NationStates Jolt Archive

Saving Canada's polar bears

Unbearable pursuits

A clash between environmentalists and Inuit rights

http://media.economist.com/images/20081122/4708AM4.jpg

“WE DON'T have no vegetarians here,” says James Qillaq, a long-time resident of Kanngiqtugaapik in Canada’s Nunavut territory. North of the 70th parallel, where winter temperatures regularly drop below -30°C, “nothing can grow in the ground, so the only thing we eat is animals.” Inuit like Mr Qillaq have been hunting here for generations, and though sledge dogs and spears have been replaced by snowmobiles and rifles, the prime target remains unchanged: polar bears.

As if global warming weren’t problem enough, a row over how to determine hunting quotas has recently begun to heat up. Polar bears are divided into 19 distinct populations throughout the high Arctic, all in varying stages of distress. One of the most fragile is in Baffin Bay, where there are now only about 1,500 animals, down nearly a third from a count a decade ago.

This bunch has the added misfortune of straddling the border between Nunavut and Greenland: native people on both shores are eager to kill as many bears as they can. In the light of the declining population, Canadian scientists recommended that this winter’s hunt be limited to 64. But the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board—an Inuit-controlled body that makes the final recommendation—decided to set the number at 105. Then Greenland added another 68, for its own hunters. Together, this is nearly three times the sustainable harvest. Even without the rampant poaching that takes place in Greenland, 12% of the Baffin bears are set to be turned into blankets, mukluks and stews.

In Nunavut, mistrust of outside experts is huge. Tribal elders insist that they are seeing far more bears than ever before. Bear experts like Andrew Derocher of the University of Alberta acknowledge this, but explain that the bears are being pushed ashore as the sea ice disappears. With fewer opportunities to hunt seals, they venture closer to towns in search of garbage or unattended dog food—if not the dogs themselves. Treaties between Nunavut and the federal government make clear that science should not influence decision-making more than “traditional knowledge”, known as Inuit Qaujimaningit, or IQ. Scientists offer statistical projections and computer models; native hunters prefer IQ, which tells them that polar bears are everywhere. For its part, Greenland has been almost completely silent, refusing to release the most basic information about their hunters or their wildlife.

Both Nunavut and Greenland are relatively new to the business of self-governance. Denmark granted a measure of home rule to Greenland in 1979; Nunavut was established in 1999 along with a sweepingly powerful Land Claims agreement designed to atone for Canada’s previous offences against the aboriginal peoples. Separated in places by less than 40km (25 miles), Nunavut and Greenland have far more in common with each other than with Ottawa or Copenhagen, their respective capitals. Neither wants to be told how to handle resources on its home ice.

The fact that the Baffin polar bear population crosses a national boundary would suggest a need for the involvement of Canada’s federal government. But its environment minister is loth to intrude on Inuit privileges. Critics allege that he has spent C$900,000 ($729,000) to facilitate meetings of the so-called “co-management boards” that determine hunting quotas. The Canadian government funds only $150,000 worth of research on polar bears nationwide in a whole year.

Although Mr Derocher supports a limited amount of hunting, he notes that for a population in decline the sustainable harvest number is, by definition, zero. Polar bears are a long-lived species with a low reproductive rate, so recovery from overharvesting could take many decades. With the additional problem of climate change, any significant uptick might be impossible.

Mr Qillaq, who chairs the Kanngiqtugaapik Hunters and Trappers Organisation, laughs at the notion that hunting will harm the polar bear population. “Numbers are just numbers,” he says. “We live here, so we know what’s really going on in the north. We can hunt anytime we want, anywhere we want, no matter what anybody says.”
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12652176

This is madness. These Inuits are simply hicks, native-rednecks, if you will. I don't see why wilfull ignorance of science leading to the destruction of a species is ok simply because of some backwards tradition.

I mean this is ridiculous:

Treaties between Nunavut and the federal government make clear that science should not influence decision-making more than “traditional knowledge”, known as Inuit Qaujimaningit, or IQ. Scientists offer statistical projections and computer models; native hunters prefer IQ, which tells them that polar bears are everywhere. For its part, Greenland has been almost completely silent, refusing to release the most basic information about their hunters or their wildlife.

And this makes me wish that we could the polar bears hunt him instead. Maybe he should be sent to Soviet Russia:

Mr Qillaq, who chairs the Kanngiqtugaapik Hunters and Trappers Organisation, laughs at the notion that hunting will harm the polar bear population. “Numbers are just numbers,” he says. “We live here, so we know what’s really going on in the north. We can hunt anytime we want, anywhere we want, no matter what anybody says.”

Simply being a "tribel elder" shouldn't hold any weight in a discussion between what the tribel elders 'feel' and what science statistically shows. And to be honest, I have a feeling that if these people were not minorities, there would not be a single person who wouldn't oppose their ignorant detrimental attack on global health.

This is madness. These Inuits are simply hicks, native-rednecks, if you will.
Inuits are all Protestants?

I don't see why wilfull ignorance of science leading to the destruction of a species is ok simply because of some backwards tradition.
Yup...

[/thread]

But because its their culture, they must be allowed to ignore science. Anything else is racist.:rolleyes:

I'm just waiting for someone to come in here jabbering about how the White Man stole their land, as if that has the slightest relevance to the topic at hand.

Though I will note that its a fair point about being unable to grow anything up their. How much would it cost to import food in? Do these people really have no choice but to hunt (though if that's the case, its another problem in and of itself)?

I would assume that because IQ has actually kept them alive for hundreds of years in that environment while science has not, Innu elders will probably trust IQ more. Nothing succeeds like success.

I would assume that because IQ has actually kept them alive for hundreds of years in that environment while science has not, Innu elders will probably trust IQ more. Nothing succeeds like success.

And nothing kills you like refusal to adapt to a changing world. Your point is?

TAi, why, in this particular instance, have you divided the poll into Canadian/Not Canadian?

Eh on the one hand, aye they should listen to more science etc., on the other this IQ thing surely has to work at one level or other, and if the polar bears are coming onshore, then it would make sense that their food would too, thus causing more breeding between bears etc. etc.

And nothing kills you like refusal to adapt to a changing world. Your point is?

I like how you assume that IQ is static. Do you have some sort of knowledge about Innu survival techniques that I was unaware of?

The point is that the empirical evidence suggests that IQ is more applicable to survival in that ecology than whatever the economist is referring to as science.

Eh on the one hand, aye they should listen to more science etc., on the other this IQ thing surely has to work at one level or other...
Strange to think of a modern, 'scientific' term for intelligence being used for 'traditional knowledge'.

...and if the polar bears are coming onshore, then it would make sense that their food would too, thus causing more breeding between bears etc. etc.
Presumably, though, not in numbers that would counteract hunting.


EDIT: And kudos to The Economist for getting away with a terrible pun.

It's a tricky situation - the Baffin bears should not be permitted to be hunted into oblivion, but the Inuits have pretty understandable reasons for not liking outsiders coming in and telling them what to do. It sounds to me as if the federal government needs to do a better job of talking to the Inuits as equals rather than as "hicks," explaining where their information comes from and why it really should be trusted, and offering them viable alternatives to hunting the polar bears.

...explaining where their information comes from and why it really should be trusted, and offering them viable alternatives to hunting the polar bears.
And there lies the rub. It is hard (imposible?) to be a vegetarian in a land where soil is trapped under several feet of permafrost.

Are Inuit communities simply ecologically inviable?

And nothing kills you like refusal to adapt to a changing world. Your point is?
Indeed.
Eh on the one hand, aye they should listen to more science etc., on the other this IQ thing surely has to work at one level or other, and if the polar bears are coming onshore, then it would make sense that their food would too, thus causing more breeding between bears etc. etc.
"With fewer opportunities to hunt seals, they venture closer to towns in search of garbage or unattended dog food—if not the dogs themselves."

The point is that they are having to come more inland to find new food sources, due to the climate change in the Artic. Their food wouldn't follow them.....that doesn't quite make sense.

TAi, why, in this particular instance, have you divided the poll into Canadian/Not Canadian?
Well it's true that some of these issues exist also in Greenland but the majority of this hunt and such exists in Canada and so I was wondering if Canadians viewed this differently than foreigners.

I'll admit it would have been better said as "Greenlander/Canadian and Non-Greenland/Non-Canadian".

It's 'Inuit'. Inuit is singular and plural.

When you are trained in traditional knowledge, then you can talk shit, TAI. Because many elders are trained in both systems, and can therefore speak within each paradigm.

These are a people who have not only survived but have THRIVED in an environment that should be unfit for human habitation. Tens of thousands of years of experience...I'll take that over the opinions of outsiders.

Are Inuit communities simply ecologically inviable?
And if so, should they migrate..perhaps towards better climate or real cities? Or stay where they are even at the expense of the polar bear niche in that region?

Well it's true that some of these issues exist also in Greenland but the majority of this hunt and such exists in Canada and so I was wondering if Canadians viewed this differently than foreigners.
I'd imagine most Canucks view the Inuit lifestyle just as 'foreign' as everyone else. It amuses me somewhat in your persistance to frame this (on some level) as a national issue.

And if so, should they migrate..perhaps towards better climate or real cities? Or stay where they are even at the expense of the polar bear niche in that region?
I don't hesitate to suggest that urban communites of humans need to drastically change their lifestyle/society to face current ecological problems; I don't see why 'traditional' communities should be exempt from this.



These are a people who have not only survived but have THRIVED in an environment that should be unfit for human habitation.
In an arguably ecologically inviable manner. Obviously The Economist is highlighting a particularly stubborn section of Inuit society, but the article raises a number of important issues.

Tens of thousands of years of experience...I'll take that over the opinions of outsiders.
Why so?

I can easily imagine a society with deep patriarchial, hierarchial and racist divisions within it, surviving for tens of thousands of years. That society, I'd argue, should heed the advice of 'outsiders'. So too, if they are portrayed correctly by the article, should the Inuit.

And there lies the rub. It is hard (imposible?) to be a vegetarian in a land where soil is trapped under several feet of permafrost.

Are Inuit communities simply ecologically inviable?

Since they have lived there for thousands of years, i would assume that traditional Innu culture is quite ecologically viable. Moreso than, let's say, modern western civilisation.

But a lack of vegetation is a problem. Eating lichen out of caribou intestines...

When you are trained in traditional knowledge, then you can talk shit, TAI. Because many elders are trained in both systems, and can therefore speak within each paradigm.
Why would I waste my time training myself in some primative traditional knowledge? I prefer to train myself on the most up to date knowledge and science of the present and educate myself for the future.
These are a people who have not only survived but have THRIVED in an environment that should be unfit for human habitation. Tens of thousands of years of experience...I'll take that over the opinions of outsiders.
We have, as a human species, all survived and thrived (most certainly better than Inuits, though it's debatable if Inuits have actually indeed thrived.....). That doesn't mean that 'it's worked well enough to keep us alive' should replace social/cultural evolution and adaption for more modern ideas though.

This is madness.

Madness... This! Is! Kanngiqtugaapik!!!

Since they have lived there for thousands of years, i would assume that traditional Innu culture is quite ecologically viable. Moreso than, let's say, modern western civilisation.

But a lack of vegetation is a problem. Eating lichen out of caribou intestines...

Exactly. The Inuit harvest, dry and store berries, lichens and fungi during the short summer, and supplement these sources of non-fat soluble vitamins with the digested greens in the stomachs of game.

Im all about respecting native traditions, but science should always override tradition.

There must be some sort of solution that would and least cull the hunting of an already extremely endangered species while making the tribes feel as though they werent being ordered around and their traditions were being respected.

The Canadian federal government should be working with the tribes, not treatin them as children.

I'd imagine most Canucks view the Inuit lifestyle just as 'foreign' as everyone else.
Being neither Canadian nor Inuit, I don't know.
It amuses me somewhat in your persistance to frame this (on some level) as a national issue.
Well I'd assume it gets more exposure in Canada than anywhere else, as it occurs within their borders, so they may have more information on it than most others.

I like how you assume that IQ is static. Do you have some sort of knowledge about Innu survival techniques that I was unaware of?

Look we both know where this is going. Just hurry up and call me a racist and be done with it.

The point is that the empirical evidence suggests that IQ is more applicable to survival in that ecology than whatever the economist is referring to as science.

Oh please, do show me this "evidence.":D

Let me put it this way: how do you know "IQ" works better than science if they haven't tried science yet? Do you have statistics to show that its information is more reliable than science?

"Whatever the economist is referring to as science.":rolleyes: All you're doing is saying that because they survived using traditional methods in the past, that indicates those methods are better than science. Of course, you shown no evidence to support this, given no examples of science being less successful, and have not demonstrated causation, as opposed to correlation. That is, how can you show that their survival was based on the merits of the IQ system in particular, or that science would have been less successful?

Not that I really expect a real answer. Most likely you'll just make more crude attempts to try to question the validity of "science".:rolleyes: Your arguments stink of the same idiocy that Creationist use to support their anti-science garbage.

That doesn't mean that 'it's worked well enough to keep us alive' should replace social/cultural evolution and adaption for more modern ideas though.

Except for the fact that they are living in the most lethal environment on the planet, and you are asking them to give up the knowledge that has enabled them to survive for another knowledge that has not been proven to be effective.

Why would I waste my time training myself in some primative traditional knowledge? I prefer to train myself on the most up to date knowledge and science of the present and educate myself for the future.....


