The value of human life vs other species' lives

[El Greco]

Fist, I wasn't sure where to place this. It could have been in Social Issues or Philosophy, but I thought that putting it here may enhance a more "scientific" consideration - to the extent that this is possible for this topic.

So, it all starts with me visiting several African countries and experiencing the conflict between settlements and national parks, watching many relevant documentaries (eg BBC's "Unnatural Histories") and participating in discussions in various fora (eg www.safaritalk.net). The main problem is simple: World population is increasing steadily and this leaves less and less space for other species - with some large mammals being the ones who are most endangered.

Now, the protection of a minimum of wildlife is considered by many to be an a priori objective. However I won't consider this a given. Those who campaign for the protection of wildlife are mostly people who don't face immediate survival issues. My understanding is that the vast majority of global population don't give a damn if there will be mountain gorillas or dolphins in this world - never mind "lesser" species. In fact, I am sure that most would vote to eradicate all iconic animals of this world if that would somehow ensure a minimum quantity of food on their daily plate.

All over the world national parks have been modestly successful in preserving some habitats, the national parks of the 7-8 African "safari" countries being the most prominent examples. The reason that the African parks have been the most successful is simple: They are more "friendly" for the tourist, offering more chances of seeing (or hunting) impressive animals. At the same time, many areas in those countries have been unsuitable for agriculture because of poor soils, tse-tse infestation etc. Tropical forests all over the world are being less lucky since they can offer both lumber and better soil, so they are being destroyed at much higher rates.

So it seems that at the moment we have a precarious balance, but it looks unavoidable that the scale can only tip in favour of more humans and less animals. In Africa for example, it is highly improbable that the revenue generated by national parks (or even private conservancies) will be enough to withhold the ever-expanding human population, especially now that genetically modified crops will produce good yields even in previously unsuitable soil.

Given the above, my personal view is that there is no hope for retaining whatever wildlife we have today unless the human population starts being strictly controlled worldwide. Given that there is absolutely no indication that such a control will begin anytime soon, the future seems rather bleak to me. However I wonder what others think about the issue and whether you actually care (I know people even in "1st-world countries" who really don't mind if elephants, lions etc become totally extinct).

[Kotatsu]

I took a course in Tropical Field Ecology last winter, which first included a week of lectures by some experts in the field, and then a two-week trip to Tanzania. The lecturers of that first week almost unanimously agreed that within the next 30 years, there will be virtually no elephants, lions, zebras, gnus, leopards, rhinos, or hippos outside some of the larger national parks and game reserves. They had reached the same conclusion as you, and showed some Google Earth images from Rwanda (I think) and asked us to guess where the national park started. It was exceedingly obvious, as the farmlands continued almost to the millimeter to the border of the national park.

And local law forbidding hunting does not always help. They told us, that in a village near where we were, there had been an elephant raiding the crops in a farmland bordering on a national park. As the penalties for shooting the elephant are so high, the village selected a sort of scapegoat who would take the blame for shooting the elephant -- with a gun that, according to the police officer or whatever he was who came to talk to us, was made locally -- and then spend 20 years or something in prison. But he saved his village from that elephant.

The whole issue is extremely tricky. While I personally would not want to live in a world where my grandchildren look in my old animal books from when I was a kid and have to ask me what an elephant or a zebra was, I also do not in any way feel comfortable with even suggesting that the blame for this would lie on African farmers who are simply trying to survive. The very existence of and need for a journal for Neglected Tropical Diseases (http://www.plosntds.org/home.action) is horrifying, especially as there are (at least) 18 journals devoted to obesity (1), but nevertheless, if there was a cure for all those diseases, that would have an enormous impact on the extent of tropical rainforests and other, to me, important biotopes.

---
(1) That is, when I search for "obesity" in my university's journal database, I get 18 results. It is not an extensive database, however.

[SezMe]

Good topic, El Greco.

My understanding is that the vast majority of global population don't give a damn if there will be mountain gorillas or dolphins in this world - never mind "lesser" species. In fact, I am sure that most would vote to eradicate all iconic animals of this world if that would somehow ensure a minimum quantity of food on their daily plate.

