagandizing children in the government schools to memorize simplistic slogans and snitch on their elders, etc. — weren't so bad at all. We just need to marry those methods of government force and coercion to a more NOBLE goal, MY goal, which this month happens to be "species preservation ..."

I do sometimes think...

What purpose do animals really serve us? Does it really matter if Orangutans cease to exist? If the world is populated by cows, pigs, sheep and chickens + any other random animal we fancy eating, what need for any other? If we can manufacture alternative food sources then even less need for other animals.

The natural balance? Who cares? I'm sure humans can cope without 90% of the animals around today. Same for plants.

In essence it's a lot of hand-wringing about poor animals but perhaps they should have evolved a bit quicker - (yah yah evolution happens to you....).

What purpose does the Orangutan serve apart from amusing us?

you need to look up the definition of the word ecosystem i think. and while you're at it consider that the earth is effectively a closed system when it comes to producing oxygen and food.

Okey dokey,

First, please know that I'm quite well-read on all these topics so, although intentions are good, I don't need to look up the definition of ecosystem.

It seems to me there are 2 arguments:

1. Our lives would be immeasurably poorer without plants/animals - I agree in principle, but I think this argument often merges into 'we must keep the world as it is or, better, revert to a natural state'. To this I say, if you think 99% of lions have a good life, you're wrong, most have miserable lives. We should not, at any point, look to 'maintain the earth as is'. We should progress from the chaotic natural state. At this level I say again, the consequence of this thinking (immeasurably poorer) is that animals are for not much more than our own, pretty amusement.

2. Life for humans is unsustainable without diversity of animal and plant life - I still think you could get prettay, prettay basic without too much worry, hence 'we could live without 90% of animals/plants' as per my first post. You may not have plants that rely on deer for example but you'd still have nitrogen/oxygen based plants. Nature realigns itself pretty quickly.

FS - To the house analogy, you forget that the house is being refilled as quickly as you empty it with new forms of furniture - different furniture sure, furniture you're not used to or like very much but still furniture.

The main point is that people need to live. Why? Because we're people, and if that's to the extinction of every animal on the planet then so be it. I support the right of Borneo to protect their livelihood over the existence of an orangutan.

It's esepcially ironic that the driving force behind palm oil is environmentalists

but if you're asking if they have any real value that we can actually use, then.......no.
Actually they are extremely useful....

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5821/54210472jx6.jpg

1. Our lives would be immeasurably poorer without plants/animals - I agree in principle, but I think this argument often merges into 'we must keep the world as it is or, better, revert to a natural state'. To this I say, if you think 99% of lions have a good life, you're wrong, most have miserable lives.
And how many billions in the third world subsist amongst rampant poverty, hunger, and disease? That's a pretty miserable life. So does that mean we should halt aid and exterminate the world's poor to put them out of their misery?

We should not, at any point, look to 'maintain the earth as is'. We should progress from the chaotic natural state. At this level I say again, the consequence of this thinking (immeasurably poorer) is that animals are for not much more than our own, pretty amusement.
How can you call the destruction of the universe's most intricate and balanced system "progress"?

2. Life for humans is unsustainable without diversity of animal and plant life - I still think you could get prettay, prettay basic without too much worry, hence 'we could live without 90% of animals/plants' as per my first post. You may not have plants that rely on deer for example but you'd still have nitrogen/oxygen based plants. Nature realigns itself pretty quickly.
90% loss of plant/animal life means 90% reduction in all the oxygen and nutrients produced by those species. Not to mention that the remaining 10% would be severely impaired, seeing as most of them would be sustained on the food webs formed by the others in some way.

I'd like to know what you're basing your thinking on. It seems dangerously narrow to me. You may consider humanity to be the most important species on Earth, but that doesn't make it the only species that matters. To twist an old phrase, "No species is an island". The idea that we could support our own species along with whatever few species we directly use for our consumption using sheer technological might is shortsighted at best.

FS - To the house analogy, you forget that the house is being refilled as quickly as you empty it with new forms of furniture - different furniture sure, furniture you're not used to or like very much but still furniture.
Think of it this way: you've got a completely sealed house. It has a connection to a machine that produces fresh air, water, and food with no cost. The residents of the house then decide to dismantle the machine for parts, cutting off the supply of resources, and maintain what resources they have under their own power. Now, I'm sure that with the right technology they could continually recycle their own air. They could purify their own water. They could build special tanks to keep their food fresh. But such a life would be extremely difficult and expensive to maintain. In this situation, was it really wise to destroy the free, life-giving machine for short-term gain?