In b4 shitstorm

Madness... This! Is! Kanngiqtugaapik!!!
Doesn't quite flow off the tongue....:p

Except for the fact that they are living in the most lethal environment on the planet, and you are asking them to give up the knowledge that has enabled them to survive for another knowledge that has not been proven to be effective.
And what might that be?

Since they have lived there for thousands of years, i would assume that traditional Innu culture is quite ecologically viable. Moreso than, let's say, modern western civilisation.
'Ecologically viable' in the sense of 'not destroying the environment', as opposed to 'able to survive in the environment'.

Except for the fact that they are living in the most lethal environment on the planet, and you are asking them to give up the knowledge that has enabled them to survive for another knowledge that has not been proven to be effective.

I dont think they should give it up, but their knowledge does not seem able to provde them with the big picture, so they shouldnt just write off sciene just because some"outsider" says it. It smacks of the arguements those in the deep south of the states (all though I have far more respect for the tribes) use to write off science and statistics by claiming it comes from "intellectuals".

Look we both know where this is going. Just hurry up and call me a racist and be done with it.

:rolleyes:

Oh please, do show me this "evidence.":D

Let me put it this way: how do you know "IQ" works better than science if they haven't tried science yet? Do you have statistics to show that its information is more reliable than science?

"Whatever the economist is referring to as science.":rolleyes: All you're doing is saying that because they survived using traditional methods in the past, that indicates those methods are better than science. Of course, you shown no evidence to support this, given no examples of science being less successful, and have not demonstrated causation, as opposed to correlation. That is, how can you show that their survival was based on the merits of the IQ system in particular, or that science would have been less successful?

Not that I really expect a real answer. Most likely you'll just make more crude attempts to try to question the validity of "science".:rolleyes: Your arguments stink of the same idiocy that Creationist use to support their anti-science garbage.

You are correct that while science has not been shown to work, that does not mean that it can't work. It may be more effective to follow science rather than IQ.

So then we get to the evidence. Which side has more evidence supporting its viability in this ecology? IQ has thousands of years of survival success using only those resources that are locally available. Science has not had nearly as successful a run. Consequently, I can say that the weight of evidence supports IQ more strongly than science.

It may be more effective to follow science rather than IQ.
What on Earth do you mean by IQ?

The outdated, limited measure of intelligence?

And what might that be?

IQ. It's mentioned inthe article. Also known as traditional knowledge.

'Ecologically viable' in the sense of 'not destroying the environment', as opposed to 'able to survive in the environment'.

To be able to do the latter on a sustainable level, you have to do the former.

I dont think they should give it up, but their knowledge does not seem able to provde them with the big picture, so they shouldnt just write off sciene just because some"outsider" says it. It smacks of the arguements those in the deep south of the states (all though I have far more respect for the tribes) use to write off science and statistics by claiming it comes from "intellectuals".

I think when we discuss whether or not paradigms take in more of the big picture, we have to be aware that we speak from within those paradigms. Many people believe the scientific paradigm is quite encompassing, but since it only focuses on material and natural phenomena, it excludes other dynamics that other paradigms may see as essential to the big picture.

Who cares if they hunt their bears to extinction. they will jsut simply move on the seals and fish.

What on Earth do you mean by IQ?

The outdated, limited measure of intelligence?

From the article: “traditional knowledge”, known as Inuit Qaujimaningit, or IQ.

Why would I waste my time training myself in some primative traditional knowledge? I prefer to train myself on the most up to date knowledge and science of the present and educate myself for the future. Ha, maybe because western science/medicine continues to validate traditional knowledge? The diets of traditional societies are often completely balanced in ways that modern nutritionists are only now starting to understand. Your paradigm would have us reject those traditional diets until 'western knowledge' could verify their use. Instead, we continue to use traditional knowledge because it has served us well, and allowed us to thrive.

Up to date knowledge and science of the present needs to catch up more quickly than it has. Sorry you're so behind, TAI.

We have, as a human species, all survived and thrived (most certainly better than Inuits, though it's debatable if Inuits have actually indeed thrived.....).
Better than the Inuit? Who have adapted to some of the harshest conditions on earth? You have a funny concept of 'thriving' if you don't count that. Not to mention that the Inuit have had very little trouble adapting traditional knowledge to modern technology...I bet you still picture them sitting in igloos and mushing dog sleds too.

That doesn't mean that 'it's worked well enough to keep us alive' should replace social/cultural evolution and adaption for more modern ideas though.
The Inuit have been masters at cultural evolution and adaption. They take exactly what they need from Western culture/technology and adapt it to their own cultural needs. The Inuit have blended traditional legal principles with western ones to create a hybrid system in Nunavut perfectly suited to both Inuit and non-Inuit Nunavummiut. They have accessed new technologies (notably many green energies like wind/solar) in order to reach remote communities and provide learning opportunities to all residents, blending the old and the new with much more ease than you give them credit for.

These are a people who literally from nothing created the tools and supplies necessary to survive and thrive culturally in the most barren lands on earth...as in, these are a people who are all about adaptation.

I dont think they should give it up, but their knowledge does not seem able to provde them with the big picture, so they shouldnt just write off sciene just because some"outsider" says it. It smacks of the arguements those in the deep south of the states (all though I have far more respect for the tribes) use to write off science and statistics by claiming it comes from "intellectuals".
That's exactly it....though there are two differences here.

1. The Inuit are an oppressed minority so Whites feel guilty towards them while the rednecks who oppose evolution are usually of the dominant majority group, Whites, so people feel ok about taking shots at them.

2. The hick tools that oppose evolution aren't actually hurting anything (read: Killing a species to extinction) as a cause of their ignorance, just simply looking stupid.

:You are correct that while science has not been shown to work, that does not mean that it can't work. It may be more effective to follow science rather than IQ.

So then we get to the evidence. Which side has more evidence supporting its viability in this ecology? IQ has thousands of years of survival success using only those resources that are locally available. Science has not had nearly as successful a run. Consequently, I can say that the weight of evidence supports IQ more strongly than science.

Severly prohibiting the hunt has worked for the fishing industry in the maritimes. The fish are slowly coming back to a viable number. Yeah it was hard for a decade on the fishing industry but it would be harder for the Inuits if the bear population would grow extinct.

Now we need to explain it to them in a manner we are not used to when dealing with native-americans. As equals.

Strange to think of a modern, 'scientific' term for intelligence being used for 'traditional knowledge'.


Actully their term came first and they are currently suing in Canadian courts to rename the initials on the intelligent quotient changed.

IQ. It's mentioned inthe article. Also known as traditional knowledge.
Ahhh, blame my quick scanning of the article.

Still, a rather confusing term.

To be able to do the latter on a sustainable level, you have to do the former.
Sure, but that unsustainability might not be apparent for a long time.

Ha, maybe because western science/medicine continues to validate traditional knowledge? The diets of traditional societies are often completely balanced in ways that modern nutritionists are only now starting to understand. Your paradigm would have us reject those traditional diets until 'western knowledge' could verify their use. Instead, we continue to use traditional knowledge because it has served us well, and allowed us to thrive.

Up to date knowledge and science of the present needs to catch up more quickly than it has. Sorry you're so behind, TAI.

Valid. But, when modern science clashes with tradition, as it does here (we know the Polar Bears are being hunted to extinction, but the tribes claim they are more present than ever before. This is, however, do to migration from other effects on their environment and does not invalidate that they are endangered) should science be discarded in favor of tradition?

As I mentioned, I suspect the real problem here is communication between the government and the elders, and not that the tribe is simply ignorant (as is the case in the American deep south, to reference my earlier comparison), but I dont think the tribe should be allowed to reject science and continue to hunt an already grossly endangered species.

I bet you still picture them sitting in igloos and mushing dog sleds too.


I thought all Canadians did that:p

In an arguably ecologically inviable manner. Obviously The Economist is highlighting a particularly stubborn section of Inuit society, but the article raises a number of important issues.

Why so?

I can easily imagine a society with deep patriarchial, hierarchial and racist divisions within it, surviving for tens of thousands of years. That society, I'd argue, should heed the advice of 'outsiders'. So too, if they are portrayed correctly by the article, should the Inuit.[/ The elders were talking about problems with global warming and the melting of the permafrost DECADES before western science finally woke up to the problem.

The elders were discussing the changing migratory patterns of sea and land animals DECADES before western science caught on.

When you rely, culturally, socially and economically on a resource...you have the highest incentive to manage that resource in a sustainable manner. What I am saying is that I will trust the judgment of those people whose very lives depend on the resource in question.

:rolleyes:

Ok, I may have made an unjustified assumption their. But one based in past experience.

You are correct that while science has not been shown to work, that does not mean that it can't work. It may be more effective to follow science rather than IQ.

So then we get to the evidence. Which side has more evidence supporting its viability in this ecology? IQ has thousands of years of survival success using only those resources that are locally available. Science has not had nearly as successful a run. Consequently, I can say that the weight of evidence supports IQ more strongly than science.

So because something's kept us alive so far, we should never try to improve on it, or try new ideas? And prove that science has not been as successful within the amount of time its been around. Any supporting evidence at all would be nice.

Severly prohibiting the hunt has worked for the fishing industry in the maritimes. The fish are slowly coming back to a viable number. Yeah it was hard for a decade on the fishing industry but it would be harder for the Inuits if the bear population would grow extinct.

Now we need to explain it to them in a manner we are not used to when dealing with native-americans. As equals.

This makes sense if the Inuit elders are wrong. Are they?

Ahhh, blame my quick scanning of the article.

Still, a rather confusing term.


Sure, but that unsustainability might not be apparent for a long time.

I like how it's confusing.:)

It is quite apparent that the industrial practices of our modern society are decidedly unsustainable. The ones we built with science.

Im all about respecting native traditions, but science should always override tradition.

Should science override Chinese medicine? For years western science discounted traditional Chinese medicine. Only now is western medicine catching on.

No. Science should not always override tradition...because science it itself a tradition based on a particular cultural paradigm...you have stated that one tradition should override another.

Science can exist alongside traditional knowledge, and in fact, both systems work best this way.

The elders were talking about problems with global warming and the melting of the permafrost DECADES before western science finally woke up to the problem.

The elders were discussing the changing migratory patterns of sea and land animals DECADES before western science caught on.

When you rely, culturally, socially and economically on a resource...you have the highest incentive to manage that resource in a sustainable manner. What I am saying is that I will trust the judgment of those people whose very lives depend on the resource in question.

the problem is, I think though, that it creates a very myopic view. a more traditional lifestyle concerns itself primarily with its own "back yard" so to speak, where as modern science takes a more global perspective.

Now, true, if your lives depend on polar bear hunts, then you watch those polar bears like a hawk, but if transitory migration of polar bears sees a surge of numbers in your local area, and all you have is your own eyes and ears to track those patterns, and not satellites, geothermal imaging and tracking tags, it might look like a resurgence of population, when there really isn't.

-snip-

So if the Inuit are so awesome since they can make a hybrid out of their traditional customs and modern scientific understanding, then surely adapting their customs with modern extensive scientific research on the area, by limiting the amount of bears they hunt to keep sustainable harvest, would be appropriate and consistent with their hybrid productive life style?

The elders were talking about problems with global warming and the melting of the permafrost DECADES before western science finally woke up to the problem.

The elders were discussing the changing migratory patterns of sea and land animals DECADES before western science caught on.

When you rely, culturally, socially and economically on a resource...you have the highest incentive to manage that resource in a sustainable manner. What I am saying is that I will trust the judgment of those people whose very lives depend on the resource in question.

Myth of the ecological Indian Aside. This is their heard of polar bear to over hunt or under hunt as they see fit.

Ok, I may have made an unjustified assumption their. But one based in past experience.

So because something's kept us alive so far, we should never try to improve on it, or try new ideas? And prove that science has not been as successful within the amount of time its been around. Any supporting evidence at all would be nice.

Fine. Read Victor Papanek's The Green Imperative where he discusses how fur clothing by the Inuit consistently outperform engineered fabrics in the tundra.

Also note that the carved bone maps of the Inuit float and are waterproof. The modern topo maps made by surveyors are not. Since you have to get around in a kayak, which would you prefer?

Science can exist alongside traditional knowledge, and in fact, both systems work best this way.

A valid point again, however, here we have a direct clash in tradition and science over the polar bear issue. I guess my question is, should IQ be able to override science over whether the Polar Bears are endangered, just because they distrust outsiders*. If so, why?



*- It is entirely possible that this is not the main reason, but simply that is how The Economist presents it.


Neesika, you are of tribal decent if I remember correctly. I understand this is probably a sensitive issue for you. Im trying very hard to tow a line here and not come off as aggressive so you dont eat my heart:p

The elders were talking about problems with global warming and the melting of the permafrost DECADES before western science finally woke up to the problem.

The elders were discussing the changing migratory patterns of sea and land animals DECADES before western science caught on.
Something I would not challenge, but presumeably these were issues to do with the environment close to the Inuit home. Permafrost and changing migratory patterns of Arctic animals will obviously be picked up by a people who live in such close proximity to these two things, but I imagine the Inuit elders know shit all about desertification of the sub-Sahara, deforistation of the Amazon basin, etc., just as I know shit all about cutting an ice hole to get at fish.