No doubt, but that attitude is the very essence of the problem we humans face. We, as a species, have a very, very short planning horizon and a very, very limited geographical horizon. Our individual drive for survival will, per the Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)will lead to our collective demise. I have little to no hope for us in the long term (100-300 years) and am glad I won't be around to see the collapse.

[El Greco]

They had reached the same conclusion as you, and showed some Google Earth images from Rwanda (I think) and asked us to guess where the national park started. It was exceedingly obvious, as the farmlands continued almost to the millimeter to the border of the national park.

They have now built a stone wall clearly designating the park borders and they have several rangers guarding the various gorilla groups during daylight hours. It makes one have some hope that something good can be done with the money collected from the $500 gorilla permits, even if some is lost to corruption.

I also do not in any way feel comfortable with even suggesting that the blame for this would lie on African farmers who are simply trying to survive.

Most certainly. They are the last that should take the blame. But we have reached a point where it doesn't matter who takes the blame anymore, something must be done and quickly. And this would be either to make the national parks areas much more profitable somehow, or impose strict regulation to births worldwide. Both extremely difficult if not impossible.

We, as a species, have a very, very short planning horizon and a very, very limited geographical horizon. Our individual drive for survival will, per the Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)will lead to our collective demise.

It's interesting to note that despite the alarms having being sounded since a long time ago regarding overpopulation, there are many countries actually promoting and financially supporting families with many children. Unemployment may be soaring, the health systems may be collapsing because of so many immigrants, but the morons still support families with many children. Talk about shortsighted.

[JJM 777]

Fist, I wasn't sure where to place this.
Palm, I am not sure either, but no problem, the mods toss threads around if necessary.

there is no hope for retaining whatever wildlife we have today unless the human population starts being strictly controlled worldwide.
(...)
I wonder what others think about the issue and whether you actually care (I know people even in "1st-world countries" who really don't mind if elephants, lions etc become totally extinct).
Actually it is the 1st world countries which do most of the legal and economical protecting of endangered species (apart from some Japanese whaling). I see no imminent danger of 1st world populations revolting against laws that protect nature reserves or habitats of endangered species. The problem lies in the economical and social development of 3rd world countries. They possibly might destroy nearly all wildlife in their own territory (but in them only, not in Europe or Russia or North America).

My opinion is that wildlife reserves should be enlarged in all parts of the world. I don´t care the heck if NYSE stock goes down 5% because we get a better world to live in.

[SezMe]

Actually it is the 1st world countries which do most of the legal and economical protecting damage of endangered species ...
ftfy

[quarky]

Human population control is a subject that almost can't be discussed.
pity is, even if we do remove and replace all the other large mammals with more of us, it won't buy us much time. So little gained; so much lost.

[Beelzebuddy]

In fact, I am sure that most would vote to eradicate all iconic animals of this world if that would somehow ensure a minimum quantity of food on their daily plate.

If I could trade the elephants, hell, all the safari species for a fully developed Africa, without the decades of genocide and famine and warfare that seem to be the birthing pains of every people who learn to look beyond their own tribe and see all humanity as human, I would in a heartbeat.

But, I can't.

So, as an imperious first world citizen who has never truly lacked for anything a day in my life, I'll post on an internet forum instead about how we should save the elephants and such until such time as the natives are responsible enough to do it themselves.

[majamin]

Given the above, my personal view is that there is no hope for retaining whatever wildlife we have today unless the human population starts being strictly controlled worldwide. Given that there is absolutely no indication that such a control will begin anytime soon, the future seems rather bleak to me. However I wonder what others think about the issue and whether you actually care (I know people even in "1st-world countries" who really don't mind if elephants, lions etc become totally extinct).

The question is in how to mitigate global damage, given that human population is increasing (but note: human population increase is predicted to decline over the next 40 - 50 years according to the UN - see figure 1 in this report (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf)). As a general comment: it would be in our best interest to become a species that is a vector for the flourishing of life, rather than one that perturbs the environment. As science progresses and as the methods of science are utilized more often, I don't think I can share your pessimism, but rather, my optimism is not as high as I would like it to be.