This is exactly what we are doing. Earth's ecosystem is that machine, taking energy from the sun and converting it into abundant nutrients, energy, fresh air, and clean water. It also regulates the environment. We are currently reaping the rewards of its component parts (various plant and animal resources), but by doing so we are dismantling the larger system that provides us all the resources we need and that keeps our planet comfortable. If the system collapsed completely, we could refrigerate our food, desalinate our water, and filter our air. But we would do much better to work with the natural system -- a complex, self-sustaining, life-giving network -- rather than try to survive without it.

The main point is that people need to live. Why? Because we're people, and if that's to the extinction of every animal on the planet then so be it. I support the right of Borneo to protect their livelihood over the existence of an orangutan.
Borneo is not protecting its livelihood. It is consuming itself.

The main point is that people need to live. Why? Because we're people, and if that's to the extinction of every animal on the planet then so be it. I support the right of Borneo to protect their livelihood over the existence of an orangutan.

It's esepcially ironic that the driving force behind palm oil is environmentalists

This is why I don't bother explaining to your type.

You are a libertarian aren't you?

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/BDX/BDX236/bxp40921.jpg

Seriously, would you wan to fuck with that? Save the orangutans!

Man, no orangutans? That would suck. Those things are awesome.

We seem to be doing fine without the dodo.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2042243,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1


Seriously, are we deliberately fucking nature over? :(

Man, no orangutans? That would suck. Those things are awesome.

We seem to be doing fine without the dodo.

Well, ignoring that the extinction of the dodo damn near turned Mauritus into a wasteland.

We should not, at any point, look to 'maintain the earth as is'.

indeed. museum piece preservation, while valuable, ain't what is valuable in terms of the intrinsic value of self-supporting biotic processes and there not being a mass extinction event going on.

FS - To the house analogy, you forget that the house is being refilled as quickly as you empty it with new forms of furniture - different furniture sure, furniture you're not used to or like very much but still furniture.

eh, what? different fs here?

anyway, this is untrue. in a mass extinction event like this, it takes millions of years to fully recover anything like the diversity and complexity and integrity that is lost.

so instead you've got a house with no fixtures, bare plywood floors, no appliances, no decoration, large holes in the roof and walls, and a single folding chair out on the porch. and let's move outside the one house - it's an entire neighborhood or town that looks like this. but hey, maybe in a couple decades the area will be looking up and some developer will come through and start rebuilding to bring vibrancy back to the area, right? except that is patently not a good reason to let the neighborhood get that way in the first place - especially when it getting that way is our fault and under our control.

The main point is that people need to live. Why? Because we're people, and if that's to the extinction of every animal on the planet then so be it.

and that is just flat out insane. firstly because you don't mean mere human species survival - we could do that on a hundred square kilometer patch of land. but secondly, this is exactly like saying the same for a human society over the rest of human societies. it incorrectly assigns value in a flagrantly ridiculous way.

if your survival requires such a massive amount of wrong doing, then your survival itself is morally wrong. luckily, our survival does not. we can live, and live well without committing wrongs against other morally relevant entities like biotic communities.

You 're talking 'bout tomorow... Will it be ?
And the money is only looking for today.

No more oil? make and sale hydrogen.

money first apes and other butterfly later.
A common pov between usian and chinese governors.

You 're talking 'bout tomorow... Will it be ?
And the money is only looking for today.

No more oil? make and sale hydrogen.

money first apes and other butterfly later.
A common pov between usian and chinese governors.
Surprise, surprise: China is one of the most polluted nations on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China). Coincidence? I think not.

Surprise, surprise: China is one of the most polluted nations on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China). Coincidence? I think not.And they're just beginning. Once they reach the pollution capability of the US, the planet is dead.

The Librarian is going to go totally Bursar.

"2. You may not have plants that rely on deer for example but you'd still have nitrogen/oxygen based plants. Nature realigns itself pretty quickly."

I'm quoting myself just to clarify something - I should write 'species' instead of life, so we can do away with 90% of species - hence there will still be plants/animals, just 90% less diversity (actually, I'm open to NO animals and plenty of plant life). So Orangutans are done away with.

Take the UK for example - most wildlife that was there 500 years ago has all but disappeared but the UK is still an ecosystem that works -without bears, without wolves, in the last 100 years there's been the disappearance of red squirrels - not much problem really but a LOT of progress (say what you will, the UK does pretty good for itself).