If the polar bear population is changing through factors outside of the area (geographically and intellectually) that the Inuit are confident about, as The Economist seems to suggest, then I don't see why we should defer to their opinion.

Once again though, I'd like to stress that I take the OP's article with a pinch of salt.

I dont think they should give it up, but their knowledge does not seem able to provde them with the big picture, so they shouldnt just write off sciene just because some"outsider" says it. It smacks of the arguements those in the deep south of the states (all though I have far more respect for the tribes) use to write off science and statistics by claiming it comes from "intellectuals".

IQ is all about the big picture. Traditional knowledge is absolutely dependent on the big picture...it can't work without it. Science in this case is looking at one thing...numbers. IQ looks at all the linkages within the system, the relationship of the bears to the rest of the food chain (including humans), their habitat etc.

Should science override Chinese medicine? For years western science discounted traditional Chinese medicine. Only now is western medicine catching on.

Do traditional methods sometimes work? Yes. Is that a reason to assume that traditional methods will work? No. We should evaluate each method, traditional or otherwise, on it own merits, based on the evidence available.

No. Science should not always override tradition...because science it itself a tradition based on a particular cultural paradigm...you have stated that one tradition should override another.

Science can exist alongside traditional knowledge, and in fact, both systems work best this way.

Science is supposed to be based on facts, and observable evidence. It is not a system of belief, it is not based on tradition or faith, and to equate it to such systems is an act of the ignorant and dishonest.

the problem is, I think though, that it creates a very myopic view. a more traditional lifestyle concerns itself primarily with its own "back yard" so to speak, where as modern science takes a more global perspective.

Now, true, if your lives depend on polar bear hunts, then you watch those polar bears like a hawk, but if transitory migration of polar bears sees a surge of numbers in your local area, and all you have is your own eyes and ears to track those patterns, and not satellites, geothermal imaging and tracking tags, it might look like a resurgence of population, when there really isn't.


Essentially what Im trying to say, and failing. Damn your Ivy League education, you freakin' Eastern Elitest.:p

So if the Inuit are so awesome since they can make a hybrid out of their traditional customs and modern scientific understanding, then surely adapting their customs with modern extensive scientific research on the area, by limiting the amount of bears they hunt to keep sustainable harvest, would be appropriate and consistent with their hybrid productive life style?

And that hybrid is, I think, what the Canadian government should work with the tribal elders to create, provided they cannot convince them to stop hunting Polar Bears all together.

It is quite apparent that the industrial practices of our modern society are decidedly unsustainable.
And not just industrail processes, but the very way our societies are set up; to paraphrase Murray Bookchin, 'the conceptual domination of human over nature stems from the very real domination of human over human'.

But I digress.

IQ is all about the big picture. Traditional knowledge is absolutely dependent on the big picture...it can't work without it.
Which begs the question, are the Inuit featured truly seeing the 'big picture', or merely the 'big picture' of their (relatively) small area they call home?

IQ is all about the big picture. Traditional knowledge is absolutely dependent on the big picture...it can't work without it. Science in this case is looking at one thing...numbers. IQ looks at all the linkages within the system, the relationship of the bears to the rest of the food chain (including humans), their habitat etc.

I should have clarified. I meant big picture as in "the world". IQ is excellent at monitering and living in their surroundings. It however, cannot really provide them with their surroundings in relation to the rest of the world, because they have only their own eyes to base these facts on.

Do traditional methods sometimes work? Yes. Is that a reason to assume that traditional methods will work?

I think the fact that it's traditional might be a fair indication that it might work, namely because, evolution being what it is and working the way it does, cultures, especially less "advanced" ones, tend to do things for a reason.

Maybe they know the reason, maybe they don't. Maybe the tribe in africa that ceremonially chewed the bark of a willow tree each day, for no other reason than tradition, grew and expanded, and took over other tribes, with lesser life expectancies, because they were, essentially, taking a daily dose of asprin, which has various health benefits.

The fact that a tradition survives, and along with it the people that practice it, might be a fair indication that there's some viable reason for that connection.

And that hybrid is, I think, what the Canadian government should work with the tribal elders to create, provided they cannot convince them to stop hunting Polar Bears all together.

That's what they're doing, they're trying to limit the hunt to 64, rather than not let them hunt altogether.

This is madness. These Inuits are simply hicks, native-rednecks, if you will. I don't see why wilfull ignorance of science leading to the destruction of a species is ok simply because of some backwards tradition.

I mean this is ridiculous:

Treaties between Nunavut and the federal government make clear that science should not influence decision-making more than “traditional knowledge”, known as Inuit Qaujimaningit, or IQ. Scientists offer statistical projections and computer models; native hunters prefer IQ, which tells them that polar bears are everywhere. For its part, Greenland has been almost completely silent, refusing to release the most basic information about their hunters or their wildlife.

And this makes me wish that we could the polar bears hunt him instead. Maybe he should be sent to Soviet Russia:

Mr Qillaq, who chairs the Kanngiqtugaapik Hunters and Trappers Organisation, laughs at the notion that hunting will harm the polar bear population. “Numbers are just numbers,” he says. “We live here, so we know what’s really going on in the north. We can hunt anytime we want, anywhere we want, no matter what anybody says.”

Simply being a "tribel elder" shouldn't hold any weight in a discussion between what the tribel elders 'feel' and what science statistically shows. And to be honest, I have a feeling that if these people were not minorities, there would not be a single person who wouldn't oppose their ignorant detrimental attack on global health.

LOL!

Because the inuits caused the sharp decrease in polar bears in the first place. :rolleyes:

This is wonderful; So basically "Alright native people who use polar bears to survive, you're not allowed to hunt any more because of what other people have done to the world. Actually, if you keep following the way you've lived for thousands of years, YOU will be the cause of extinction of the polar bears. The simplest thing to do is change your entire way of life because of other people's actions."

IQ is all about the big picture. Traditional knowledge is absolutely dependent on the big picture...it can't work without it. Science in this case is looking at one thing...numbers. IQ looks at all the linkages within the system, the relationship of the bears to the rest of the food chain (including humans), their habitat etc.

I'm sorry, this is just too cliche for words. The modern scientist who only cares about "numbers", while the traditional tribal knowledge is in tune with the natural order.:rolleyes: How many times have we seen such arguments before?

This just reeks of a pile of cliched tripe for the simple minded.

I'm sorry, this is just too cliche for words. The modern scientist who only cares about "numbers", while the traditional tribal knowledge is in tune with the natural order.:rolleyes: How many times have we seen such arguments before?
Especially in the light of environmental science, bioregionalist ethics, bio/ecocentrist theory and practice, et al.

And not just industrail processes, but the very way our societies are set up; to paraphrase Murray Bookchin, 'the conceptual domination of human over nature stems from the very real domination of human over human'.

But I digress.


Which begs the question, are the Inuit featured truly seeing the 'big picture', or merely the 'big picture' of their (relatively) small area they call home.

To add to your digression, the concept of human dominion over nature came from Christianity and helped give birth to the scientific paradigm.

It's hard to tell who has the bigger picture. But I would think that an ecological framework that focuses on interrelationships and long-term sustainability would have to take more into account than a short-term viwepoint that focuses solely on those relations that can be quantified.

the problem is, I think though, that it creates a very myopic view. a more traditional lifestyle concerns itself primarily with its own "back yard" so to speak, where as modern science takes a more global perspective. False premise, and one made in ignorance, no offence.

Do polar bears live in the rain forest outside of episodes of Lost? Do they live on the Prairies? No. They live in a specific ecological niche...an extremely complex and delicate ecological niche. The Inuit have been living in that niche for tens of thousands of years...unremoved in a way that you and even I have a hard time fully understanding...because we actually change the environment around us in drastic ways rather than 'blending in'. That is the Western way. Sustainability is not a priority, it's just a perk we might consider once we're comfortable. For the Inuit, sustainability IS survival. In order to do that best, they not only have to take the broad perspective, they have to take the long perspective...they HAVE to consider their action on a multigenerational level.



Now, true, if your lives depend on polar bear hunts, then you watch those polar bears like a hawk, but if transitory migration of polar bears sees a surge of numbers in your local area, and all you have is your own eyes and ears to track those patterns, and not satellites, geothermal imaging and tracking tags, it might look like a resurgence of population, when there really isn't.
More bears in your area isn't the only evidence available to the Inuit. Because of wonderful advances in communication, communities are able to keep in touch with one another in real time...if you have one community noticing a sudden drop in numbers, and the community south of them seeing a surge, the Inuit are more than capable of putting 2 and 2 together. The only way the scenario you've described could actually play out is if Inuit culture behaved in non-traditional ways, and communities were to become insular, and loathe to share knowledge.

That's what they're doing, they're trying to limit the hunt to 64, rather than not let them hunt altogether.

not like you can control it. all they got to do is walk close enough to a polar it acts pissed off. Then when they shoot it it is self defense.

might as well not let the hide and meat go to waste.


circa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc_o8Zk4s2Y

So if the Inuit are so awesome since they can make a hybrid out of their traditional customs and modern scientific understanding, then surely adapting their customs with modern extensive scientific research on the area, by limiting the amount of bears they hunt to keep sustainable harvest, would be appropriate and consistent with their hybrid productive life style?

Absolutely.

If there is actually a need to limit the hunt to ensure sustainability...which is the crux of this argument.

To add to your digression, the concept of human dominion over nature came from Christianity and helped give birth to the scientific paradigm.
I think you're giving Christianity too much credit here; Aristotelian philosophy (whihc, admittedly, had a massive impact on medieval Christianity) draws a clear distinction between nature and human, as does much other pre-21st century thought.

It's hard to tell who has the bigger picture.
I feel the question is rather moot.

But I would think that an ecological framework that focuses on interrelationships and long-term sustainability would have to take more into account than a short-term viwepoint that focuses solely on those relations that can be quantified.
I cannot agree more.

A valid point again, however, here we have a direct clash in tradition and science over the polar bear issue. I guess my question is, should IQ be able to override science over whether the Polar Bears are endangered, just because they distrust outsiders*. If so, why?



*- It is entirely possible that this is not the main reason, but simply that is how The Economist presents it.
Nunavut is self-governing. The rest of the North is covered extensively by self-governing aboriginal territories (the Inuvialuit, Gwichiin, Dogrib etc). The issue is also about sovereignty....but that is not where these elders are coming from. They are disputing the conclusions being drawn about the best methods to ensure sustainability.

Considering they have effectively managed their resources in a sustainable manner for tens of thousands of years, and have not deviated significantly from their traditional methods (which are highly adaptable), I believe they are the best suited to continue to manage said resources.

I think you're giving Christianity too much credit here; Aristotelian philosophy (whihc, admittedly, had a massive impact on medieval Christianity) draws a clear distinction between nature and human, as does much other pre-21st century thought.


I feel the question is rather moot.


I cannot agree more.

I should have been more clear. I think Xianity grabbed it from the Greeks and then gave it to science, sort of a meme inheritance. But I digress too.

These are a people who have not only survived but have THRIVED in an environment that should be unfit for human habitation.

...because the rest of us are dead.

To add to your digression, the concept of human dominion over nature came from Christianity and helped give birth to the scientific paradigm.

Prove it. Evidence please?

I should have been more clear. I think Xianity grabbed it from the Greeks and then gave it to science, sort of a meme inheritance. But I digress too.
Stop me before I start railing on about the nonsense of 'memes'... :p

Let's just stop and agree we're both fucking brilliant.

not like you can control it. all they got to do is walk close enough to a polar it acts pissed off. Then when they shoot it it is self defense.

might as well not let the hide and meat go to waste.


circa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc_o8Zk4s2Y

I'm sure the Inuit are more than capable of lowering their numbers to around 64, even if it's impossible to get it exactly that.

Prove it. Evidence please?

Ian Barbour's Religion and Science. In the opening sections where he describes the complexities of the relationship between science and religion.

Stop me before I start railing on about the nonsense of 'memes'... :p

Let's just stop and agree we're both fucking brilliant.

Dude. You're fucking brilliant!

False premise, and one made in ignorance, no offence.

Do polar bears live in the rain forest outside of episodes of Lost? Do they live on the Prairies? No. They live in a specific ecological niche...an extremely complex and delicate ecological niche.

Delicate I get, but there's basically no plants, and few enough species on land...I'd think, you know, somewhere with insects would be far more complex. Maybe a lake? The everglades? then you've got that fresh-water salt-water interaction...

Let's just stop and agree we're both fucking brilliant.

Nice.

Prove it. Evidence please?
There's a clear tradition of seperation of humans over 'the animal kingdom' in Christain theology, especially since medieval Christian thought. Although many Christian writers talk of 'stewarship' of humans over nonhumans, it's very much written in the language of 'leadership'. Much of it comes off of Aristotle's 'ladder of nature', as can be seen, IIRC, in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others.

See all the talk of 'lowly beasts', etc.



Dude. You're fucking brilliant!
And you!



Nice.
*high fives*

I'm sure the Inuit are more than capable of lowering their numbers to around 64, even if it's impossible to get it exactly that.

but you really cant force them too even if Canada backs out of their treaty.
Not like you can tell a self defense polar bear kill from a hunting kill. By the time any rangers will show up in the region the Inuit would have carved up the bear and eaten it.

If there is actually a need to limit the hunt to ensure sustainability...which is the crux of this argument.