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't know what to think. It would be a loss to all of us, in more than one way, if so many species went extinct. On the other hand, the gain from a developed Africa would be much greater.

Oddly enough, wouldn't the key to letting animals stay extant be to promote development in Africa? Less people to care for the farmland (= fewer children born), less space for crops, easier to store food for long periods of time... and so on.

[Complexity]

I tend to value most other species over our own.

I wish that the human population would get down to and stay at about 10 million, max.

[TubbaBlubba]

I tend to value most other species over our own.

I wish that the human population would get down to and stay at about 10 million, max.

How would that be maintained (that is, how to stop people from breeding and moving away)? How would we maintain a decent standard of living (could it be done?)

(On a related note I wish the moon was made of cheese.)

[El Greco]

I don't know what to think. It would be a loss to all of us, in more than one way, if so many species went extinct. On the other hand, the gain from a developed Africa would be much greater.

The thing is that this leads nowhere: If the areas now designated as national parks are given to the people and all animals are destroyed, then what ? Will this solve the problem for ever ? If those areas are absolutely necessary for the development of Africa then the future of the Africans is dim.

Besides, I firmly believe that if humans will so easily terminate the most iconic animals then this is a very good indication that if need arises they will as easily terminate other humans.

Indeed, I too value the well-being of many species and the stabilization of biodiversity much more than our own prolification. We are not endangered (at least for the time being), and I see no reason to assign an infinite value to human life: Not only overpopulation will hurt our own species (as it happens with all species, actually) but leading lots of species to extinction will probably be detrimental to the life on Earth after humans.

BTW, a war in one country can very easily destroy all of its wildlife, even inside national parks. It could happen in just a few years. It has happened in Angola and Mozambique. Humans recover, animals do not.

[TubbaBlubba]

The thing is that this leads nowhere: If the areas now designated as national parks are given to the people and all animals are destroyed, then what ? Will this solve the problem for ever ? If those areas are absolutely necessary for the development of Africa then the future of the Africans is dim.

Besides, I firmly believe that if humans will so easily terminate the most iconic animals then this is a very good indication that if need arises they will as easily terminate other humans.

Indeed, I too value the well-being of many species and the stabilization of biodiversity much more than our own prolification. We are not endangered (at least for the time being), and I see no reason to assign an infinite value to human life: Not only overpopulation will hurt our own species (as it happens with all species, actually) but leading lots of species to extinction will probably be detrimental to the life on Earth after humans.

BTW, a war in one country can very easily destroy all of its wildlife, even inside national parks. It could happen in just a few years. It has happened in Angola and Mozambique. Humans recover, animals do not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the extinction of animals is a necessity or even helpful to Africa's (yeah, imprecise, whatever) development. I do also not assign some infinite value to human development - and the long-term interests of animals very often coincide with the interest of humans, anyway.

However, and I may be called callous for this - I would not let the welfare or even existence of certain animal species stand in the way of improved quality of life for the people in Africa.

There is no argument in favour of African people over African animals unless you assign a much higher value (not necessarily infinite - I don't) to the welfare and survival of people than to animals. There is no objective reason to care more for people than animals - most of us simply do, and are happy about it.

But while I would accept the price of a few species fewer for a developed Africa... Mind well, I would for instance value one of the few Elephant habitats (or whatever) left over the well-being or survival of a few African families. It's completely subjective, however.

[Pulvinar]

I would not let the welfare or even existence of certain animal species stand in the way of improved quality of life for the people in Africa.

Why does it have to be one or the other? If humans limit their numbers, they can have a high quality of life without pushing out the wildlife.

[El Greco]

But while I would accept the price of a few species fewer for a developed Africa... Mind well, I would for instance value one of the few Elephant habitats (or whatever) left over the well-being or survival of a few African families. It's completely subjective, however.

This would make for a rather incendiary question: :D How many human lives would you (in general, not you specifically) sacrifice for preventing eg lions or elephants to go extinct ?

BTW, one would think that today there would be breeding programs in zoos and parks for at least the most iconic animals, however certain subspecies are going extinct in the wild as we speak, eg Northern White Rhino.