Finally, we talk of billions in poverty yet we're happy to fence off land for reservations, jailing humans for trying to subsist and generally making Lordy Lordy decisions from the comfort of our dorm/home/office about people from Borneo protecting their livelihood. When you're faced with gnawing hunger and a family to feed, I can guarantee that Orangutans don't look that special.

I am hugely lucky not to worry about where my next meal is coming from (I work), I owe that to my ancestors who dragged themselves out of the natural state to the modern world I live in now, where I don't live in fear of weather patterns, outside interests and more.

I'd like to see that for all my fellow humans and if that's to the detriment of animals then....so be it

'I WOULDN'T TRUST THE MARKET . . .'


Vin Suprynowicz

March 31, 1999
...
Nature's God tries out thousands of new species, all the time, and in this process of trial and error thousands go extinct and are "lost." This is a good thing. If this process weren't ongoing, sudden environmental changes could easily wipe out all life on earth. Thank goodness there were a few little mammals around to take over after the meteor wiped out all the dinosaurs. But didn't those mammals probably fill an environmental niche created when an earlier, less successful form of saurian went extinct? Do we really wish that little misfit lizard had been "preserved"?

This process seems to have worked out just fine for many millions of years, before it ever occurred to any smug city dweller with time on her hands to try and interfere. There wouldn't have been room for homo sapiens and some of our favorite eating species, like cows and piglets, if Nature hadn't wiped out all kinds of dinosaurs and trilobites and slimy, crawling things to make room.

Now some will say, "Those earlier species were a mistake." But "mistake" is an odd attempt to impose a moral judgment on a natural process.
...

the question is, is this author retarded or just disingenuous?

:( That would really suck. *plans to donate to help Orangutans*

Breaking News: Humans could be dead in 5 years.

Orangutans will survive somehow, don't you worry.

Orangutans will survive somehow, don't you worry.

are you sure of our effectiveness at conservation or do you not believe in extinction?

the question is, is this author retarded or just disingenuous?

Right, I can't tell if it's Jonathan Swift-style satire or a real point - it starts to hurt the mind at the end

I think it might be a good time to start creating a genomic database of endangered and threatened species in order to preserve them in the even that conservation efforts fail as they appear to be in too many cases. If a species is driven to extinction because of us, we should have the possibility of bringing it back and righting the damage we have caused as well.

For that matter, the same should be done for other species, particularly those that we plan to genetically engineer. Biodiversity must be preserved in a way like this if we are to reap the benefits of genetic engineering and preserve the stability of our biosphere.

And how many billions in the third world subsist amongst rampant poverty, hunger, and disease? That's a pretty miserable life. So does that mean we should halt aid and exterminate the world's poor to put them out of their misery?

No, quite the opposite, I'd like humans to have every means possible to pull themselves out of their misery

How can you call the destruction of the universe's most intricate and balanced system "progress"?

I guess "progress" is a highly debateable term

90% loss of plant/animal life means 90% reduction in all the oxygen and nutrients produced by those species. Not to mention that the remaining 10% would be severely impaired, seeing as most of them would be sustained on the food webs formed by the others in some way.

Right, I clarified, 90% of species is what I mean, I think we can do away with 90% of species - to further clarify, I'm not for this position, I just don't see a strictly logical position against it, emotional, moral and decent position yes, not logical though

I'd like to know what you're basing your thinking on. It seems dangerously narrow to me. You may consider humanity to be the most important species on Earth, but that doesn't make it the only species that matters. To twist an old phrase, "No species is an island". The idea that we could support our own species along with whatever few species we directly use for our consumption using sheer technological might is shortsighted at best.

I do consider humans the most important species, simply because I am one. Despite the difficulty of understanding Allonea's c+p, I see the point that there's far greater variety of dogs than there any other mammal. They have thrived through domestication - good on them

Think of it this way: you've got a completely sealed house. It has a connection to a machine that produces fresh air, water, and food with no cost. The residents of the house then decide to dismantle the machine for parts, cutting off the supply of resources, and maintain what resources they have under their own power. Now, I'm sure that with the right technology they could continually recycle their own air. They could purify their own water. They could build special tanks to keep their food fresh. But such a life would be extremely difficult and expensive to maintain. In this situation, was it really wise to destroy the free, life-giving machine for short-term gain?

