Environmentalism or Individualism?

[Avatar]

Well, I trust you'll forgive me for misunderstanding your words: "Look at the fishing industry for an example of man acting as an alien. I would liken the human race to a cancer."

Hard to read in those words a benign or positive attitude toward man.

As for "estimated populations" of lions...like estimates of deforestation, hazards from pesticides, and a lot of other claims...I find that environmentalist literature is loaded with lots of sheer nonsense. For example, when called upon to validate its statistics about annual species loss, the much-quoted World Resources Institute backtracked and admitted it couldn't. Hasn't stopped them from repeating such claims in print, though.

You know, claims by corporations are often dismissed as being "self-interested." Has it ever occurred to anyone that green groups, which depend on fundraising, just might have a vested financial interest in raising hysterical alarms and scares to fill their coffers? That ecoNOT essay cites a famous example by the Natural Resources Defense Council scaring people to death about pesticides ten years ago. It was a proven fraud. But I just got a fundraising letter from NRDC, signed by the very "mainstream" Robert Redford...making exactly the same kind of claims.

Doesn't it kind of make you wonder?

 

[Tony]

You know, claims by corporations are often dismissed as being "self-interested." Has it ever occurred to anyone that green groups, which depend on fundraising, just might have a vested financial interest in raising hysterical alarms and scares to fill their coffers? That ecoNOT essay cites a famous example by the Natural Resources Defense Council scaring people to death about pesticides ten years ago. It was a proven fraud. But I just got a fundraising letter from NRDC, signed by the very "mainstream" Robert Redford...making exactly the same kind of claims.

It's not PC to be critical of environmental (and other such groups) groups.

 

[Avatar]

To quote Steve Martin:

"Well...EXCUUUSE MEEEEEE!" <G>

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, I trust you'll forgive me for misunderstanding your words: "Look at the fishing industry for an example of man acting as an alien. I would liken the human race to a cancer."

Hard to read in those words a benign or positive attitude toward man.

Man has shown in many ways in history that he can be anything but benign. I can get a list of examples if you want. I still believe that man has a tremendous capacity for good, though.

Likening us to a cancer is entirely appropriate. White blood cells are an essential and beneficial part of our body. When they grow out of control, we die.

As for "estimated populations" of lions...like estimates of deforestation, hazards from pesticides, and a lot of other claims...I find that environmentalist literature is loaded with lots of sheer nonsense. For example, when called upon to validate its statistics about annual species loss, the much-quoted World Resources Institute backtracked and admitted it couldn't. Hasn't stopped them from repeating such claims in print, though.

If the source I got the estimates from was correct, would you agree it is not good that a 90% decline in the population of lions was not a good thing?

You know, claims by corporations are often dismissed as being "self-interested." Has it ever occurred to anyone that green groups, which depend on fundraising, just might have a vested financial interest in raising hysterical alarms and scares to fill their coffers? That ecoNOT essay cites a famous example by the Natural Resources Defense Council scaring people to death about pesticides ten years ago. It was a proven fraud. But I just got a fundraising letter from NRDC, signed by the very "mainstream" Robert Redford...making exactly the same kind of claims.

Doesn't it kind of make you wonder?

So both sides have vested interests. You have to take both sides claims skeptically.
S

 

[Tony]

If the source I got the estimates from was correct, would you agree it is not good that a 90% decline in the population of lions was not a good thing?

Althought I personally think its a bad thing (if true (and i admit my position is based mostly on emotion)), but, to play devil's advocate. Why does the lion population really matter? What difference does it make to the world at large if there are ANY lions in the wild?

 

[a_unique_person]

Althought I personally think its a bad thing (if true (and i admit my position is based mostly on emotion)), but, to play devil's advocate. Why does the lion population really matter? What difference does it make to the world at large if there are ANY lions in the wild?

About as much difference as if there are any people in the world.

 

[Tony]

About as much difference as if there are any people in the world.

That doesnt answer the question.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.bigcats.com/page1018913138.mv

Lions face new threat: they're rich, American and they've got guns
Schwarzkopf and Bush Snr mobilise opposition as Botswana moves to save its big cats

The Guardian
Chris McGreal in Johannesburg
Friday April 27, 2001

You might call the lions of southern Africa potential Bush meat. The former American president, George Bush senior, and his old Gulf War ally, General "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, are pleading with the government of Botswana to be allowed to revive their old alliance, this time in pursuit of Africa's endangered big cats.