[Marduk]

This would make for a rather incendiary question: :D How many human lives would you (in general, not you specifically) sacrifice for preventing eg lions or elephants to go extinct ?
.

how many murderers, rapists, pedophiles and frenchmen are there on this planet ?
that many
;)

[Soapy Sam]

I find my attitude on this question fluctuates between bipolar extremes, depending who asks the question.

(eg if it's some extreme environmentalist, I'm apt to point out that post pleistocene extinctions are the way forward, whereas if it's some loon with a scheme to exterminate the lesser spotted Gobwit so Americans can have cheaper gasoline, I go all green).

Which I suppose means I really have no strong feelings either way.

We will get the world we create. When Mountain Gorillas go extinct , as they assuredly will, it will just be another small step in the ongoing demise of anthropoid primates. There's only a single species of the genus Homo left...

As for some sort of exchange rate or equivalent, the day for that ended long ago. We have the guns and the bulldozers and there's an end to it.

Large, non human mammals, and practically every other beastie above the bacterial complexity level are simply no longer serious competitors. The only thing that can save any of them (except maybe rats and crows) or their habitat, is a drastic fall in human birthrate and overall numbers.

I reccommend condoms and masturbation.

[quarky]

I think we underestimate the degree to which our eco-systems rely on diversity, and the degree to which we are dependent on those eco-systems. Here's a small example, which I may have some details wrong:

We over-fish salmon; the orcas switch to eating sea-otters; the sea-otters can no longer keep the sea-anemones in check, which causes the collapse of another valuable food source, and possibly degrades the productivity of a vast eco-system, which had been feeding us.

A lot of the other species we share the planet with are more than just cute faces.
Eliminating them, through our own stupidity, will degrade our lives in complex and very real ways.

[Soapy Sam]

Not half as much as it will degrade theirs.

I'm not in favour of this, but I don't see how it will be avoided.

What does surprise me is that I can't bring myself to care much.

Honestly, does it keep you awake at night?

[quarky]

Not half as much as it will degrade theirs.

I'm not in favour of this, but I don't see how it will be avoided.

What does surprise me is that I can't bring myself to care much.

Honestly, does it keep you awake at night?

I suspect that Europeans have already jumped this hurdle.You folks have been civilized for so long, you haven't had a chance to care about the wild world for many generations.

Oddly enough, this is one of the very few things I can be bothered to care about much.

I care amazingly less about airports or the economy.

I actually hate the economy, and can't wait for it to die. I'm sick of the economy. But I'm far from bored with wild animals.

This is no morality-judgementy-thingy; just an observation from time.
The civilized nations have pretty much long ago gotten rid of the nasty wild beasties, as well as the wide open spaces that sustain them.

We're still in that awkward phase, across the pond, of watching the slow demise of beauty and diversity. yet, we've got this major 'head's up' about what to expect.

[Kotatsu]

On the other hand, the gain from a developed Africa would be much greater.

Hardly larger than the gain, seen across all species, of turning all of Africa into a depopulated nature preserve.

Oddly enough, wouldn't the key to letting animals stay extant be to promote development in Africa? Less people to care for the farmland (= fewer children born), less space for crops, easier to store food for long periods of time... and so on.

Might there not be some cases similar to e.g. the Sami, where introduction of new technology may certainly mean there are less people, but these people cause much more damage than they were ever able to do before that technology was introduced? I am thinking specifically of the way Sami fly helicopters on low altitudes in the mountains during the already lamentably short breeding season of many birds in order to collect their reindeer, instead of stalking them on foot like they used to. Similarly, I would expect chasing and hunting wolverines on snowmobiles caused more damage to wolverine populations even if it is done by a very small amount of people, than chasing and hunting them on foot or on skis by a larger population ever was able to do. However, I have no relevant data, and am just speculating wildly.

[El Greco]

Not half as much as it will degrade theirs.

I'm not in favour of this, but I don't see how it will be avoided.

What does surprise me is that I can't bring myself to care much.

Honestly, does it keep you awake at night?

No, but world hunger, infant death rates and global warming don't keep me awake either. Do they keep you awake ?