It will become rapidly cheaper - I saw another analogy actually of planes - taking out a species is like taking out a rivet, fine for perhaps the first 100 but at some point the plane falls apart. My point is that those rivets can be replaced by a more homogenous rivet.

This is exactly what we are doing. Earth's ecosystem is that machine, taking energy from the sun and converting it into abundant nutrients, energy, fresh air, and clean water. It also regulates the environment. We are currently reaping the rewards of its component parts (various plant and animal resources), but by doing so we are dismantling the larger system that provides us all the resources we need and that keeps our planet comfortable. If the system collapsed completely, we could refrigerate our food, desalinate our water, and filter our air. But we would do much better to work with the natural system -- a complex, self-sustaining, life-giving network -- rather than try to survive without it.

Agreed, nature does a wonderful job in self-regulating - it will continue to do so despite the loss of 90% of species

Borneo is not protecting its livelihood. It is consuming itself.

I see the similarities of, say the Easter Islands as outlined in collapse - but man's technology has progressed so that we don't rely on the land to live, or we don't need to.

I think it might be a good time to start creating a genomic database of endangered and threatened species in order to preserve them in the even that conservation efforts fail as they appear to be in too many cases.

i did i presentation on conservation breeding, including genome banking, for my conservation genetics course. here's a couple quotes on the subject from graduate level [i]textbooks[i/] on the subject:

“Conservation breeding represents the last chance of survival for many species faced with imminent extinction in the wild”

“For nearly 3,000 taxa of birds and mammals, conservation breeding may be the only possible way to avoid extinction”

“we note that the option of release is, regrettably, being de-emphasized in some programs… Loss or degredation of habitat may be so severe that reintroduction is not a realistic proposition… Here genetic management may, sadly, be ‘domestication’, deliberate selection of passive animals, capable of tolerating close proximity to humans and other animals…”

those scientists fuckers are bleak

If a species is driven to extinction because of us, we should have the possibility of bringing it back and righting the damage we have caused as well.

hear, hear. though we also shouldn't allow that sort of possibility to lessen the wrong done through the extinction in the first place.

Well, ignoring that the extinction of the dodo damn near turned Mauritus into a wasteland.

Can you show me a quote on this, I provide mine as below

"By understanding the Mauritius ecosystem before humans arrived, they hope to find clues to the dodo's extinction. Dodos were easy to hunt, but hunting alone probably did not wipe them out. Recent research indicates that the early Dutch settlers rarely ate dodo meat. Nor did the deforestation of the island doom the dodo. Major forest clearing did not begin until after the dodo became extinct."

Please give your vote to save the endangered socialists in the UK...
Another soon extinct breed (I wish... sigh)

Please give your vote to save the endangered socialists in the UK...
Another soon extinct breed (I wish... sigh)
Don't gravedig.

Especially not for petty political jabs.

perhaps it shouldn't be so much the need for the animal but more the manner in which they will inevitably die out. one must understand that like our fellow animal bretheren (tasty as they sometimes are), we too will one day die out. however, would we want our species to become extinct through the same means described earlier?

a torturous death should be reserved for criminals, not refugees. while not our ancestors, they are still part of the family. humans could, at the very least, permit a less barbaric death. what needs to be done is an outlawing of what has occured, enforced strictly with penalties most proper for such miserable acts

I see the similarities of, say the Easter Islands as outlined in collapse - but man's technology has progressed so that we don't rely on the land to live, or we don't need to.

...

You don't believe that, do you? Where in the blazes do you think our food comes from?

Anyway, all of our progress doesn't matter in the rather short run. The poles of earth are set to flip sometime in the next 1000-ish years or so, and when that happens, say goodbye to every single electronic device on earth. Dark Ages, here we come!

For this post to continue, Chinese pinyin must be used

Seangoli, ni shi hao ren danshi women bishu ting xie

Can you show me a quote on this, I provide mine as below

"By understanding the Mauritius ecosystem before humans arrived, they hope to find clues to the dodo's extinction. Dodos were easy to hunt, but hunting alone probably did not wipe them out. Recent research indicates that the early Dutch settlers rarely ate dodo meat. Nor did the deforestation of the island doom the dodo. Major forest clearing did not begin until after the dodo became extinct."

1. That has nothing to do with what I said.
2. I was wrong about the extinction of the dodo being a major contributor, but Mauritius's ecosystem is effectively gone. It has been almost entirely replaced by imported species.

This is seriously depressing. :(