Mr Bush is among prominent members of Safari Club International (SCI) who have written to the Botswanan authorities asking them to lift a ban slapped on trophy hunting of lions in February.

Arizona-based SCI describes itself as the largest hunting organisation in the world and people who do not like what it does as "animal protection extremists".

Mr Bush's former vice-president, Dan Quayle, is also among the signatories along with Gen Schwarzkopf. Both men went hunting in Botswana last year, although it is not known if they bagged lions on that occasion.

Rich Americans, Europeans and Japanese pay about £20,000 a time to kill a lion in Botswana. The government usually permits the shooting of about 50 lions a year by trophy hunters but decided to impose the ban in part because American shooters favour lions with thick manes for their walls, leading to a disproportionate killing of mature males.

The shortage of such beasts is now so great that hunters have been making use of a mane-extension service back in the US where fake hair is weaved in to give their trophies an extra flourish before they hang the heads.

Among those who campaigned for a ban on lion hunting in Botswana is Derek Joubert, the country's leading chronicler of big cats.

"I've been studying lions in northern Botswana for 20 years and watching them systematically decline in population size and health primarily, perhaps even solely, as the result of hunting," he said.

"We've also seen some bizarre situations arising. Hunters target the primary males. When they disappear the male cubs don't leave the pride, they're not chased out. So we've seen these young males breeding with their sisters and their mothers because the trophy males have been killed."

Mr Joubert estimates that the number of lions in Botswana has declined by about two-thirds in 10 years. That is average for the continent.

Exact numbers of lions are notoriously difficult to measure but there is broad consensus among conservationists and governments that the population in Africa has fallen from about 50,000 to less than 15,000 over the past decade. The surviving lions are largely confined to four viable populations in southern and east Africa.

http://www.bigcats.com/page1018913138.mv

 

[a_unique_person]

Lion numbers have dropped by 90% in 20 years. The other big cats are going fast. How long before all the Earth's 'mega species' disappear from the wild? By Tim Radford

*Thursday October 2, 2003
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>*

Collectively, the householders of the world could be about to put the cat out. African lion numbers have fallen by 90% in the past 20 years, according to a recent report. There are only about 23,000 alive today. That's the number of seats at Barnsley football club stadium.

The tiger is also an endangered species. At the highest estimate, there are fewer than 8,000 left. To put that number in perspective, about that many people work on Ministry of Defence sites in Wales. There are probably only 15,000 or so cheetahs in the whole of Africa. The Iberian lynx is down to about 600.

And it's not just the cats that we're putting out. The Cross River gorilla sub species, for example, which lives on the border between Nigeria and Cameroon, is down to about 200 at the most. That is fewer than the number of British men who each year develop breast cancer. There are fewer than 50 Chinese alligators surviving in China. Most books give a estimate for sperm whales of 1 to 2 million, but a paper published last year gave an estimate of 360,000. The most recent estimate for southern hemisphere minke whales is about half the total estimate of 760,000 derived from surveys in the late 1980s.

Lions, cheetahs and lynxes share certain characteristics with many other threatened creatures: they are large, they are carnivores, they are fussy about where they live, they need a large range, they have small litters and a long gestation period, and they are hunted.

This makes them natural candidates for extinction in a world in which human numbers have soared from 2.5 billion to more than 6 billion in 50 years. The planet's population grows by more than 80 million every year. There are roughly 240,000 extra mouths to feed every day

http://www.bigcats.com/page1065125682.mv

 

[Tony]

So, instead of answering the question, you are going to spam the board?

 

[Avatar]

To A_unique_person,

At risk of belaboring things...

1. If you didn't mean to cast man in an entirely negative way, why pick the "cancer" metaphor, instead of the "white blood cell" metaphor? You didn't use the latter, neutral term. You used terms like "alien" and "cancer."

2. I don't see human development of resources as bad. Is it bad when a beaver builds a dam? Why then is it bad when a man does? If a robin appropriates stuff from nature to build its nest and feed itself, why is it wrong for a man to do it? If other animals follow THEIR natures and treat their surroundings as "theirs," why is it "bad" that we humans follow OUR nature and treat it as "ours"?

3. Regarding statistics, let's assume yours about lions are correct. Okay, you say that the 90% reduction in lions is "bad." This assumes some moral notion of what is "good" and what is "bad."

So what's your morality?

4. The notion that a 90% reduction of lions is "bad" also assumes there's some sort of absolute number of lions (and every other critter) in nature that would be "good." By your measure, what objective number of lions is the "right" number?

