for JD

[mountainm]

It's funny - we aren't external to nature, we are a part of it. For example - a lot of people think we're destroying our planet - but this just displays our own arrogance as a species. We haven't the power to destroy the planet, only ourselves. The planet will happily dust itself down and get on with things as it has many many many times before.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

The future is looking very bleak for both us & the rest of the bio diversity. The current world human population is around 7 billion & set to rise to 9 billion by 2050. Food production will have to increase by 70% to feed them ( even now 1 billion people don't have enough to eat) which means that every parcel of cultivatable land will have to be turned over to producing crops, thousands of eco systems around the world will be destroyed for ever.
If you add to that Global warming,( i.e. places that have a lot of rain will have more & those that have little rain will have less,)meaning crop production will be compromised & the melting of the ice caps, raising sea levels, vast quantities of land will be lost, forcing millions of people to migrate to other areas & countries already in difficulty. It's not unconcievable that there will be both international & civil wars as nations, even communities try to keep their ever decreasing ressourses for themselves.
Water will be a major problem, & there won't be any to spare for the few wild animals that have managed to survive.


Fact or fantasy..........discuss.

 

[resnikov]

Simple fix for the lack of food is solent green

 

[Paul_B]

Destroy the planet perhaps not but we can make a damn good attempt at it!!

 

[Hoodoo]

It's funny - we aren't external to nature, we are a part of it. For example - a lot of people think we're destroying our planet - but this just displays our own arrogance as a species. We haven't the power to destroy the planet, only ourselves. The planet will happily dust itself down and get on with things as it has many many many times before.

That's really a nifty way of saying we are not responsible for any problems we cause on the planet, including the extinction of other species, because it's all "natural." We are not very good at forward thinking, but we are superb at rationalization.

I had a philosopher colleague go so far as to say it was no big deal for species to go extinct because us biologists can clone them and bring them back. My response was to say that I suppose then it would be perfectly fine to shoot him in the head. No big deal if he dies, because I can send his body to the department of cloning.

 

[mountainm]

That's really a nifty way of saying we are not responsible for any problems we cause on the planet, including the extinction of other species, because it's all "natural." We are not very good at forward thinking, but we are superb at rationalization.

I had a philosopher colleague go so far as to say it was no big deal for species to go extinct because us biologists can clone them and bring them back. My response was to say that I suppose then it would be perfectly fine to shoot him in the head. No big deal if he dies, because I can send his body to the department of cloning.

Actually I think it's exactly the opposite - I think it's a good way of saying that, in the end, the thing we will hurt most is ourselves. Everything else will bounce back in one way or another. On another note some animals should be left to go extinct because they are poorly equipped to deal with the environment. The Panda is a good example of this, an animal that's is equipped to be a carnivore but chooses to eat bamboo and who's reproductive habits are less than effective. It doesn't work as a species - whether we intervene or not. More here:
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/packham-panda342.html#cr

 

[Hoodoo]

Actually I think it's exactly the opposite - I think it's a good way of saying that, in the end, the thing we will hurt most is ourselves. Everything else will bounce back in one way or another. On another note some animals should be left to go extinct because they are poorly equipped to deal with the environment. The Panda is a good example of this, an animal that's is equipped to be a carnivore but chooses to eat bamboo and who's reproductive habits are less than effective. It doesn't work as a species - whether we intervene or not. More here:
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/packham-panda342.html#cr

We are in the midst of a major extinction event to rival any that came before. How can that only hurt us? Again, more rationalization and a very anthropocentric view. If it's bad for us, it can't be all that great for the species going extinct eh?

As for organisms being poorly equipped to deal with the environment, again, more rationalization. If we destroy habitat, forcing organisms to adapt or go extinct, is that the same as being "poorly equipped." We often use the same kind of rationalizations to wipe out native human populations. Poorly equipped meaning inferior.

One thing we are learning from ecological studies is that an increase in biodiversity enhances an ecosystem. Yup, it will all come back to bite humans in the butt, but if that kind of rationalization is what is needed to prevent it, what does that really say about human beans?

 

[blacktimberwolf]

Actually I think it's exactly the opposite - I think it's a good way of saying that, in the end, the thing we will hurt most is ourselves. Everything else will bounce back in one way or another. On another note some animals should be left to go extinct because they are poorly equipped to deal with the environment. The Panda is a good example of this, an animal that's is equipped to be a carnivore but chooses to eat bamboo and who's reproductive habits are less than effective. It doesn't work as a species - whether we intervene or not. More here:
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/packham-panda342.html#cr

Pandas are becoming extinct because of hunting,/ poaching & the destruction of their habitat, not because they are ill adapted to their enviroment....

 

[mountainm]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic now, but hey ho.

We are in the midst of a major extinction event to rival any that came before.

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

How can that only hurt us? Again, more rationalization and a very anthropocentric view. If it's bad for us, it can't be all that great for the species going extinct eh?

You're missing the point - a lot of people don't care that we're hurting other organisms, but they do care if they realise at the end of it all we're hurting ourselves. It's not rationlization.It doesn't make it more palatable to wipe out a species, what it does is put it in context.

As for organisms being poorly equipped to deal with the environment, again, more rationalization. If we destroy habitat, forcing organisms to adapt or go extinct, is that the same as being "poorly equipped." We often use the same kind of rationalizations to wipe out native human populations. Poorly equipped meaning inferior.

We are an animal, a pest at that - and we are also part of nature. Lets stop taking us out of that equation - as there is no way we will have "zero" impact on the planet around us without literally taking us out of the equation. The best we can do is not be exploitative, but not all extinctions leave a trail of blood to the human race. Extinctions have happened many times without us even needing to turn the keys in our ignition. It is not an excuse to exploit, pollute and pillage- but it is a fact we should be aware of when deciding which messes to clear up first.