Well I have much more reason to believe extensive scientific research utilizing the most modern technology and empirical data, rather than anecdotes from someone who "live(s) here, so we(they) know what’s really going on in the north", regardless of how well his society has been able to adapt to the environment and survive over the countless years.

More bears in your area isn't the only evidence available to the Inuit. Because of wonderful advances in communication, communities are able to keep in touch with one another in real time...if you have one community noticing a sudden drop in numbers, and the community south of them seeing a surge, the Inuit are more than capable of putting 2 and 2 together. The only way the scenario you've described could actually play out is if Inuit culture behaved in non-traditional ways, and communities were to become insular, and loathe to share knowledge.

that, again, assumes that the communities are spread out sufficiently to gain a comprehensive overview of the situation. I don't know how far flung the communities are, nor how large an area polar bears inhabit, so I can't state which is true with any certainty, merely trying to provide one reason why cultural understandings and scientific data might differ

Absolutely.

If there is actually a need to limit the hunt to ensure sustainability...which is the crux of this argument.

At least the elders arent denying that polar bears are endangered....like some people that live way up North.

Something I would not challenge, but presumeably these were issues to do with the environment close to the Inuit home. Permafrost and changing migratory patterns of Arctic animals will obviously be picked up by a people who live in such close proximity to these two things, but I imagine the Inuit elders know shit all about desertification of the sub-Sahara, deforistation of the Amazon basin, etc., just as I know shit all about cutting an ice hole to get at fish. Why would the Inuit elders need to know about the sub-Sahara? IQ is specifically applicable to the environment the Inuit live in.

If the polar bear population is changing through factors outside of the area (geographically and intellectually) that the Inuit are confident about, as The Economist seems to suggest, then I don't see why we should defer to their opinion. Changes from without the ecological niche occupied by the Inuit have ALWAYS been a factor. Various ocean currents pooling in the Arctic have impacted marine migration and weather patterns. The Inuit didn't need to know where those currents came from, how they were formed, or what they were doing in other areas...they simply had to understand how said currents impacted them, and their environment.

So when marine pollution began to pool in the Arctic, contaminating the Inuit food chain...when fat-soluble pollutants began to make the Inuit sick...they were quick to raise a cry and hue about how outside pollution was directly affecting them. It wasn't necessary to know whether Japan, or Brazil, or the US was 'most guilty' for this...it was only necessary for them to understand that the food they were eating (seals, whales, ocean fish, etc) were making them sick.

Changes impacting the bears, coming from outside, will be understandable within IQ in exactly the same way that rising temperatures has been. That knowledge of the impact may come before the knowledge of cause is irrelevant.

LOL!

Because the inuits caused the sharp decrease in polar bears in the first place. :rolleyes:

Maybe not, but the fact remains that the problem is here now.

This is wonderful; So basically "Alright native people who use polar bears to survive, you're not allowed to hunt any more because of what other people have done to the world. Actually, if you keep following the way you've lived for thousands of years, YOU will be the cause of extinction of the polar bears. The simplest thing to do is change your entire way of life because of other people's actions."

If the Polar Bears are dying out, it doesn't really matter why, does it? Until the numbers go back up, can we afford to have anyone hunting them? It might not be fair, but at this point we have to act based on the situation we have. I'm sure the government can recompense these people in some way, and when the numbers go up maybe they can hunt again in limited numbers if they need to.

On the other hand, its a sad thought that in the modern world, anyone would have to hunt rare animals (or hunt at all) to survive. It shouldn't be nessissary, and if its not nessissary to kill these animals, it probably shouldn't be done.

but you really cant force them too even if Canada backs out of their treaty.


Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't regard the Inuit as that much of rational hybrid 'best of both worlds' society IF they can't co-operate.

I should have been more clear. I think Xianity grabbed it from the Greeks and then gave it to science, sort of a meme inheritance. But I digress too.

i wanna digress too!

the dominion thing is a pretty obvious reading to take from genesis, so we can blame the jews.

Why would the Inuit elders need to know about the sub-Sahara? IQ is specifically applicable to the environment the Inuit live in.
Exactly my point.

Changes impacting the bears, coming from outside, will be understandable within IQ in exactly the same way that rising temperatures has been. That knowledge of the impact may come before the knowledge of cause is irrelevant.
Not if you're advocating that the Inuit can also 'manage the resources' perfectly fine on their own.


EDIT: I'm certianly not saying that IQ is useless, just that it needs to be informed by outside information in a way that it perhaps hasn't needed up untill now. More than ever, we need 'joined-up thinking' in this world we all inhabit, and part of that is giving credit where it's due to peoples who've lived off the land in for thousands of years. But part also is the recognition of new technologies and information that the latest science can offer us. Simply saying, 'ohh, the Inuit'll be fine, they've been fine up untill now', smacks a bit of Rousseau's noble savage; assuming that 'native' peoples have an understanding that trumps all others.

Well I have much more reason to believe extensive scientific research utilizing the most modern technology and empirical data, rather than anecdotes from someone who "live(s) here, so we(they) know what’s really going on in the north", regardless of how well his society has been able to adapt to the environment and survive over the countless years.

What are these reasons for believing science is better than IQ?

Scientific ones?

If the natives need to kill polar bears to survive then so be it. But do the people in Greenland need to kill the bears?

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't regard the Inuit as that much of rational hybrid 'best of both worlds' society IF they can't co-operate.

I honestly don't care. as long as their actions do not affect me I see no reason to get into their business.

Fine. Read Victor Papanek's The Green Imperative where he discusses how fur clothing by the Inuit consistently outperform engineered fabrics in the tundra.


Well, that makes sense, since the fur is kinda, you know, developed over millenia of evolution specifically for the tundra. At least we do it within decades.

Delicate I get, but there's basically no plants, and few enough species on land...I'd think, you know, somewhere with insects would be far more complex. Maybe a lake? The everglades? then you've got that fresh-water salt-water interaction...

Overal biodiversity is low, but the place literally explodes with life during the brief summer. It's absolutely stunning. It's so complex exactly because the growing season is so short...the ability of animals (including humans) to survive when that season is over is a testament to how fragile the linkages between flora, fauna and environment are.

Well, that makes sense, since the fur is kinda, you know, developed over millenia of evolution specifically for the tundra. At least we do it within decades.

Not sustainably. Not yet.

Well I have much more reason to believe extensive scientific research utilizing the most modern technology and empirical data, rather than anecdotes from someone who "live(s) here, so we(they) know what’s really going on in the north", regardless of how well his society has been able to adapt to the environment and survive over the countless years.

That's nice. Having a much better understanding of traditional knowledge than you, I am more inclined to trust IQ. Luckily my view is the one that best supports the sovereign rights of the Inuit to manage their own resources...so we don't have a situation like we do in Alberta where in the name of oil profits, we 'fudge' the science so we can pretend we aren't severely compromising our water supply.

that, again, assumes that the communities are spread out sufficiently to gain a comprehensive overview of the situation. That's not an assumption, that's a fact.

I don't know how far flung the communities are, nor how large an area polar bears inhabit, so I can't state which is true with any certainty, merely trying to provide one reason why cultural understandings and scientific data might differ
Noted.

What are these reasons for believing science is better than IQ?

Scientific ones?

They can do much more thorough and rigorous research using advanced technology and come up with testable hypothesis. The Inuit are basing it essentially on what they see around their immediate area (unless you can provide some other evidence they have used, which I have not seen) and comparing that with what they've seen during other harvests. Hardly enough to base their assertions on, and why they see what they see has already been adequately explained, any reason to doubt this explanation?

Edit: EDITED TERRIBLE CRAMMER THAT ACTUALLY MADE MY POSITION COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Not sustainably. Not yet.

Of course not yet, but would you wager it'll take us as long as the bears did?

Simply saying, 'ohh, the Inuit'll be fine, they've been fine up untill now', smacks a bit of Rousseau's noble savage; assuming that 'native' peoples have an understanding that trumps all others.

moreover, in other periods of really rapid change on a scale not seen previously (or not seen recently enough to still be well remembered), traditional knowledge has not always been enough to keep things under control for various peoples. see the megafauna extinctions around the world, for example.

That's nice. Having a much better understanding of traditional knowledge than you, I am more inclined to trust IQ.

Then why don't you provide us with aspects of their ideas that currently make what they're saying so compelling?


Luckily my view is the one that best supports the sovereign rights of the Inuit to manage their own resources...

Oh, I support this too, I'm not saying they should be forced to limit how many bears they kill.


so we don't have a situation like we do in Alberta where in the name of oil profits, we 'fudge' the science so we can pretend we aren't severely compromising our water supply.

How is this relevant in the slightest? This has nothing to do with the interests of a groups profit in this case.

Science in this case is looking at one thing...numbers. IQ looks at all the linkages within the system,

That hardly seems a fair assessment of 'the science' in this case.

Then why don't you provide us with aspects of their ideas that currently make what they're saying so compelling? I'm not Inuit, so their knowledge is not mine to share with you. Were the issue Cree traditional knowledge, you'd still have to follow proper protocols.



Oh, I support this too, I'm not saying they should be forced to limit how many bears they kill.k.



How is this relevant in the slightest? This has nothing to do with the interests of a groups profit in this case.
Ah, so 'altruistic' science is always accurate, while science that is tainted by profit can be regarded legitimately with suspicion?

I'm actually more inclined to believe that science can say different things, and that the people interpreting data can come to different conclusions depending on their priorities. You trust that the priorities in this case a 'right' and that therefore the data is 'right'.

I don't. I believe that IQ is the more relevant paradigm to view this within.

That hardly seems a fair assessment of 'the science' in this case.

No less fair than the ignorant assumptions being made about IQ.

No less fair than the ignorant assumptions being made about IQ.

I thought that TAS was deliberately trolling for you Neesika.

moreover, in other periods of really rapid change on a scale not seen previously (or not seen recently enough to still be well remembered), traditional knowledge has not always been enough to keep things under control for various peoples. see the megafauna extinctions around the world, for example.

No offence...but if we're facing that sort of rapid change on such a massive scale, no amount of science or IQ is going to save the polar bear...if their habitat becomes unsustainable because of global warming, the polar bears simply do not have the ability to adapt quickly enough to stave off extinction.

No less fair than the ignorant assumptions being made about IQ.

True. I considered immediately replying "Well, I'm a bit more familiar with Science than you are, so I'm more inclined to trust it" But...eh. It didn't have the snap I wanted, I wasn't sure if the joke would be obvious...you know how it is.

I thought that TAS was deliberately trolling for you Neesika.

That was obvious.

True. I considered immediately replying "Well, I'm a bit more familiar with Science than you are, so I'm more inclined to trust it" But...eh. It didn't have the snap I wanted, I wasn't sure if the joke would be obvious...you know how it is.

Yup.

No offence...but if we're facing that sort of rapid change on such a massive scale, no amount of science or IQ is going to save the polar bear...if their habitat becomes unsustainable because of global warming, the polar bears simply do not have the ability to adapt quickly enough to stave off extinction.

In which case the Inuits need to learn to live without hunting it anyway.

No offence...but if we're facing that sort of rapid change on such a massive scale, no amount of science or IQ is going to save the polar bear...if their habitat becomes unsustainable because of global warming, the polar bears simply do not have the ability to adapt quickly enough to stave off extinction.

i don't know, conservation genetics might have a bit of help to offer in that department

I'm actually more inclined to believe that science can say different things, and that the people interpreting data can come to different conclusions depending on their priorities. You trust that the priorities in this case a 'right' and that therefore the data is 'right'.

So...Iniut don't have personalities?

They can do much more thorough and rigorous research using advanced technology and come up with testable hypothesis. The Inuit are basing it essentially on what they see around their immediate area (unless you can provide some other evidence they have used, which I have not seen) and comparing that with what they've seen during other harvests. Hardly enough to base their assertions on, and why they see what they see has already been adequately explained, any reason to doubt this explanation?

Edit: EDITED TERRIBLE CRAMMER THAT ACTUALLY MADE MY POSITION COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

You don't know what the Inuit are basing it on. Since you have no idea as to how they acquire and modify their knowledge, you can,t make an intelligent comparison.

And you are assuming that the science will be rigiourously done, as per theoretical models of scientific methodology. We both know that in practice, this is often not the case.

Of course not yet, but would you wager it'll take us as long as the bears did?

I think that to get there, we will have to understand and copy what the bears did.

I'm not Inuit, so their knowledge is not mine to share with you.

Does this mean you yourself don't know the specifics of their knowledge? If this is the case, why do you find their case more compelling if you don't know exactly what their case is?


I'm actually more inclined to believe that science can say different things, and that the people interpreting data can come to different conclusions depending on their priorities. You trust that the priorities in this case a 'right' and that therefore the data is 'right'.

I don't. I believe that IQ is the more relevant paradigm to view this within.

It's difficult to empirically conclude from raw scientific data both that a harvest is sustainable, and not sustainable, that's an extremely unlikely event. In any case, the Inuit are not using scientific data.

i don't know, conservation genetics might have a bit of help to offer in that department

While we're at it, why don't we send a polar-bear manned mission to the moon?

So...Iniut don't have personalities?

The Inuit have priorities based on sustainability that directly affects their own survival, as I've pointed out before. Therefore I feel that they are the best suited to make accurate decisions about the management of the resources they directly rely upon.

I think that to get there, we will have to understand and copy what the bears did.

That's possible...