All animal populations fluctuate over time, and some even become extinct...without human intervention. (Ex.: the dinosaurs.) So on what grounds can we say that there's a "right" or "wrong" number and variety of species? Is it "bad" that dinosaurs are gone? If so, what would be the "right" number. And if so, would it be "right" therefore to try to clone some more(a la Steven Spielberg)?

Or does your measure (or standard, or whatever) just amount to this: "The objectively right number of lions in the world is whatever number every other factor in nature will allow...except for man. Man alone isn't supposed to influence the number of lions (or whatever critter) in any way."

That in fact is what most environmentalists seem to argue. But by doing so, they are defining "nature" to exclude HUMAN nature. We're not supposed to impact the rest of nature in any way.

But why? Why is it that only PEOPLE aren't supposed to impact the planet, use it, manipulate it, enjoy it?

That's the basic message I got out of that online essay. Seems sensible to me. So where's it off-base?

 

[a_unique_person]

No, I was just providing some articles indicating the lions are dying out. It was interesting that wealthy american still want to go out and shoot them. They musn't be dying out quickly enough, perhaps.

My answer stands.

 

[Tony]

No, I was just providing some articles indicating the lions are dying out. It was interesting that wealthy american still want to go out and shoot them. They musn't be dying out quickly enough, perhaps.

LOL

Your bigotry never ceases to amaze me. What about the wealthy Europeans and Japs? No, its always the fault of the evil americans.

My answer stands.

What answer? You didnt answer anything, you just dodged the question.

 

[Jessica Blue]

Althought I personally think its a bad thing (if true (and i admit my position is based mostly on emotion)), but, to play devil's advocate. Why does the lion population really matter? What difference does it make to the world at large if there are ANY lions in the wild?

I don't know whether the abscence of lions could make a difference or not, but not respecting the natural world in general could. Species interact...with each other and the wider environment. There is such a thing as an ecological balance:

"The world is as delicate and as complicated as a spider's web. If you touch one thread you send shudders running through all the other threads. We are not just touching the web, we are tearing great holes in it....

It has been shown that the decimation of forests on one side of world can have, sometimes devastating, climatic effects thousands of miles away in another continent. So we know that the greater the loss of animal and plant life, the more serious the consequences will be for mankind.

When man continues to destroy nature, he saws off the very branch on which he sits. The rational protection of nature is - at the same time - the protection of mankind." "

Gerald Durrell

 

[Tony]

When man continues to destroy nature, he saws off the very branch on which he sits. The rational protection of nature is - at the same time - the protection of mankind." "

Gerald Durrell

Good quote!!

But notice he says, "the rational protection of nature...". I wouldnt describe the typical enviromentalist as a rational person, more like a fanatic. That is why I dont consider myself one, I much more consider myself a conservationist.

 

[Avatar]

Where did all this "delicate web of life" stuff come from? This is a planet whose life forms managed to survive the devastating, catastrophic impacts of giant meteors. And today we trek around in forests and wilderness areas going "ooh" and "aah" at what's risen from the ashes. Within weeks of the Mt. St. Helens eruption, flowers and plants were rising from the lava fields.

"Delicate"? This green malarkey about one sneeze in Chicago causing a typhoon in Tokyo is laughable. "Delicate web of life" is lovely poetry, but insipid science. Natural climate fluctuations, natural disasters, natural extinctions dwarf the things that humans have done. And unlike other living critters, humans tend to clean up their messes afterwards--because we don't like living in them.

And think of all the things we do FOR the environment. For example, is anyone aware that there is MORE forest cover in North America today than at the start of the 19th century? Do you know whose responsible? All those evil capitalistic forestry firms, who replant trees like crazy...because of the profit motive.

I could go on and on, but that's enough for now. Let's hear from some others.

 

[a_unique_person]

To A_unique_person,

At risk of belaboring things...

1. If you didn't mean to cast man in an entirely negative way, why pick the "cancer" metaphor, instead of the "white blood cell" metaphor? You didn't use the latter, neutral term. You used terms like "alien" and "cancer."

leukemia is a cancer

2. I don't see human development of resources as bad. Is it bad when a beaver builds a dam? Why then is it bad when a man does? If a robin appropriates stuff from nature to build its nest and feed itself, why is it wrong for a man to do it? If other animals follow THEIR natures and treat their surroundings as "theirs," why is it "bad" that we humans follow OUR nature and treat it as "ours"?

We have the ability to do much more damage. A man made dam and a beaver dam? Are you trying to make me laugh?