But besides my selfish interest in wildlife (I love it and I closely associate my entertainment with it), I also think that its preservation is something that goes hand in hand with the civilized human. Maybe the civilized human of the future. Where "civilization" is of course a mental process rather than an evolutionary one. I just see animal welfare as a further step for our civilization. There were times when people didn't care much about mass murders in the name of religion or about slavery or about leaving the weak and the elderly to die without any help. Nowadays, at least in some parts of the planet, these things are considered atrocious by the majority.

Do I have to stay awake at nights for the above to be correct ?

[quarky]

I suspect that some of us long for the Star Trek world of life in a sterile environment, populated with humans only. I never understood the appeal.
I've heard arguments here of why and how its possible and desirable that we should have 20 billion people on this planet.

I like people, but not that many.

[El Greco]

I suspect that some of us long for the Star Trek world of life in a sterile environment, populated with humans only. I never understood the appeal.

Modern cities are steadily heading towards this very direction. I have met people who not only don't care about the fauna but also don't care about the flora, except perhaps as decoration on their tropical beach vacation.

BBC's "Planet Earth - The Future" is a series that deals very well with the whole conservation issue, albeit at a higher level than what I'd like to see. Meaning that it explores the detrimental effects of habitat and species destruction on humans, but what if we manage to overcome those effects ? Is then destruction justified ?

Maybe future, more civilized generations will blame us for that destruction. As Dr. Roger Payne says in the aforementioned documentary: "This is an opportunity for greatness which has never been offered to any civilisation, any generation in any civilisation in human history before. To act as a generation to do the right thing. If we fail to receive that opportunity, to act on it, then my feeling is we will become the most vilified generation that's ever lived in human history." The question is, of course, whether someone who doesn't give a damn about conservation today, will give a damn about his generation's fame in the future.

[quarky]

For those not concerned with the outcome, due to apathy about nature, the point needs to be made that we are dependent on the health of bio-systems which depend on a certain level of bio-diversity.

The demise of a single bird species might signal the explosive rise of a single, devastating beetle in a forest of valuable trees. As we slowly kill off snakes, we have more rodents.

Lyme disease has a strong correlation to the demise of snakes. Meadow voles are a very common vector for the larval tick.

[Cainkane1]

Creatures at the top of the food chain seem superior to the animals that are getting preyed upon and eaten. Humans being at the very top of this chain are the most superior of predators. This is despite the fact that on occassion we're the ones who get eaten or gored or trampled. We win out most of the time so in nature we have all other creatures beat.

[TubbaBlubba]

Hardly larger than the gain, seen across all species, of turning all of Africa into a depopulated nature preserve.
What in the world are you going to do with the people there?



Might there not be some cases similar to e.g. the Sami, where introduction of new technology may certainly mean there are less people, but these people cause much more damage than they were ever able to do before that technology was introduced? I am thinking specifically of the way Sami fly helicopters on low altitudes in the mountains during the already lamentably short breeding season of many birds in order to collect their reindeer, instead of stalking them on foot like they used to. Similarly, I would expect chasing and hunting wolverines on snowmobiles caused more damage to wolverine populations even if it is done by a very small amount of people, than chasing and hunting them on foot or on skis by a larger population ever was able to do. However, I have no relevant data, and am just speculating wildly.

True. Obviously some regulation is necessary. And with the state of current sub-Saharan African states... Yeah...

[Complexity]

Creatures at the top of the food chain seem superior to the animals that are getting preyed upon and eaten. Humans being at the very top of this chain are the most superior of predators. This is despite the fact that on occassion we're the ones who get eaten or gored or trampled. We win out most of the time so in nature we have all other creatures beat.


I am currently battling a foot infection.

All hail our bacterial overlords!

[Kotatsu]

What in the world are you going to do with the people there?

Well, I have a spare bed and some inflatable mattresses. If we all do our part...

Or space colonies? Cryogenic sleep? Sending them to Jimmie Åkesson so that he can learn what a TRUE "mass immigration" is?

[TubbaBlubba]

Well, I have a spare bed and some inflatable mattresses. If we all do our part...

