Hypocracy of Conservationism

[elexperto]

Mudo;976823']Has anyone noticed this? Ill explain.

For the most parts i have no problems with conservationism...its obviously a good idea...in most cases. Conservation stepping in to reverse damage done by us is one thing...though we're the only animal in history to do so which throws a philosophical spanner in the 'nature' preservation theory.

Many people harp on about nature this and natural that. Whatever is natural is good. Humans ruin nature and we should strive to conserve it. Usually coresponding to the over romantisised and quite pretentious belief that past life is somehow always better (coinsidentally, this group of people exists in every generation).

That would be fine if conservationism strived to maintain that which is natural...but we all know it doesnt. What it really does is try to pervert what really is natural based on someones idea of whats right or wrong.

Easy example...but im sure there are many...the giant panda. An animal that is obviously genetically pre-disposed to fade into extinction yet conserationists strive to maintain its existense. I could argue quite easily that if it wasnt for the efforts of man, the thing would have already died out through natural selection.

Whats natural about that?

Many species die out every day before theyre even discovered. Presumably because they couldnt cut it. Whos fault is that? Is it their own? Is it the fault of all the animals eating them without thinking about conservationism? Should conservationsists step in?

Anyway i think the very thing conservationism is supposed to be based on is in many cases a total contradiction.

 

[anonfuture]

Indeed. Putting it another way, it's rather difficult to protect the "animal rights" of a cheetah and the gazelles they prey on.

 

[wizbangs]

I'm a little curious, why exactly is it genetically pre-diposed to fade into extinction? What in its genetics are the issue?

- Matt

 

[cokeoriginaltaste]

IMO, since we humans are a product of nature ourselves, then everything we do is natural - whether we destroy, preserve or just ignore. We tend to see what we are doing to nature as "interfering" or "destroying", as if we are somehow outside of nature. We're not, we're just as much a part of it as every other species.

Again, IMO, the desire to conserve species is probably a by product of developing to a certain level of intelligence. I suspect that if wolves had developed the ability to reason and we humans hadn't, then groups of wolves would be making the same clumsy attempts to "save the planet" or "save the panda" instead of us.

 

[JessK]

The fact that as an organism, it's clearly not able to survive in its current environment without help.


Edit:
On the plus side, "looking cute", when people are around is just as much a genetic factor as sharp teeth or the ability to run fast, since it makes us want to help them survive. So you could say they're actually very well adapted to life on a planet where Man is the dominant maofftopicl.

 

[NekoJoaaa]

But, I believe the issue here is that WE are changing its current environment (correct)? As in habitat distruction and fragmentation. And before anyone notes that it should be able to adapt to that -- note that these changes are happening on a radical scale - basically faster than any animal can evolve.

So immediately we step outside of a discussion of natural selection, because the selection process here isn't natural. Therefore "genetically-predetermined extinction" seems like a slippery slope.

Or one that takes us to a rather extreme world view (one in which it becomes easy to argue that we don't need to offer social support for the poor or those who can't earn a living wage because they clearly aren't able to surivive in thier current environments without help).

- Matt

 

[Londonlass]

Adaptation doesn't necessarily require evolution. Look at squirrels, foxes, raccoons, pigeons. They've all adapted to city habitats, but I wouldn't say they've had time to evolve to fit them.

 

[IMadeaDarthDoody]

Fair point. I'm just suggesting that saying that panda's are predisposed to extinction is a rather vulgar viewpoint.

It just seems like saying "its the dodo's fault that it went extinct. If the darn things weren't so killable and tasty they'd still be around." Or it's the bird's fault that its succeptible to DDT poisioning. Suggesting that Panda's can't adapt tends to totally ignore man's role in the endangerment or extinction of said species.

- Matt

 

[dungeoness]

But that's perfectly true.

 

[PeGe]

As it is that they were hunted to extinction. I'm simply suggesting that including one without the other is a vulgar reduction.

Or, if you truely believe that it's the Panda's (or the Dodo's) own fault, then do you feel we need to support individuals with extreme handicaps, metal illnesses, etc? Clearly they're not fit to survive, and that's pretty much genetically predetermined.

Likewise, what about cultures facing genocide. I'm being crass (please note this) but if we're on this survival of the fittest, is it the fault of Jew's, gypsies, etc, that remained in Nazi Germany that they ended up in death camps? They either choose to remain or didn't have the funds to escape. Doesn't that mean that they were socially naturally selected?... (I fully note that's a gross and unfair genralization -- and one that I cannot stress how much I disagree with... I'm just using a gross generatization to answer a gross generalization).

- Matt

 

[BogartPHD]

Personally I don't feel the need to support those individuals, at least not as a matter of necessity. Rather, it's about an act of charity rather than obligation. And personally I think making the choice to help another purely out of charity rather than because you think they have a fundamental right to be helped is the morally superior act.

So what I'm saying is, if people choose to help the handicapped but not the pandas, that's great for the handicapped and tough luck for the pandas but the two are equally 'entitled' to help... i.e. not at all.

 

[heyheychris10]

To quote the great philosophy Denis Leary...