Just look at how overfishing is depleting fish stocks. The current 'hot' fish is the Patagonian tooth fish. At current rates of piracy, it will be all gone in a few years. The 'Orage Roughy' was popular for a few years, till it was realised it too would disappear.

3. Regarding statistics, let's assume yours about lions are correct. Okay, you say that the 90% reduction in lions is "bad." This assumes some moral notion of what is "good" and what is "bad."

So what's your morality?

What's yours? This guy is making the claim that it is immoral to stop people doing whatever they want to the planet. For me, the extinction of a species is immoral. It happens, from time to time. The mass extinction we are seeing now is wrong.

4. The notion that a 90% reduction of lions is "bad" also assumes there's some sort of absolute number of lions (and every other critter) in nature that would be "good." By your measure, what objective number of lions is the "right" number?

The 90% reduction over 20 years implies to me that there will be a 100% reduction following very shortly.

All animal populations fluctuate over time, and some even become extinct...without human intervention. (Ex.: the dinosaurs.) So on what grounds can we say that there's a "right" or "wrong" number and variety of species? Is it "bad" that dinosaurs are gone? If so, what would be the "right" number. And if so, would it be "right" therefore to try to clone some more(a la Steven Spielberg)?

If you have no sense of wonder and respect for the world, that is your problem.

Or does your measure (or standard, or whatever) just amount to this: "The objectively right number of lions in the world is whatever number every other factor in nature will allow...except for man. Man alone isn't supposed to influence the number of lions (or whatever critter) in any way."

That in fact is what most environmentalists seem to argue. But by doing so, they are defining "nature" to exclude HUMAN nature. We're not supposed to impact the rest of nature in any way.

But why? Why is it that only PEOPLE aren't supposed to impact the planet, use it, manipulate it, enjoy it?

That's the basic message I got out of that online essay. Seems sensible to me. So where's it off-base?

strawman.

 

[Jessica Blue]

This is a planet whose life forms managed to survive the devastating, catastrophic impacts of giant meteors attitude.

Some life forms survived...some didn't.

Life is both strong and delicate. The earth can survive a hefty amount of battering, yet relatively minor ecological change can mean the difference between existence and extinction for some species.

Durrells cobweb description refers to the intricate balance of ecosystems. When we destroy or disrupt any aspect of an ecosystem, a lack of equilibrium is introduced into the environment. Though ecosystems naturally have an ability to stand change and adjust over time, they aren't indestructible. Ecological balance is what rational conservation is all about. It makes sense to limit human impact to a point where sustainable resource management becomes possible in a situation that would otherwise damage the ecosystem or eventually exhaust the supply of resources. What's wrong with that?

The world is made up of interacting biospheres and itself could be described as one big biosphere. I don't know why you should have a hard time believing that what we do with the environment in one part of the world could potentially affect another. Most credible scientists working in the field believe this...are they all deluded?

I also don't no why some, like Bidonetto, wish to interpet a concern with conservation as some sort of slur or "hatred" against mankind...I think that's a petulant and inane attitude. That's not what conservation is about.

 

[a_unique_person]

And think of all the things we do FOR the environment. For example, is anyone aware that there is MORE forest cover in North America today than at the start of the 19th century? Do you know whose responsible? All those evil capitalistic forestry firms, who replant trees like crazy...because of the profit motive.

I could go on and on, but that's enough for now. Let's hear from some others.

You don't get it. A plantation forest is not a normal forest. It is not about diversity but monoculture. It is the Stalinist expression of nature.

 

[fishbob]

We don't really need lions? How do you know this? At some level, the extinction of a species will affect humans. Do you know how much effect there will be?

A few weeks ago, there was a short discussion here about the unintended and unpredicted effects of whaling in the Pacific more than 50 years ago. The great whales were depleted, so the killer whales began eating sea lions, and when the sea lions became depleted the killer whales began eating sea otters, and the sea otters became depleted and stopped eating sea urchins, and the sea urchin population grew unchecked and ate all the near shore kelp, which was habitat for various fish species that are now wiped out or have moved on, and now the human fishermen are wondering what to catch.

So, as Jessica sez so well "Ecological balance is what rational conservation is all about."

And Tony "I wouldnt describe the typical enviromentalist as a rational person, more like a fanatic." You are cheating just like the goofball author that this discussion started about - Pick a nutcase and ascribe the nutcase position to the rational conservation types, then take pot shots at the nutcase position like it proves something.