Wait, now that I think about it, I'm not sure what the original purpose of this thread of conversation was. You say our pseudo-fur isn't good enough, I try to say that hardly counts as a fault of science...but maybe you were trying to give a reason for why they can't stop hunting entirely?

You don't know what the Inuit are basing it on. Since you have no idea as to how they acquire and modify their knowledge, you can,t make an intelligent comparison.


I don't know exactly, I can only extrapolate from the article based on what they say. If you know more about what they're basing it on, tell it, if you actually want to argue their case.


And you are assuming that the science will be rigiourously done, as per theoretical models of scientific methodology. We both know that in practice, this is often not the case.


Even proper scientific models would probably be more compelling than what the Inuit say, as long as it's from a trustworthy source.

Does this mean you yourself don't know the specifics of their knowledge? If this is the case, why do you find their case more compelling if you don't know exactly what their case is? Because I have lived in the North, and traditional knowledge in the North is based on the same set of principles that traditional knowledge in the South is based upon. Sustainability and integration.

I have a foundation in traditional knowledge from which to work from. You lack even this...and as GoG pointed out, you therefore lack a way to make any sort of meaningful comparison. And no, I'm not going to discuss traditional Cree knowledge with you over the internet, in violation of traditional protocols.

You don't have to take my word for it...you simply have to access this knowledge properly, on your own, if it actually interests you enough. Otherwise, the point is somewhat moot...since this is the decision of the Inuit to make, regardless.



It's difficult to empirically conclude from raw scientific data both that a harvest is sustainable, and not sustainable, that's an extremely unlikely event. In any case, the Inuit are not using scientific data.

Right. The Inuit are using data within the IQ paradigm. Glad you understand that part of it now.

While we're at it, let's only care about the cute animals (polar bears are cute unless you're about to be eaten by one).

More tuna for me...

The Inuit have priorities based on sustainability that directly affects their own survival, as I've pointed out before. Therefore I feel that they are the best suited to make accurate decisions about the management of the resources they directly rely upon.

I'd be more inclined to believe that if people in general showed such conscientious behavior about their resources...I'm not totally taken with the noble savage, forged of steel, bound by their common enemy of mother nature thing. We can have petty Inuit.

Because I have lived in the North, and traditional knowledge in the North is based on the same set of principles that traditional knowledge in the South is based upon. Sustainability and integration.

I have a foundation in traditional knowledge from which to work from. You lack even this...and as GoG pointed out, you therefore lack a way to make any sort of meaningful comparison.


But you're being unreasonable. If you're going to claim that their theories are better and more accurate, you will have to show these theories so we can actually compare. If you can't, then your position is completely unfalsifiable.


Right. The Inuit are using data within the IQ paradigm. Glad you understand that part of it now.

So, what is this data? Why is it more reliable?

That's possible...

Wait, now that I think about it, I'm not sure what the original purpose of this thread of conversation was. You say our pseudo-fur isn't good enough, I try to say that hardly counts as a fault of science...but maybe you were trying to give a reason for why they can't stop hunting entirely?

I think it started as a comparison of which paradigm produced more effective survival techniques and technology.

While we're at it, why don't we send a polar-bear manned mission to the moon?

I believe the technical term is 'polar beared mission'.

But you're being unreasonable. If you're going to claim that their theories are better and more accurate, you will have to show these theories so we can actually compare. If you can't, then your position is completely unfalsifiable.

So, what is this data? Why is it more reliable?

Better in what way?

How do we compare them?

Comparing paradigms is tricky. Especially if you are trying to do so from inside one of the paradigms being compared.

I think it started as a comparison of which paradigm produced more effective survival techniques and technology.

Technically, the Inuit survived for over a thousand years using their technique and approach to hunting/conservation.

If they hadn't, they would have died out long ago.

The boffins with their hypothetical approach to conservation haven't put their own lives on the line with their ideas.

I think it started as a comparison of which paradigm produced more effective survival techniques and technology.

Ah true. I suppose in terms of effectiveness, the other has speed on its side. "That animal is warm, take its skin."

But you're being unreasonable. If you're going to claim that their theories are better and more accurate, you will have to show these theories so we can actually compare.

Well, she's obviously not about to actually do that. You know, violation of protocol and such.

I'd be more inclined to believe that if people in general showed such conscientious behavior about their resources...I'm not totally taken with the noble savage, forged of steel, bound by their common enemy of mother nature thing. We can have petty Inuit.

The Inuit STILL rely directly on their immediate environment for the bulk of their diet, unlike 'people in general' in the West. This is not about noble savagery, this is about being connected to your surroundings on a very real level.

Pettiness is not the point. Connectedness and reliance is.

But you're being unreasonable. If you're going to claim that their theories are better and more accurate, you will have to show these theories so we can actually compare. If you can't, then your position is completely unfalsifiable.


So, what is this data? Why is it more reliable?

It's not important to me if you understand, to be honest, and again, I'm not going to violate protocols even though I support 'he who asserts must prove'.

The biggest problem is that I really could not explain this to you without you having a more extensive background...and the bulk of learning in the traditional sense needs to be on the land. The comparison of paradigms is the work of a lifetime, and unfortunately this internet debate can barely touch the edges of that work.

You've spent a lifetime learning one paradigm...I have no idea how indepth your learning is in the western tradition, but you've had consant exposure over the years. I have had consant exposure to both paradigms...but summing up the differences more than I already have is frankly beyond the scope of our discussion, sorry.

The Inuit STILL rely directly on their immediate environment for the bulk of their diet, unlike 'people in general' in the West. This is not about noble savagery, this is about being connected to your surroundings on a very real level.

Pettiness is not the point. Connectedness and reliance is.

*shrug* I figure if anyone had a reason and the means to 'fudge the numbers' it'd be on the Inuit side of things. At least they have something to gain in the short term. What do 'the scientists' get out of it? A number of annoyed and oppressed natives? I can't say whether or not these scientific conclusions were properly peer-reviewed, but when proper traditional knowledge is limited to those few, it's gotta be easier to pull one over.

*shrug* I figure if anyone had a reason and the means to 'fudge the numbers' it'd be on the Inuit side of things. At least they have something to gain in the short term. What do 'the scientists' get out of it? A number of annoyed and oppressed natives? I can't say whether or not these scientific conclusions were properly peer-reviewed, but when proper traditional knowledge is limited to those few, it's gotta be easier to pull one over.

When you research an animal and say it is endangered you get a lot more funding.

I believe the technical term is 'polar beared mission'.
Good point.
Technically, the Inuit survived for over a thousand years using their technique and approach to hunting/conservation.

If they hadn't, they would have died out long ago.

The boffins with their hypothetical approach to conservation haven't put their own lives on the line with their ideas.
Exactly. The stakes are beyond high for the Inuit. This is literally an issue of cultural and physical survival.
*shrug* I figure if anyone had a reason and the means to 'fudge the numbers' it'd be on the Inuit side of things. At least they have something to gain in the short term. What do 'the scientists' get out of it? A number of annoyed and oppressed natives? I can't say whether or not these scientific conclusions were properly peer-reviewed, but when proper traditional knowledge is limited to those few, it's gotta be easier to pull one over.

Again, I think you're looking at this wrongly. Do not discount the intense survival instinct of a people who have only made it this far because they always took the long view.

What do the scientists get out of this? Who knows. I know what they don't get out of it...life and cultural continuity. That is what is at stake for the Inuit.

When you research an animal and say it is endangered you get a lot more funding.This isn't true. You actually have to prove that it's endangered, simply saying so will do absolutely nothing.

It's not important to me if you understand, to be honest, and again, I'm not going to violate protocols even though I support 'he who asserts must prove'.

The biggest problem is that I really could not explain this to you without you having a more extensive background...and the bulk of learning in the traditional sense needs to be on the land. The comparison of paradigms is the work of a lifetime, and unfortunately this internet debate can barely touch the edges of that work.

You've spent a lifetime learning one paradigm...I have no idea how indepth your learning is in the western tradition, but you've had consant exposure over the years. I have had consant exposure to both paradigms...but summing up the differences more than I already have is frankly beyond the scope of our discussion, sorry.

Can you at least acknowledge then that it's a little unreasonable to demand people be completely trusting that the Inuit know best, based on essentially this awesome knowledge and way of thinking that you guys apparently posses, which is also a top secret, but that this secret knowledge means that it's all fine and that the scientists are merely mistaken? Surely it would be better to argue down the rout of sovereignty for the Inuit, rather than simply bashing the western scientific model.

This isn't true. You actually have to prove that it's endangered, simply saying so will do absolutely nothing.

yes prove it to your peers who are other scientist who stand to get a lot more money from the animal being endangered.

While we're at it, why don't we send a polar-bear manned mission to the moon?

yes, that is clearly on the same level as using an understanding genetics to protect a species that would otherwise be driven to extinction by our fuck ups.

yes prove it to your peers who are other scientist who stand to get a lot more money from the animal being endangered.Bullshit, you have to prove it to the governmental board that oversees such listings, and in the US, even emergency listings take months, if you've got a ton of paperwork and years of research to prove your point.

Can you at least acknowledge then that it's a little unreasonable to demand people be completely trusting that the Inuit know best, based on essentially this awesome knowledge and way of thinking that you guys apparently posses, which is also a top secret, but that this secret knowledge means that it's all fine and that the scientists are merely mistaken? Surely it would be better to argue down the rout of sovereignty for the Inuit, rather than simply bashing the western scientific model.

Ha, it's not top secret, it's simply not accessible to you in the same way western science is accessible to you...although you need to take into account that you've had a lifetime to become accustomed to the western scientific paradigm and that it would be extremely difficult to, in the space of a single discussion, give you enough background to understand any of the conculsions being drawn within that paradigm. Just as it is difficult, if not impossible to do the same for you in the context of IQ.

Part of the problem is that traditional knowledge is discounted, rather than studied on a wider scale. That has been changing just in the past few decades, but the findings have not been shared on a wide enough level for there to be enough expetise in the general community to draw accurate comparisons between the two models.

The sovereignty argument is basically rock solid...I have nothing to add to it. I'm not even really bashing the western scientific model..I'm just saying it's not the appropriate model to use in this case.

The Inuit STILL rely directly on their immediate environment for the bulk of their diet, unlike 'people in general' in the West. This is not about noble savagery, this is about being connected to your surroundings on a very real level.

Pettiness is not the point. Connectedness and reliance is.

By that logic, a farmer has more knowledge of the land and soil than, say, an academic that has simply studied it for a living, since they are so much more "connected" to the land.

Though it is only a portion of your argument throughout this thread, asserting that something has worked for them and so they must know better than the rest disregards the quickly changing times and an empiricism that has a much broader scope. The other part of your argument seems to me to be that they have "their ways" of knowing things that we cannot be immediately given access to; that is fine, but no one outside this special group who've been granted this knowledge have any reason to believe they wield any more authority than scientific data and analysis.

Needless to say, there are and have been tradition practices among a myriad populations that may have merit when looked at solely from the perspective of the population but still prove to be damaging when looked at under a broader context, socially and geographically. Say, if it turns out that this hunting policy that is nearly double what scientists recommend turns out to do verifiable damage to the bear population and surrounding ecology, would this allow one to say that perhaps science is able to better analyze the situation than tradition practices or do those practices still trump by simple merit of having been around a long time?

Also, I want to say one last thing about non-Western medicines. Yes, for a long time, the West viewed many of the practices as nonsense, but notice that when the practices are actually examined in a scientific manner, they often become scientifically validated. Your criticism should be that the West tends to be culturally self-centered and reluctant to analyze foreign practices in an empiric and analytic manner, but all cultures tend that way it seems; however, science is not a "Western" practice, it is a mode of empiricism and analysis that uses logical procedures on reproducible data; this is different than, say, resting on Shabbat out of respect for God because your family has done it for generations.

By that logic, a farmer has more knowledge of the land and soil than, say, an academic that has simply studied it for a living, since they are so much more "connected" to the land.
I would absolutely trust a farmer to talk about their own land - it's sure as hell not an easy job. That said, a scientist's input would be useful.

I would absolutely trust a farmer to talk about their own land - it's sure as hell not an easy job. That said, a scientist's input would be useful.Dustbowl effect proves you wrong. As does slash and burn in the Amazon rainforest. Generally, farmers lack the means by which to experiment with techniques to expand their knowledge (often being dependent on their harvest), so they may know what works, but not necessarily what works best.

I would absolutely trust a farmer to talk about their own land - it's sure as hell not an easy job. That said, a scientist's input would be useful.

Exactly, and if said scientist was telling the farmer how his crop rotation, in combination with certain climate changes, was beginning to make the land infertile and, perhaps, even spreading certain pollutants (natural or otherwise) to farms outside the one his family has traditionally held, would his intuitive "knowledge of the land" be more valid simply because it has served his family for generations previously?

I'd hate to be a polar bear in these day and ages. If global climate change doesn't kill them, evidently the big bad Inuit will.*




*please note sarcasm on that last part.

Bullshit, you have to prove it to the governmental board that oversees such listings, and in the US, even emergency listings take months, if you've got a ton of paperwork and years of research to prove your point.

funding coming from universities and private donors don't require such, all they require is a peer reviewed journal.