Or space colonies? Cryogenic sleep? Sending them to Jimmie Åkesson so that he can learn what a TRUE "mass immigration" is?

Moving everyone to space colonies and turning the Earth into a giant natural preserve would be pretty cool, as far as pipe dreams go.

[quarky]

Can i stay behind, please?

[CapelDodger]

How would that be maintained (that is, how to stop people from breeding and moving away)? How would we maintain a decent standard of living (could it be done?)

Experience in developed economies shows that given the choice people will have smaller families (on average) and populations will actually tend to decline. This is often presented as a problem in the West. Population is a development issue (economic and social).

This is where Malthus was actually wrong - he assumed that populations will always increase to fill the resource-space available, and then some.

[CapelDodger]

I suspect that Europeans have already jumped this hurdle.You folks have been civilized for so long, you haven't had a chance to care about the wild world for many generations.

Beavers are being reintroduced in Scotland, but there's some understandable resistance to the reintroduction of wolves.

[quarky]

Modern cities are steadily heading towards this very direction. I have met people who not only don't care about the fauna but also don't care about the flora, except perhaps as decoration on their tropical beach vacation.

BBC's "Planet Earth - The Future" is a series that deals very well with the whole conservation issue, albeit at a higher level than what I'd like to see. Meaning that it explores the detrimental effects of habitat and species destruction on humans, but what if we manage to overcome those effects ? Is then destruction justified ?

Maybe future, more civilized generations will blame us for that destruction. As Dr. Roger Payne says in the aforementioned documentary: "This is an opportunity for greatness which has never been offered to any civilisation, any generation in any civilisation in human history before. To act as a generation to do the right thing. If we fail to receive that opportunity, to act on it, then my feeling is we will become the most vilified generation that's ever lived in human history." The question is, of course, whether someone who doesn't give a damn about conservation today, will give a damn about his generation's fame in the future.

What future? There won't be anyone to enjoy the vilification.
The future, as it is being planned today, not only sucks, it won't even occur.

[TubbaBlubba]

Experience in developed economies shows that given the choice people will have smaller families (on average) and populations will actually tend to decline. This is often presented as a problem in the West. Population is a development issue (economic and social).

This is where Malthus was actually wrong - he assumed that populations will always increase to fill the resource-space available, and then some.

Yeah, but we've got quite a way to go to 10 million. And I'm not entirely sure a 10-million-world society could maintain our current standard of living while also doing research, etc.

I'm sure someone has done the math, though.

[epepke]

I think it's important to preserve gorillas and tigers and spotted owls and the like because I think the world is a grander place with them than without them. This is purely emotional, I admit.

[Soapy Sam]

No, but world hunger, infant death rates and global warming don't keep me awake either. Do they keep you awake ?

But besides my selfish interest in wildlife (I love it and I closely associate my entertainment with it), I also think that its preservation is something that goes hand in hand with the civilized human. Maybe the civilized human of the future. Where "civilization" is of course a mental process rather than an evolutionary one. I just see animal welfare as a further step for our civilization. There were times when people didn't care much about mass murders in the name of religion or about slavery or about leaving the weak and the elderly to die without any help. Nowadays, at least in some parts of the planet, these things are considered atrocious by the majority.

Do I have to stay awake at nights for the above to be correct ?

Not in the least. (I'm sure you appreciate that was idiom, not a literal query, but I daresay not everyone's colloquial English meets your standard) . I was expressing genuine surprise at my lack of interest, not questioning the intensity of yours.
Quarky may be right that Europeans (or more specifically Brits) having disposed of most large wildlife centuries ago, are less concerned than some by it's loss elsewhere. In my own case though, I really should be more concerned. I've spent far more time in wild country than most Brits- and , I 'd suspect, most Amer /Canadians. I've been on safari several times, including getting up to daft stuff like sleeping out , alone, in several east African spots. (Found big cat-probably leopard ) prints in the ash on Longonot less than thirty metres from my sleeping bag one morning.

But I think I have simply become resigned to the fact that regardless of what I might like, humans will go on having kids, requiring more land and causing more habitat destruction. Given that my ancestors and my current fellow nationals show no particular restraint, I don't see that I have the right to expect it of anyone else- especially of people far poorer than myself.