One thing we are learning from ecological studies is that an increase in biodiversity enhances an ecosystem. Yup, it will all come back to bite humans in the butt, but if that kind of rationalization is what is needed to prevent it, what does that really say about human beans?

Let's take a long term view, lets talk in terms of geological time. At which point none of this is going to matter one jot and the birdlords descended from ravens will be running the universe. I do have a short term view however, and that is ensuring my kids have a wonderful diverse planet to go explore.

 

[mountainm]

Pandas are becoming extinct because of hunting,/ poaching & the destruction of their habitat, not because they are ill adapted to their enviroment....

Yes, but it's gone too far - there is nowhere to put them now - they live in the most populated country on the planet and are so very specialised it's unbelievable. If they were some sort of brown bird people wouldn't care, but they're cute and cuddly. The money should be channeled into a project where we know we have a good chance of success given the resources. Pandas are lost causes.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

I don't believe trying to save any species, even if in the long term there's little hope, is a lost cause.

 

[mountainm]

I don't believe trying to save any species, even if in the long term there's little hope, is a lost cause.

OK - but there's a real choice here, and the choice is where the money gets spent. Realistically would you rather

Keep pumping money into Pandas which we know we cannot bring back to sustainable numbers given there environment.

OR

Save 3 endangered plants, 2 endangered frogs and some beetles in a scrap of rainforest somewhere. Which we know we can return to sustainable populations.

The fact is we cannot do both. Unpleasant choices have to be made. And the Pandas cute popularity is siphoning money away from projects where there is a much greater chance of making a difference.

In a perfect world we'd save everything. This isn't a perfect world.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

OK - but there's a real choice here, and the choice is where the money gets spent. Realistically would you rather

Keep pumping money into Pandas which we know we cannot bring back to sustainable numbers given there environment.

OR

Save 3 endangered plants, 2 endangered frogs and some beetles in a scrap of rainforest somewhere. Which we know we can return to sustainable populations.

The fact is we cannot do both. Unpleasant choices have to be made. And the Pandas cute popularity is siphoning money away from projects where there is a much greater chance of making a difference.

In a perfect world we'd save everything. This isn't a perfect world.

In a perfect world WE wouldn't NEED to save anything.

 

[Paul_B]

I have to question if supporting pandas and their habitats is a waste of money. It is often the case that the catwalk endangered species earn more money for conservation than brown birds and beetles. They are more photogenic or just more important to the general public and as such earn probably more than is actuall spent just on them.

The other point to make is that saving the habitat of one of these popular species is actually saving it for all the other life in those habitats. Take the RSPB over here for example, they spend a portion of their money raised overseas in multi-national projects. IIRC they are involved in protecting the habitats of a particular species of Tiger. The tiger is the figurehead for the money raising around the world but from the RSPB's point of view they have gotten involved due to the fact that saving the tiger's habitat to save this tiger species means the endangered birds there are also saved. Everything is linked. Even by saving the panda you could be saving so many other species too. Write the panda off you could be writing their habitats off too and all the other species living in them. Pandas might not be the only animal, insect or other that needs the same habitat to survive. Besides who knows the panda might be helping to raise more money than is spent on them alone. Cute and cuddly earns the money. That's probably why WWF first used it as their symbol.

 

[mountainm]

I have to question if supporting pandas and their habitats is a waste of money. It is often the case that the catwalk endangered species earn more money for conservation than brown birds and beetles. They are more photogenic or just more important to the general public and as such earn probably more than is actuall spent just on them.

The other point to make is that saving the habitat of one of these popular species is actually saving it for all the other life in those habitats. Take the RSPB over here for example, they spend a portion of their money raised overseas in multi-national projects. IIRC they are involved in protecting the habitats of a particular species of Tiger. The tiger is the figurehead for the money raising around the world but from the RSPB's point of view they have gotten involved due to the fact that saving the tiger's habitat to save this tiger species means the endangered birds there are also saved. Everything is linked. Even by saving the panda you could be saving so many other species too. Write the panda off you could be writing their habitats off too and all the other species living in them. Pandas might not be the only animal, insect or other that needs the same habitat to survive. Besides who knows the panda might be helping to raise more money than is spent on them alone. Cute and cuddly earns the money. That's probably why WWF first used it as their symbol.

Good points well made! But what has wrestling got to do with it?

I would be interested in seeing just how money gets spent on the actual animal at the forefront of a campaign. I know from a charity I've been involved with the even the people who ran the organisation were surprised that money wasn't being spent on what it had been "earmarked" for

 

[Paul_B]

I think some charitable recipients have more money than they need so makes sense to move it to less popular causes. I know from someone who works in NHS and the neo-natal wards have a lot of charity monies raised for them. So much so they end up with spare money this way. They end up getting uneccesary stuff or giving it to other departments. I got told about this because I do a charity, challenge walk every year and the money goes into a pot to get shared among the many charities nominated by the teams taking part. Each year a lot of neo-natal wards are the charities being supported. I told my mate in order to encourage him to sponsor me. Afterall people are more likely to sponsor someone if the money goes to kids, animals or cancer charities. I chose the babies not knowing he had a relative or friend in the neo natal ward. Had to tell him it also went to cancer care and other things too or I'd have lost his interest in sponsorship.

Anyway that is just one example of where a charitable campaign raises more money than it needs so passes it on to another. I see nothing wrong with people giving for one cause but due to excess moneys being raised it goes on something else. It all helps I think.