Moreover in the case at hand its not polar bears worldwide they have to show as endangered but polar bears in a specific region.
So the Inuit have a bit of room to argue. since they are competing against scientist who seeking money for the study of polar bear in their specific reason.
Does this mean the scientist are lying? no. It doesn't necessarily make them free of other motivations either. they are humans just like us. some will be examples of honesty other will not. The fact that it is only on a specific region however makes me want to seek a greater number of opinions on the matter. Perhaps the Inuit or scientist in question could have scientist from other regions/countries provide a second opinion for next hunting season. A broader consensus on the matter may be more persuasive then yelling I am right you are wrong at the Inuit.
As for the natives I don't buy the whole ecological Indian thing. Environmental history majors can show you plenty of evidence of Indians over hunting animals in various regions in North America.

As does slash and burn in the Amazon rainforest.

actually, this is a good one. slash and burn is a pretty good method of farming, as long as the population is low and the forest is big. the problem comes when other factors change the system beyond what the traditional agricultural methods were built to work with. but it still appears to work, it is just degrading the whole at a level and rate that is difficult to notice.

funding coming from universities and private donors don't require such, all they require is a peer reviewed journal.

Moreover in the case at hand its not polar bears worldwide they have to show as endangered but polar bears in a specific region.
So the Inuit have a bit of room to argue. since they are competing against scientist who seeking money for the study of polar bear in their specific reason.
Does this mean the scientist are lying? no. It doesn't necessarily make them free of other motivations either. they are humans just like us. some will be examples of honesty other will not. The fact that it is only on a specific region however makes me want to seek a greater number of opinions on the matter. Perhaps the Inuit or scientist in question could have scientist from other regions/countries provide a second opinion for next hunting season. A broader consensus on the matter may be more persuasive then yelling I am right you are wrong at the Inuit.
As for the natives I don't buy the whole ecological Indian thing. Environmental history majors can show you plenty of evidence of Indians over hunting animals in various regions in North America.Dude, you can't just call a species endangered. You implied one could, and I called you on it. Don't dodge the point with irrelevant information.

actually, this is a good one. slash and burn is a pretty good method of farming, as long as the population is low and the forest is big. the problem comes when other factors change the system beyond what the traditional agricultural methods were built to work with. but it still appears to work, it is just degrading the whole at a level and rate that is difficult to notice.

It seems like most things are a reasonable method if 'population is low and there are many resources'.

Dude, you can't just call a species endangered. You implied one could, and I called you on it. Don't dodge the point with irrelevant information.

Yes I can. Laerods are endangered.
Your referring to legal status of endangered.
that status is not advocated for by field researchers normally unless your dealing with a very limited geographical range. Otherwise that status will be requested by someone compiling research papers of the field researchers over a broad area.
However a scientist can use any descriptor he wants in his research paper provided he has evidence to back it up.

Yes I can. Laerods are endangered.
Your referring to legal status of endangered.
that status is not advocated for by field researchers normally unless your dealing with a very limited geographical range. Otherwise that status will be requested by someone compiling research papers of the field researchers over a broad area.
However a scientist can use any descriptor he wants in his research paper provided he has evidence to back it up.Feel free to provide evidence to back up your claim.

Feel free to provide evidence to back up your claim.

do you have access to JSTOR ?

if so search endangered.
compare the the usage of the term endangered. with list of endangered species on IUCN Red List, US Endangered Species Act.

you will notice field researchers using the descriptor endangered. It may be an opinion based on the research presented and may only refer to a limited geographic area.

Or you can read over a debate over if a species is or is not endangered and point yourself to a species that did not make the endangered list. Obviously some scientist felt the species was endangered and wrote papers stating they felt the species was endangered even if it was rejected the legal status.

do you have access to JSTOR ?

if so search endangered.
compare the the usage of the term endangered. with list of endangered species on IUCN Red List, US Endangered Species Act.

you will notice field researchers using the descriptor endangered. It may be an opinion based on the research presented and may only refer to a limited geographic area.

Or you can read over a debate over if a species is or is not endangered and point yourself to a species that did not make the endangered list. Obviously some scientist felt the species was endangered and wrote papers stating they felt the species was endangered even if it was rejected the legal status.Again, neither of these would really be the form of labelling a species endangered that you implied to begin with.

Also, can't access JSTOR. You'll have to either do the thing yourself or find another means to back up your claim.

Dude, you can't just call a species endangered. You implied one could, and I called you on it. Don't dodge the point with irrelevant information.

Actually, you CAN. Look up "Snake River Dams". a particular RUN of salmon was declared "Endangered" and this was used to breach a number of hydroelectric dams in the Columbia basin watershed...

in spite of the salmon in question being ordinary pacific salmon, a species you can buy in the supermarket.

Again, neither of these would really be the form of labelling a species endangered that you implied to begin with.

Also, can't access JSTOR. You'll have to either do the thing yourself or find another means to back up your claim.

If it is on a source you cant access it is not worth my time.


but lets look at the process you listed.
a government review board. and years of research.

In order for it to go to a government review board some scientist (and more then likely a group of them) must believe the species is in fact endangered. These scientist will write a paper (actually more likely several papers). These papers are peer reviewed and if you had Jstor you could read them.

Researchers and scientists will declare and state a species is endangered well before the government ever gets around to granting the legal status. And the board may very well disagree with them and not grant the status.

Actually, you CAN. Look up "Snake River Dams". a particular RUN of salmon was declared "Endangered" and this was used to breach a number of hydroelectric dams in the Columbia basin watershed...

in spite of the salmon in question being ordinary pacific salmon, a species you can buy in the supermarket.

exactly. and a declaration in a peer reviewed journal will normally result in a freeze of development until further studies are taken.

Actually, you CAN. Look up "Snake River Dams". a particular RUN of salmon was declared "Endangered" and this was used to breach a number of hydroelectric dams in the Columbia basin watershed...

in spite of the salmon in question being ordinary pacific salmon, a species you can buy in the supermarket.

the fact that there are plenty of wolves in alaska and canada doesn't make them any less endangered in the eastern lower 48, even in the strictly legal sense of the term.

I think the problem is Greenland. They steal our fish too...

yes prove it to your peers who are other scientist who stand to get a lot more money from the animal being endangered.

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/AwXomeMan/morbo.jpg

science does not work that way

I think the problem is Greenland. They steal our fish too...
Damn those Greenlanders and their misleading island name!

*waves fist*

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/AwXomeMan/morbo.jpg

science does not work that way

it does in the US where most of the research grants are private. the flashier and more doomsday the claim the more money to research it we get. Sadly research is one thing that needs to be socialized.

it does in the US where most of the research grants are private. the flashier and more doomsday the claim the more money to research it we get. Sadly research is one thing that needs to be socialized.

no. just, no. industry stooges make the big bucks. by orders of magnitude. and all the scientific glory is to be had in showing someone to be wrong rather than merely assenting to their findings.

no. just, no. industry stooges make the big bucks. by orders of magnitude. and all the scientific glory is to be had in showing someone to be wrong rather than merely assenting to their findings.

its why all the good research is done in Europe. because if it doesn't cure cancer or say that the day after tomorrow scenario is a week away no one here is interested in it.

its why all the good research is done in Europe. because if it doesn't cure cancer or say that the day after tomorrow is a week away no one here is interested in it.
Perhaps, or perhaps it's because the US government has for the last wee while banned a number of extremely important avenues of research (stem cell research, etc.).

Perhaps, or perhaps it's because the US government has for the last wee while banned a number of extremely important avenues of research (stem cell research, etc.).

in medical. yes. also Americans are by and large a dumb lot that only want to see exciting things researched. We basically want research to be like a Hollywood movie if we are putting money into it.

in medical. yes. also Americans are by and large a dumb lot that only want to see exciting things researched. We basically want research to be like a Hollywood movie if we are putting money into it.
Just do boring research 10 miles underground in a stainless-steel bunker with soldiers around to con them, obviously!

in medical. yes. also Americans are by and large a dumb lot that only want to see exciting things researched. We basically want research to be like a Hollywood movie if we are putting money into it.
But (even taking your dodgy assertion to be true), it's not the US public that's deciding research grants...

EDIT: And anyhoo, AFAIK, the peer-review process is international nowadays.

in medical. yes. also Americans are by and large a dumb lot that only want to see exciting things researched. We basically want research to be like a Hollywood movie if we are putting money into it.

again, science does not work that way

Yeah thats a bunch of crap...

Those guys have no more right to do what theyre doing than those Japanese Whalers...

Yeah thats a bunch of crap...

Those guys have no more right to do what theyre doing than those Japanese Whalers...
Eh the Japanese have many sources of food, the inuit do not -_-

But (even taking your dodgy assertion to be true), it's not the US public that's deciding research grants...

a lot of Us funded research comes from private donations.
Lots of politicians be sure to point out donating to flashy causes to get reelected.
and big companies recently either invest in immediately profitable research or in flashy research to get good PR.

Just do boring research 10 miles underground in a stainless-steel bunker with soldiers around to con them, obviously!

if they find anything like a clean energy source big oil sends tons of assassins after said scientist of course as well.

Eh the Japanese have many sources of food, the inuit do not -_-

Yeah they do...they could leave that area, and go to one with..say...a Grocery store?...

Still looking down our noses at those who don't agree with us, I see. Why not just come up with a racial epithet for the Inuit while you're at it... You know you want to.

Sorry to rain on your parade (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868)but maybe they know a little more than you think...

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

...

Everywhere you look, the "doomed" polar bear's story is illustrated with the classic photo of a mother and cub teetering on an fragile-looking ice floe, the ice full of holes and seemingly about to disappear into the sea...

...For a species that can swim dozens of kilometres to find a decent seal dinner, a few hundred metres to shore is a leisurely doggie paddle to safety. So much for the optic of a doomed global warming victim on ice.

a lot of Us funded research comes from private donations.
Lots of politicians be sure to point out donating to flashy causes to get reelected.
and big companies recently either invest in immediately profitable research or in flashy research to get good PR.
Assuming all the above is accurate and typical of US scientific research, it still doesn't show that you "prove it to your peers who are other scientist who stand to get a lot more money from the animal being endangered".

if they find anything like a clean energy source big oil sends tons of assassins after said scientist of course as well.
Which is why it's 10 miles underground and protected by soldiers, DUH.
Yeah they do...they could leave that area, and go to one with..say...a Grocery store?...
Aye or not because it's genuinely their homeland.

Yeah they do...they could leave that area, and go to one with..say...a Grocery store?...

And, to elaborate on that...If theyre presumably going to hunt them to Extinction, and this IS presumably their only source of food...

Then theyre going to have to eventually anyway, or face starvation...

Assuming all the above is accurate and typical of US scientific research, it still doesn't show that you "prove it to your peers who are other scientist who stand to get a lot more money from the animal being endangered".

if the animal is cute saying it might die off gets research. In this case from stuffed teddy bear companies.

Which is why it's 10 miles underground and protected by soldiers, DUH.

Aye or not because it's genuinely their homeland.

Also, a bunch of crap, there is still nothing stopping them from leaving it...

And, to elaborate on that...If theyre presumably going to hunt them to Extinction, and this IS presumably their only source of food...

Then theyre going to have to eventually anyway, or face starvation...
*sigh*

Polar bears are not their only source of food, they are a source of food for the inuit.

Which is why it's 10 miles underground and protected by soldiers, DUH.



Everyone knows the government is in the take of Big oil. those soldiers will receive orders to kill the scientist.

*sigh*

Polar bears are not their only source of food, they are a source of food for the inuit.

If its not, then why cant they cut down on their hunting of it?...

If they have multiple sources, then their entire argument is moot...

Everyone knows the government is in the take of Big oil. those soldiers will receive orders to kill the scientist.
Surprisingly perceptive. Eh maybe the soldiers are robots, then.

If its not, then why cant they cut down on their hunting of it?...

If they have multiple sources, then their entire argument is moot...
Because to keep biodiversity they hunt a bit of everything. Too many bears and you get too few of the animals lower-down on the food chain.

Sorry to rain on your parade (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868)but maybe they know a little more than you think...
Uh-huh, 'they' know that "polar bears do live on ice and satellite photos show the sea ice is down 7.7% in the last decade. So something is happening up there".

And that the polar bear population is now (according to the above article) 2,100 individuals; not exactly a massive population, especially when nearly 200 a year (according to the OP's article) are being hunted.



if the animal is cute saying it might die off gets research. In this case from stuffed teddy bear companies.
WTF?

Because to keep biodiversity they hunt a bit of everything. Too many bears and you get too few of the animals lower-down on the food chain.

Yes, but there is apparently too few Bears on top...meaning that they need to cut down on bear Hunting and go for something else...

Im not seeing why this is a problem other than theyd have to change some of their traditions...


We limit Black Bear Hunting, because there arent that many, so we hunt other things...

If they have other things to hunt besides Polar Bears, im not seeing why they cant do the same...

Still looking down our noses at those who don't agree with us, I see. Why not just come up with a racial epithet for the Inuit while you're at it... You know you want to.

Sorry to rain on your parade (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868)but maybe they know a little more than you think...

has anyone ever claimed (recently) that all polar bear populations are declining? we have very good evidence that some are and that global climate change is the mechanism behind it.

also, why should we be at all surprised that their numbers have come back from where they were at just after protections were put in place in the 70s.