I would like to see wolves reintroduced to Scotland, but that's because I like wolves more than I like sheep. Or kids. I'm unsure this is strictly a morally defensible position.

[El Greco]

Not in the least. (I'm sure you appreciate that was idiom, not a literal query, but I daresay not everyone's colloquial English meets your standard) . I was expressing genuine surprise at my lack of interest, not questioning the intensity of yours.
Quarky may be right that Europeans (or more specifically Brits) having disposed of most large wildlife centuries ago, are less concerned than some by it's loss elsewhere. In my own case though, I really should be more concerned. I've spent far more time in wild country than most Brits- and , I 'd suspect, most Amer /Canadians. I've been on safari several times, including getting up to daft stuff like sleeping out , alone, in several east African spots. (Found big cat-probably leopard ) prints in the ash on Longonot less than thirty metres from my sleeping bag one morning.

But I think I have simply become resigned to the fact that regardless of what I might like, humans will go on having kids, requiring more land and causing more habitat destruction. Given that my ancestors and my current fellow nationals show no particular restraint, I don't see that I have the right to expect it of anyone else- especially of people far poorer than myself.

I would like to see wolves reintroduced to Scotland, but that's because I like wolves more than I like sheep. Or kids. I'm unsure this is strictly a morally defensible position.

Yep, I understand it was an idiom - that idiom is rather global I think. My response was in the same vein :D

Sadly, there is no such thing as "should be more concerned" here. Maybe people should be educated about the possible repercussions that habitat destruction will have in their lives and their children's lives, but that's all. If science finds a way to overcome most of these, then I see no other convincing argument for the preservation of biodiversity. If the global majority wants no frogs and no wolves then that's what they will eventually get.

[Kumar]

Don't worry as it is said "nature balances itself".

[AlBell]

I think it's important to preserve gorillas and tigers and spotted owls and the like because I think the world is a grander place with them than without them. This is purely emotional, I admit.
Just another moral choice, then.

[Michael C]

I would like to see wolves reintroduced to Scotland, but that's because I like wolves more than I like sheep. Or kids. I'm unsure this is strictly a morally defensible position.

Your position may be more defensible than you think. According to a study in the Basque region (J. Echegaray and C. Vila, 2009 (http://wolf.am/vrac/etude_espagne_loups_chiens.pdf)), sheep are more likely to be killed by dogs than by wolves. Samples of dog and wolf faeces were analysed: sheep remains were found in 36% of the samples of dog faeces, but in only one sample out of 31 samples of wolf faeces.

[TubbaBlubba]

At least here (where we have like 100 wolves countrywide) the biggest problem, from what I recall, is that they kill hunting dogs. Sheep killing is pretty rare (and, as mentioned above, dogs are a bigger perp there).

[Complexity]

Don't worry as it is said "nature balances itself".


Nonsense.

[Complexity]

Your position may be more defensible than you think. According to a study in the Basque region (J. Echegaray and C. Vila, 2009 (http://wolf.am/vrac/etude_espagne_loups_chiens.pdf)), sheep are more likely to be killed by dogs than by wolves. Samples of dog and wolf faeces were analysed: sheep remains were found in 36% of the samples of dog faeces, but in only one sample out of 31 samples of wolf faeces.


My job suddenly sounds a bit better.

[Soapy Sam]

Re wolves- the justification often given for reintroducing wild wolves in Scotland is that as red deer lack any predators (except man), wolves could control their numbers , preventing the die off from starvation in hard winters that can cause deer to move into human gardens and onto roads, sometimes resulting in deaths of people as well as deer. (We have no idea if wolves ever killed anyone in Scotland, but red and roe deer are implicated in hundreds of car accidents).

I have always found the argument unconvincing, as I'd expect wolves to hunt sheep rather than deer, because they are a darn sight easier to catch. But maybe wolves are less opportunist than that and would concentrate on deer.

I'd just like to have them back, but that's not for any eco-reason. I just like them.