"What gives mankind the right to kill at will?

Guns. Big frelling guns, with giant frelling bullets."

 

[centralnyguy2005]

I don't really have a response to that other than to note that you're internally consistent. While don't agree with the stance, I appreciate your honesty.

Personally, I'm more of a social compact type so I see broad social and potentially economic value in assisting both groups.

- Matt

 

[KarthikP]

Mudo;977136']I didnt say i have a problem with conservation...what i have a problem with is the hypocracy that causes people to take that weird 'naturalist' moral high ground.

If someone wants to stand in to unnaturally extend the existence of something ... fine., but its impossible to say with any certainty that humans are to blame for the extinction of any animal.

Funny how humans hunting something to extinction is evil...but how exactly did all the other extinct animals come to extinction? ..in many cases it was because something hunted them to death. Or because something competed for their food...or teritory.

I agree with the view someone mentioned, one that my friend also put forward when i talked to him. That its our perception that causes us to think in these terms and (pretty arogantly) seperate ourselves from nature.

 

[slovesg]

Again, this is a simplistic viewpoint. The fact is that while there were definitely species that have gone extinct over the years, it -- with a few exceptions -- didn't happen all that often. There were cases of when an X factor was introduced into an environment and led to mass extinction (see the catasrophic event that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs).

By and large nature is a self balancing system. That should not be misread or interpreted as a "fair/moral" system -- at least not on an individual level. But on a species level it was good a self correcting given time and all things being equal.

However, in the case of humans, it can be strongly argued that our hunting and environmental consumption practices are not natural -- or at least not able to be compared to those of wolves and other hunting animals. In fact, there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that most hunting animals drove such a large number of species to the brink of extinction.

Reasons for that include that most animals do not sport hunt (or would not sport hunt if it wasn't for human intervention -- see housecats as an example of that). Further the general hunting succcess rate for humans is far higher than most animals because of tools. Then factor in that prey selection is often inverted -- in natural selection, it's typically the older or the weaker animals that are taken -- in sport hunting, typically more "able" animals are prized over weaker ones.

And note that I don't think hunting is on its own bad. However, there is numerous information about unsustainable hunting practices that tip the scales against animals.

And I haven't even begun to discuss habitat fragmentation and how that can cripple a species. Wolves and other hunting animals didn't typically break up breeding, hunting, and migration grounds with things like roads.

The fact is that there is significant peer-reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that the presence of humans and modern technology has accellerated species extiniction rates over the last few centuries. I don't think this is particularly disputable.

Now for some folks this isn't a big thing. Personally, while aI'm not a rabid environmentalist, I think that there are a number of reasons why we need to be concerned. Not the least of which is maintaining a diverse and sustainable ecosystem.

But, to put it succintly, claiming that humans have nothing to do with said extinctions -- or that somehow what we're doing is no different than what other hunting species do --is just sticking one's head in the sand. I'm not saying that nature is in anyway fair. But what we're doing is really subverting many natural practices.

- Matt

 

[HumbertoO]

yea i am on the same page, i have gone camping on lakes here in ontario that have gone from rich in fish and plantlife to essentially dead from polluted rainfall.

i can not see how you can argue that is just natural selection at work.

 

[weeder]

Umm, acutally, yes it is pretty easy to blame humans for the extinction of many animals. See Passenger Pigon, dodo, the localized extinction of Eagles and Peregrine Falcons in the American Northeast due to DDT. Again, there's peer-reviewed scientific research for all of the above cases.

The fact is that pandas and other animals are being unnaturally effected by human action for all of the reasons I mentioned above.

Ahh, but you're arrogantly assuming that everything we do is natural and therefore ok. That's a falicy too and an easy way of disregarding our effect as the dominant species on the ecosystem. It goes both ways.

I suggest taking some biology, evolution, and natural science courses before throwing some of this information around.

- Matt

 

[sexyman]

Toss in a bit of ecology as well. While humans will never destroy the earth, we are quite capable of destroying smaller scale ecologies and infinately capable of causing the extinction of species.

The assumption that a species is "unworthy" of existance is biologically unsound and has no basis in either ecological studies or genetics.

 

[jellywar]

Sorry, but I have to question this. How can anything we do be un-natural? We're a product of nature and so is our intelligence, our ability to reason, and our tendancy to interfere (either for better or worse).

The way I see it, we've evolved from non-intelligent species to an intelligent one, but that doesn't make us un-natural. Our intelligence evolved according to the laws of nature. This may be considered an extreme view, but IMO, everything we do is natural - from eating, breathing and sleeping, right through to sending rockets into outer space and detonating atomic bombs.

However, I do agree with you in part. I should be clear that I'm not saying this absolves us of any responsibility. At the very least, it's in our own self-interest as a species to try to ensure a healthy ecosystem with a diverse range of species.

 

[musikartguy05]

What can I say, I do think it's an extreme view. It completely guts the word "natural" of any value as a discriptor or class -- except perhaps in comparison with the supernatural. Otherwise, pretty much nothing else is "un-natural."

- Matt