WTF?

its a PR thing.
scientist A says polar bears are endangered.
stuffed toy company B donates some money to Scientist A.
toy company then runs commercial about how they donate some of their profits to save the polar bear. (they forget to mention only .000001%)
People then go AWWWW and buy lots of stuffed bears from toy company B.

the trick is marketing. you see stuff bears look like polar bears so a stuffed toy company is preferable to get in on the save the polar bear gold list.

Uh-huh, 'they' know that "polar bears do live on ice and satellite photos show the sea ice is down 7.7% in the last decade. So something is happening up there".


Ah, so the ice is down 7.7%, therefore the Inuit are a bunch of barbaric savages who deserve to be eaten by the polar bears they hunt.

Good logic. Solid. You've convinced me.


And that the polar bear population is now (according to the above article) 2,100 individuals; not exactly a massive population, especially when nearly 200 a year (according to the OP's article) are being hunted.


I like this new logic. So the 173 or so a year total being hunted by the Inuit (barbaric savages who don't deserve to live, right?) is compared against the 2100 from just the 3 listed provinces.

its a PR thing.
I highly doubt this is the way the majority of US scientific research gets funded.

I highly doubt this is the way the majority of US scientific research gets funded.

Most of it isn't government funded.

Private funding is often dependent on you supporting the ideals of the non-profit or rich person or industrial giant that provides the funding.

Ah, so the ice is down 7.7%, therefore the Inuit are a bunch of barbaric savages who deserve to be eaten by the polar bears they hunt.
Yes. This is exactly what everyone in this thread has been arguing.

Good logic. Solid.
Something your posts lack, unfortunately.

Yes. This is exactly what everyone in this thread has been arguing.

I was talking to you there, sport.


Something your posts lack, unfortunately.

Um... yeah.

Thanks for showing a better example ;)

Ah, so the ice is down 7.7%, therefore the Inuit are a bunch of barbaric savages who deserve to be eaten by the polar bears they hunt.



Maybe not eaten...but, a Modernization i think needs to be in order...which may include a change of scenery I think...

Neo, check your TG

yes, that is clearly on the same level as using an understanding genetics to protect a species that would otherwise be driven to extinction by our fuck ups.

Sorry, I see it about as practical as shipping polar bears to the moon at this point unless the technology catches up fast enough.

I was talking to you there, sport.
No, you seem to be talking to some imaginary poster calling for the culling of the 'savage' Inuit through polar bear overpopulation, rather than, say, someone discussing the merits of scientific and radical environmental theory applied to 'traditional' lifestyles.


Most of it isn't government funded.

Private funding is often dependent on you supporting the ideals of the non-profit or rich person or industrial giant that provides the funding.
I'm not disputing that, simply disputing g&d's point of view.

I imagine most funding comes through drug/medicine companies.

Neo, check your TG

Thanks. Answered. :)

I'm not disputing that, simply disputing g&d's point of view.

I imagine most funding comes through drug/medicine companies.

Not for environmental protection. your drug companies tend to focus on drugs. the industry that is connected to the environment is normally against said protection (IE lumber industry funds forest conservation only as a PR move).
So most of your environmental studies are funded by popularity contest.

Not for environmental protection. your drug companies tend to focus on drugs. the industry that is connected to the environment is normally against said protection (IE lumber industry funds forest conservation only as a PR move).
So most of your environmental studies are funded by popularity contest.

And a researcher will be motivated as to who can provide a continuous stream of money.

So most of your environmental studies are funded by popularity contest.
Dare I ask for a source?

Not that I necessarily disagree; I genuinely don't know.

Dare I ask for a source?

Not that I necessarily disagree; I genuinely don't know.

Here's an example of how research gets distorted by who pays for it:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_Tobacco_Research

I'll look for an environmental example.

Here's an environmental example

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute

Here's an example of how research gets distorted by who pays for it:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_Tobacco_Research

I'll look for an environmental example.

Here's an environmental example

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute
These are, obviously, rather worrying, but It's interesting to note that most energy/funds go into advertising, not research. In a genuinely accountable peer-review system, biased research, as well as research that avoids certain important topics will be quickly spotted by the scientific community.

Though perhaps not the public.

astroturf pr campaigns are not science. but you are right, there is enormous financial gain to be had in shilling for the anti-environmental groups. note, however, that this is the opposite of what has actually been claimed here.

These are, obviously, rather worrying, but It's interesting to note that most energy/funds go into advertising, not research. In a genuinely accountable peer-review system, biased research, as well as research that avoids certain important topics will be quickly spotted by the scientific community.

Though perhaps not the public.

They pay for research that then is published in peer reviewed journals.

It isn't spotted because you can be selective about which journals and which peers do the reviewing.

Dare I ask for a source?

Not that I necessarily disagree; I genuinely don't know.

hot wife listed. but it is one of the reasons Americans don't trust environmental research by the UN or Europe. because our domestic research always several overstates stuff. So we assume everyone else does too. and bam the American attitude toward kyoto and the like comes out.

They pay for research that then is published in peer reviewed journals.

which ones? do their results hold up?

It isn't spotted because you can be selective about... which peers do the reviewing.
Not in any accredited peer-review process; it's anonymous.

Not in any accredited peer-review process; it's anonymous.

Many areas of research and certain journals have peer pools that are small enough that you'll always recognize who will be the reviewer. It's not as secret as you think.

I've also heard that many of their leaders oppose uranium mining in Labrador as well, even though that uranium could be used for nuclear power, which could decrease the use of fossil fuels, and in turn decrease the greenhouse effect. This isn't the only case where political correctness has clashed with the environment.

I don't know much in particular about the effects of polar bear endangerment on the ecosystem, but I do agree that they probably wouldn't have gotten away with this if not for the politically-correct protection that being of native descent offers...

Many areas of research and certain journals have peer pools that are small enough that you'll always recognize who will be the reviewer.
Like what? Which journals?

Certainly none respected in environmental science/ethics; it's currently a massive field.

Like what? Which journals?

Certainly none respected in environmental science/ethics; it's currently a massive field.

You can cherry pick your journal. Journals are barely getting by as it is - some are indirectly sponsored by industrial interests as well.

Ever wonder why people are able to publish arguments against global warming at all? Or arguments that tobacco doesn't cause disease?

It's all a matter of money.

I've also heard that many of their leaders oppose uranium mining in Labrador as well, even though that uranium could be used for nuclear power, which could decrease the use of fossil fuels, and in turn decrease the greenhouse effect. This isn't the only case where political correctness has clashed with the environment. Oh yeah, has nothing to do with a history of dumping radioactive tailings into nearby water sources (like the Great Bear Lake), causing an astronomical rate of cancers among aboriginal people. Na. It's just stupid people opposing progress.

I don't know much in particular about the effects of polar bear endangerment on the ecosystem, but I do agree that they probably wouldn't have gotten away with this if not for the politically-correct protection that being of native descent offers...That descent offers sovereignty, and that's frankly all you need to know about the situation. It is THEIR land.

Ever wonder why people are able to publish arguments against global warming at all? Or arguments that tobacco doesn't cause disease?

they are? where?

they are? where?

wow, what planet were you from?

You can cherry pick your journal. Journals are barely getting by as it is - some are indirectly sponsored by industrial interests as well.
Once again, which journals?

I don't doubt that some journals are underfunded (I know this from personal experience) but point me to a respected, peer-reviewed journal that is little more than a mouth-piece for an industry.

I declare this thread:

http://www.seganerds.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/20080328nerdcast15.jpg

This thread has exploded when I was gone and is filled with highly interesting information and arguements, bordering somewhere between social studies and science and topped off with an all around lack of flames.

Nice job everyone.

wow, what planet were you from?

the one where industry pr firms can make a lot of smoke, but can't manage to get any, for example, climate change denialist articles published in peer-reviewed journals. which is what we find if we take a sample of, say, 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" and take a look.

stop trolling dk.

the one where industry pr firms can make a lot of smoke, but can't manage to get any, for example, climate change denialist articles published in peer-reviewed journals. which is what we find if we take a sample of, say, 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" and take a look.

stop trolling dk.

Try looking for tobacco research. The picture wasn't pretty.

That descent offers sovereignty, and that's frankly all you need to know about the situation. It is THEIR land.

When it regards ecological issues that have a wider impact than on any single group of people, no, simply saying they have sovereignty does not immediately validate actions.

When it regards ecological issues that have a wider impact than on any single group of people, no, simply saying they have sovereignty does not immediately validate actions.

the treaty however allows them this say. And I don't feel like breaking anymore treaties with Native Americans.

the treaty however allows them this say. And I don't feel like breaking anymore treaties with Native Americans.

I'm not saying anyone be forced to do anything. I am voicing my belief that their course of action is foolish. I am also saying that, "Haha sovereignty!" is not going to suddenly turn a bad policy into a good one. It's the argument of an apologist rather than any valid justification for a course of action and I honestly expect better.

I'm not saying anyone be forced to do anything. I am voicing my belief that their course of action is foolish. I am also saying that, "Haha sovereignty!" is not going to suddenly turn a bad policy into a good one. It's the argument of an apologist rather than any valid justification for a course of action and I honestly expect better.

And I expect you to have an understanding of traditional knowledge...but I also accept that you don't, and are working from a series of assumptions about traditional knowledge that essentially render your opinion on the subject completely useless.

...but I also accept that you don't, and are working from a series of assumptions about traditional knowledge that essentially render your opinion on the subject completely useless.
Problem is Neeskia, you seem to be working from the assumption that 'traditional knowledge' trumps any other knowledge-base, and should not be interfered with or complimented in any way.

And I expect you to have an understanding of traditional knowledge...but I also accept that you don't, and are working from a series of assumptions about traditional knowledge that essentially render your opinion on the subject completely useless.

The difference is that the reasoning and premises behind the counter is freely and relatively easily available to all who ask, while what you are referring to is not, as you yourself have been so fervent in pointing out. This is going to garner criticism. If I live in a culture in which one of our traditions involves dumping collected toxins into a stream to let it be washed away and there are very good reasons within my traditional knowledge that make me believe doing so is good, that is fine, but seeing as it (in this case, directly....but all actions as regards the environment affect more than just the immediately responsible party....economists call them externalities, iirc) involves a great number of other people it then becomes my responsibility to lay out the reasoning behind my claims.

My opinion is useless when it comes to environmental issues? I live on this planet and must participate in the same global ecology as, and I know it's a shocker, Inuit. Well, I guess you are correct, there is a certain amount of uselessness that my opinion possesses simply by virtue of I am in no position to affect change on this issue, but is it irrelevant? Certainly not. Not any more irrelevant than my opinion on whaling and overfishing, waste dumping or any other environmental issue which may directly or indirectly involve me.

Problem is Neeskia, you seem to be working from the assumption that 'traditional knowledge' trumps any other knowledge-base, and should not be interfered with or complimented in any way.

Bullshit. I've stated that traditional knowledge works well blended with a western paradigm. However, you'd actually have to have an understanding of both systems to do that. So far, the ONLY people who have that understanding are those people trained in the traditional ways, and raised (as most of us are) with exposure to the western system.

In this case, traditional knowledge IMO trumps western knowledge on this particular issue. Claiming some overall belief in 'trump!' on my behalf is disingenuous.

The difference is that the reasoning and premises behind the counter is freely and relatively easily available to all who ask, But only understandable if you've been trained to understand the context. Since western systems of thought are taught to us from childhood on, that context is already there...you can build from it, access other forms of knowledge within that paradigm. Since traditional knowledge is not taught on such a wide scale, but rather is restricted generally to our communities (in great part because western knowledge rejects traditional knowledge), that underlying skill base simply isn't available to allow you to 'easily' access traditional knowledge.

That isn't a fault with the traditional knowledge base, that's simply a fact of life when the western paradigm has been pushed above all others.

My entire point is you lack the ability to say anything useful at all about IQ, because you lack even the barest understanding of what you're commenting on. Doesn't it make you feel bad to speak from such a position of ignorance? I know it'd bother me.

here is a random thought. perhaps the natives want to hunt the polar bear more because global warming has forced them more inland where they pose a greater threat to the tribe and their animals (dogs are often a matter of survival up there i hear). If global warming will cause the Polar Bear's extinction there is likely little the natives can do other then make use of the animal while it is there.

In this case, traditional knowledge IMO trumps western knowledge on this particular issue.
I meant 'trumps' on this issue, which I believe you're stating above. I'd certainly agree that traditional methods of conservation (if they can legitimately be called that) have incredibly insight, but I don't see how one set of knowledge can 'trump' another set, simply because it's 'traditional'.

As I said, it smacks of the 'noble savage' fallacy.

It's a blending of knowledge/skills we need (which I now see you're, in some manner, recognising), and though I'd acknowledge the great insight a practical, survival-based way of living can give on one's environment, a refusal of working with new technology/theory along with traditional methods seems near-sighted.

You appear to be leaning in that direction.

As I said, it smacks of the 'noble savage' fallacy.

I believe I said noble savage, so nyah. :p

I believe I said noble savage, so nyah. :p
You, me and Rousseau.

:tongue:

Just grin and bear it.

:D

But only understandable if you've been trained to understand the context. Since western systems of thought are taught to us from childhood on, that context is already there...you can build from it, access other forms of knowledge within that paradigm. Since traditional knowledge is not taught on such a wide scale, but rather is restricted generally to our communities (in great part because western knowledge rejects traditional knowledge), that underlying skill base simply isn't available to allow you to 'easily' access traditional knowledge.