[quarky]

Re wolves- the justification often given for reintroducing wild wolves in Scotland is that as red deer lack any predators (except man), wolves could control their numbers , preventing the die off from starvation in hard winters that can cause deer to move into human gardens and onto roads, sometimes resulting in deaths of people as well as deer. (We have no idea if wolves ever killed anyone in Scotland, but red and roe deer are implicated in hundreds of car accidents).

I have always found the argument unconvincing, as I'd expect wolves to hunt sheep rather than deer, because they are a darn sight easier to catch. But maybe wolves are less opportunist than that and would concentrate on deer.

I'd just like to have them back, but that's not for any eco-reason. I just like them.

Tick-borne diseases are becoming a serious hassle in the U.S.
Are they showing up across the pond?
If not, they probably will.
A good reason for wild predators.

[Kumar]

Nonsense.

Then, whether it is wrong to say/consider that nature balances itself?

[mike3]

I tend to value most other species over our own.

Despite all the great things and good things we can do? I would tend to value all Life, equally. We are Life, as is the rest on this earth.

I wish that the human population would get down to and stay at about 10 million, max.

And you're the one who talks about all the "hard work" needed to build a sophisticated civilization. Want it to all be for naught? As I don't think you could have a sophisticated civilization with just 10 million people. And no sophisticated civilization means no science, which apparently you love so much you consider the life of a scientist a great life (and you apparently are a practitioner of science yourself...) as is evidenced by your postings here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7849160&postcount=43

As for myself, I wouldn't mind a population reduction either. But not that far.

[EHocking]

Then, whether it is wrong to say/consider that nature balances itself?It is an old and discredited concept, despite still being popular with the lay and the woo.

Wiki has a useful discussion on Balance of Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature), it is short, to the point and does not require understanding of science to grasp.

[epepke]

Just another moral choice, then.

I wouldn't call it moral. I'd say it's a matter of personal preference.

[Complexity]

Despite all the great things and good things we can do? I would tend to value all Life, equally. We are Life, as is the rest on this earth.


While I love some people and value many others, I deeply dislike many people.

I do not deeply dislike any trees, fish, flowers, or dogs, and certainly not any cats.

We are not very good neighors.

There is no need to capitalize 'life', by the way.



And you're the one who talks about all the "hard work" needed to build a sophisticated civilization. Want it to all be for naught? As I don't think you could have a sophisticated civilization with just 10 million people. And no sophisticated civilization means no science, which apparently you love so much you consider the life of a scientist a great life (and you apparently are a practitioner of science yourself...) as is evidenced by your postings here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7849160&postcount=43

As for myself, I wouldn't mind a population reduction either. But not that far.


Well, let's keep driving the human population down until we begin to see 'sophisticated civilization' and science becoming at risk and then add 3 extra people as a buffer.

I would love to see why you think 10 million would be too few to support a 'sophisticated' civilization that is sustainable and has a light footprint.

[quarky]

The best utopian fantasy I can imagine would be a sort of enlightened hunter-gatherer, nomadic lifestyle. Not sure how many people such a life could handle.

The permanent vacation has a nice ring to it, especially in a world of plenty.
The concept of debt should go away, like, forever.
Being crowded also seems like a bad idea.
Its amazing that we've gotten used to it.

The world is more than twice as crowded as it was when I was a kid.
Plus, houses got bigger, and cars got more common. It seems more like blundering along than any sort of destiny.

I think that perhaps 1 billion people could have a decent life on a beautiful planet.
Its rather tragic, to me, the path we appear to be stuck on.

[Kumar]

It is an old and discredited concept, despite still being popular with the lay and the woo.

Wiki has a useful discussion on Balance of Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature), it is short, to the point and does not require understanding of science to grasp.

Energy conservation & plannets balance may express Balance of nature.

[EHocking]

Energy conservation & plannets balance may express Balance of nature.No.

Read my post again.
EHocking http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7853524#post7853524)
It is an old and discredited concept, despite still being popular with the lay and the woo.


Wiki has a useful discussion on Balance of Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature), it is short, to the point and does not require understanding of science to grasp.Wishing your personal ideology onto the concept does not change this fact.