That isn't a fault with the traditional knowledge base, that's simply a fact of life when the western paradigm has been pushed above all others.

My entire point is you lack the ability to say anything useful at all about IQ, because you lack even the barest understanding of what you're commenting on. Doesn't it make you feel bad to speak from such a position of ignorance? I know it'd bother me.

The barest understanding would consist of recognizing the harshness of the environment and what tactics would ensure the greatest survivability. Now, granted, I don't know the specifics, but humans generally think in similar patterns. I mean, just from what you've said in this thread, there is obvious a very strong, what we would now call, "conservationist" trend in traditional practices, but for obviously necessary reasons. There isn't some magic system of maths and logic that the "magic redskins" are aware of and the white-man isn't.

You talk about context, and I agree that that is important, so let's take a look at Eastern Medicines. They operate and were created under the same method of empiricism as Western Medicine, but the difference in context and the quirks of history lead to a different direction, the method of thought is generally the same, though. This is because folk knowledge is similar all across the world, because people are, for all intents and purposes, the same all across the world, just somewhat differently shaped (this is the context here) by their local environment.

What science attempts to do is distill this method of gaining folk knowledge to its barest principles and use them to create a diverse set of implications and rules. This doesn't discredit folk practice. In fact, folk practice remains, and will likely always be, fairly important in our day to day lives (I mean, my family has traditions and folk cures that aren't scientifically validated, it's just things we know work because they work and we've done them for generations). However, to say that this folk knowledge is therefore the end-all be-all of good decision making is a bit absurd to me, it is a method, as all things are, and must be used in good judgment and relation to other methods; this is how knowledge grows and benefits everyone.

So do I need to explicitly know all the survivalist methods to gauge if their decision is better than what scientific experts recommend? It would be nice, but probably not. Either the Inuit method of thought is similar to all other human-beings, and I see no reason to think otherwise (or are you positing some magic Redman Magics?), or...well, I don't really see an or there. *shrug*

So let me get this straight --

The bears are coming ashore and eating garbage, dogs, and dog food because they are starving and there's less sea ice...


....


So what problem do you have with the Inuit continuing to eat them?
They'll starve or be shot attacking dogs or people anyhow.

Btw loving the city-dwellings looking down their noses characterizing the Inuit as rednecks, hicks, and inferior. Bet you'd get along a MILLION times better in their environment than they do. Natives is stoopit.

if the animal is cute saying it might die off gets research. In this case from stuffed teddy bear companies.
*rolls eyes*

http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/wildlife.html

Reading. It does a body good.

Because CLAMS are cute. And spiders. And lichens. And bats. And rats.

In this case, traditional knowledge IMO trumps western knowledge on this particular issue.

that may be. but this
Mr Qillaq, who chairs the Kanngiqtugaapik Hunters and Trappers Organisation, laughs at the notion that hunting will harm the polar bear population. “Numbers are just numbers,” he says. “We live here, so we know what’s really going on in the north. We can hunt anytime we want, anywhere we want, no matter what anybody says.”
is just fucking stupid.

So let me get this straight --

The bears are coming ashore and eating garbage, dogs, and dog food because they are starving and there's less sea ice...

So what problem do you have with the Inuit continuing to eat them?
They'll starve or be shot attacking dogs or people anyhow.

outright scheduling 12%+ of a fragile population for slaughter in a single year is just asking for catastrophic collapse. and worse, it makes humans directly morally responsible for it.

there are other options.

I have a question (I havent read this thread since page, six, and Ill go back and read it, but I want to propose this while Im still thinking of it).

We can debate if they should cull their hunting of Polar Bears in light of science, or if they dont need to because their tradition may be right all we want. I personally think its irrelevent.

Polar Bears are endangered, that much is certian. But theyre not endangered because of the Inuits (or however you say it pluraly). The tribe has been able to have ecostability its entire existance. Telling them to decease their hunting doesnt really address the problem.

Polar Bears are going extinct for two reasons. Global Warming and sport hunting. Governments, both Canada's and the US's need to address the real problems rather than target the natives. America needs to actually start classifying species as endangered and threatened again (we havent updated the list since Bush was in office, he froze the process) and stop whackjobs like Sarah Palin from shooting them from helicopters. I dont know what the larger hunting issues are in Canada, or if there are any, but they need to be addressed if theyre there.

Also, America and Canada need to both work on capping their carbon emissions (yes, BOTH of them: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/?2275).

The Inuits arent the real issue here. Theyre being attacked for a problem that they didnt create. They can choose to voluntarially decrease the hunting, or we can make them, or we can leave them alone, but that should be a very low priority to what I mentioned above.

EDIT: As for the whole tradition thing, some tradition is great, and some is awful. Each should be evaluated by its own merits. The native traditions of respecting and revering nature should not be cast away. However, traditions like the man is the "bread winner" and the woman stays home and tends to children is not one that needed to be kept, and has been cast away.

t I don't see how one set of knowledge can 'trump' another set, simply because it's 'traditional'....

I don't think IQ trumps scientific knowledge because it's traditional. I think it trumps it because (in this context) it has been proven to work, is sustainable, respects the existing ecology, and helps create a cultural framework which can be used to easily pass the information onto others.

This is madness. These Inuits are simply hicks, native-rednecks, if you will. I don't see why wilfull ignorance of science leading to the destruction of a species is ok simply because of some backwards tradition.


Yep, anyone who doesn't accept your pov is automatically a hick. You are also the same people who proclaim your self as a champions and almighty preservers of rights and tolerance of others.

Once again NSG hypocrites at their finest.

Governments, both Canada's and the US's need to address the real problems rather than target the natives.

The trouble is that climate change is not going to go away at this point. We can reduce its impact, but we can't stop it entirely. The situation for the polar bears is bad, and it's going to get worse whatever the Canadian and US governments do about reducing carbon emissions.

It's not about "responsibility", because the issue here isn't moral guilt: it's about what we can do, at this point, to save the polar bears.

The trouble is that climate change is not going to go away at this point. We can reduce its impact, but we can't stop it entirely. The situation for the polar bears is bad, and it's going to get worse whatever the Canadian and US governments do about reducing carbon emissions.

It's not about "responsibility", because the issue here isn't moral guilt: it's about what we can do, at this point, to save the polar bears.

Agreed. But I dont understand why people are targeting the Inuit hunting of Polar Bears when there are much, much bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

The trouble is that climate change is not going to go away at this point. We can reduce its impact, but we can't stop it entirely. The situation for the polar bears is bad, and it's going to get worse whatever the Canadian and US governments do about reducing carbon emissions.

It's not about "responsibility", because the issue here isn't moral guilt: it's about what we can do, at this point, to save the polar bears.

Then do this. Tag and capture several samples of the bears. Place them in specially built reservations. Preserve and culture unfertilized embryos in cryogenic storage facilities. Even if they go extinct, they can be brought back. Problem solved.

The Inuits aren't going to stop their hunting, and the developed/developing countries aren't going to stop causing the problem in the first place so this is the next best solution.

Then do this. Tag and capture several samples of the bears. Place them in specially built reservations. Preserve and culture unfertilized embryos in cryogenic storage facilities. Even if they go extinct, they can be brought back. Problem solved.

The Inuits aren't going to stop their hunting, and the developed/developing countries aren't going to stop causing the problem in the first place so this is the next best solution.

Yeah only theres this little thing called the food chain. If there aren't enough polar bears that throws a wrench into the system.

Btw loving the city-dwellings looking down their noses characterizing the Inuit as rednecks, hicks, and inferior. Bet you'd get along a MILLION times better in their environment than they do. Natives is stoopit.


Not to look down on people or anything, i generally dont like too...

But, I think this applies to many other peoples as well, africans for example...

Why would you tie yourself to a Barren, Inhospitable landscape just because you were born there? or because your 'Ancestors' were born there? Isnt that a little stupid?

Yeah only theres this little thing called the food chain. If there aren't enough polar bears that throws a wrench into the system.

Polar bears are apex predators. Polar bears have problems getting enough food. If polar bears go extinct, it is because the lower level food stages are incapable of supporting them. This was covered in the opening post. Do pay attention.

If polar bears do go extinct, either lower level food stages will return to levels capable of supporting them, or die out anyway, in which case, it's not just polar bears that have a problem.

How about this: Let them wipe out the Baffin Island population.

The two groups have been given custody over the area, and wish to do this. So let them. And in a few years, when there are no Polar Bears there, publish the hell out of it and use the situation to force government oversight on ALL animal species populations, regardless of location.

It will serve as a salutary example to the Inuit to LISTEN when they get advice on such things, and hopefully kill this myth that native peoples have some sort of "special wisdom" about their environment.

Hard on the Bears, but as long as there are other, protected populations, we should be able to prevent extinction.

How about this: Let them wipe out the Baffin Island population.

The two groups have been given custody over the area, and wish to do this. So let them. And in a few years, when there are no Polar Bears there, publish the hell out of it and use the situation to force government oversight on ALL animal species populations, regardless of location.

It will serve as a salutary example to the Inuit to LISTEN when they get advice on such things, and hopefully kill this myth that native peoples have some sort of "special wisdom" about their environment.

Hard on the Bears, but as long as there are other, protected populations, we should be able to prevent extinction.

Thats...actually a brilliant plan...You plan on running for office some time? lol

If polar bears go extinct, it is because the lower level food stages are incapable of supporting them.

wait, even if people are shooting them at a rate above their replacement level?

wait, even if people are shooting them at a rate above their replacement level?

Why do you suppose people are shooting them above their current replacement rate? It's because the lower level food chains have been disrupted. The seals, their primary food source, are becoming scarcer, so naturally, the bears would gravitate to places where food is more plentiful. That means human habitations in the frozen bits of the world. This of course, leads to more cases of bears being shot at out of self preservation or what have you.

But the root cause is still the food chain disruption. Inuits have been living there for how many hundreds or thousands of years and they didn't have problems with polar bear scarcity until now when their food source became more scarce. It's how it's always been insofar as food chains go. One dies out or becomes scarce, and the apex predator of that area goes elsewhere to feed, and usually ends up competing with the apex predator in that area, with the loser usually ending up extinct.

Why are there less natural cases of polar bear food? I wouldn't really know.

Why do you suppose people are shooting them above their current replacement rate? It's because the lower level food chains have been disrupted. The seals, their primary food source, are becoming scarcer, so naturally, the bears would gravitate to places where food is more plentiful. That means human habitations in the frozen bits of the world. This of course, leads to more cases of bears being shot at out of self preservation or what have you.

that is not what the shooting is about

But the root cause is still the food chain disruption. Inuits have been living there for how many hundreds or thousands of years and they didn't have problems with polar bear scarcity until now when their food source became more scarce.

um, except when their numbers were even worse before restrictions were enacted at all a couple decades back, right?

that is not what the shooting is about

Of course hunting plays a factor in this, mostly actually, given that it's the primary Inuit protein source, but why do you think they are claiming increased numbers of polar bears? The bears are migrating southwards, and there's usually not much reason for an animal to do out of season migration unless food scarcity forces them to range further out from their usual places, and that's what's happening here.


um, except when their numbers were even worse before restrictions were enacted at all a couple decades back, right?

Well I'll give you that the introduction of firearms and mechanized means of transport made hunting easier, increasing yields in any given time with the usual problems of over hunting, but that doesn't explain why more polar bears are encroaching into human territory this time.

If polar bears do go extinct, either lower level food stages will return to levels capable of supporting them, or die out anyway, in which case, it's not just polar bears that have a problem.
Eh?

By the bolded, do you mean supporting polar bears or supporting other life?

Eh?

By the bolded, do you mean supporting polar bears or supporting other life?

Polar bears generally, though seals are also the primary food of orcas if I'm not mistaken.

For humans to care about a species it must normally be big and/or furry. Prehaps they can hunt some fish eaten by seals thus killing seals and polar bears.

Oh and yes the ocra wales would suffer too. By eating something people dont care about a lot more damage can be done :D

This is madness. These Inuits are simply hicks, native-rednecks, if you will. I don't see why wilfull ignorance of science leading to the destruction of a species is ok simply because of some backwards tradition.

I mean this is ridiculous:

Treaties between Nunavut and the federal government make clear that science should not influence decision-making more than “traditional knowledge”, known as Inuit Qaujimaningit, or IQ. Scientists offer statistical projections and computer models; native hunters prefer IQ, which tells them that polar bears are everywhere. For its part, Greenland has been almost completely silent, refusing to release the most basic information about their hunters or their wildlife.

And this makes me wish that we could the polar bears hunt him instead. Maybe he should be sent to Soviet Russia:

Mr Qillaq, who chairs the Kanngiqtugaapik Hunters and Trappers Organisation, laughs at the notion that hunting will harm the polar bear population. “Numbers are just numbers,” he says. “We live here, so we know what’s really going on in the north. We can hunt anytime we want, anywhere we want, no matter what anybody says.”

Simply being a "tribel elder" shouldn't hold any weight in a discussion between what the tribel elders 'feel' and what science statistically shows. And to be honest, I have a feeling that if these people were not minorities, there would not be a single person who wouldn't oppose their ignorant detrimental attack on global health.

This is retarded. The natives should have autonomy (and independence if they want, just like Québécois, IMO) and protect their culture but all that is irrelevant when an endangered species is concerned. So they can stick their traditional knowledge/Inuit Qaujimaningit up their ass.