4 ms·

The legal version of poaching is called hunting. Provided the laws are sound (you haven't e.g. bribed someone to "legally" kill a tiger), hunting is fine. Killi

The legal version of poaching is called hunting. Provided the laws are sound (you haven't e.g. bribed someone to "legally" kill a tiger), hunting is fine. Killing a legally-protected animal almost always means you shot something whose species is in some sort of jeopardy. That's bad.

aianus 11y ago
> That's bad. Why? Why is it bad? Why does it matter if, say, elephants go extinct? If they're extinct they're not suffering.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Loss of species diversity, 50 million years of evolution, and potentially profound impacts on ecosystems. Look for the story in the past year or so about dramatic impacts of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone. How Wolves Change Rivers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q http://www.livescience.com/17263-yellowstone-wolf-environment-change.html http://www.livescience.com/17263-yellowstone-wolf-environmen... Destroy a species and it's gone forever. Moreover, if you're looking to eliminate suffering, it's humans and their rampant overconsumption which are driving that. Not the elephant.
  - codyb 11y ago
    Thanks for sharing that video, I'd heard of keystone species before but never have I had it so concretely shown to me just how vital and vast the effects can be. Really enjoyed the watch.
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  I hope people stop downvoting you because this is an excellent question. There is a number of species in that ecology today, let's call it N. It's a known good number of species: they work together, more or less, to stay alive as a group. There are smaller collections of species which are nonviable. For example, if all species disappeared except elephants and tigers (2 species) the entire ecosystem would then disappear (the elephants would starve and then the tigers would) and eventually only inorganic material would remain. There is a number of species, let's call it K, below which the probability of entire ecosystem collapse is nontrivial. We don't know what K is, but if we care about the existence of any ecosystem we must approach it carefully. And we won't know we've crossed it unless we go over. We know K is somewhere between 2 and N. I think a good strategy is just to put the brakes on all extinction to try to buy us extra time to do science while we are approaching N=K. As long as we keep N above K, we have a relatively easy problem: influencing a system at equilibrium. Once N drops below K we have a much harder problem: bootstrapping an ecology from nothing. Keeping N above K gives us more agency for less effort. For that reason, I think the extinction of elephants would be bad.
  - hsitz 11y ago
    It's also not just that the loss of a species is bad. It's that some species are especially important, and it's not necessarily known which these species are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species
  - stouset 11y ago
    Important also is the rate of species extinction. An ecosystem with some number of species in it can likely cope with a low rate of extinction (as species get outcompeted quicker than the my evolve), but can't cope with several species dying out in rapid succession. The issue with humans is that we are rapidly increasing the rate of extinction, by pollution, poaching, exclusively occupying large tracts of land, clear-cutting forests, etc.
  - aianus 11y ago
    Surely an endangered animal would be the least likely to cause problems for us if it went extinct. Otherwise we would have noticed the ecosystem starting to go wonky as it neared extinction.
    - chrismcb 11y ago
      Maybe we don't figure out why an ecosystem went wonky until the species is extinct. Reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone us a great example.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jemmeh 11y ago
      According to the National Parks Service website, only 41 wolves were released into Yellowstone and it had -major- impacts on fixing the ecosystem there.(Source: http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolves.htm http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolves.htm ) It doesn't have to be " a lot" to keep an ecosystem in balance. A species that is there, even in low numbers(near extinction) could be the thread that ecosystem balance is hanging on by. The issue with extinction is while it's natural for a few species to go extinct, due to human influence we are losing between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate. (Source: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/ http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversi...) We are part of the ecosystem we are damaging. You may take it for granted that animals continue to pollinate the plants you eat at dinner time. You make take it for granted that vultures cleaning up the dead prevent the spread of disease. There are many other cases of how the ecosystem is all tied together in a way that is integral to the human race's survival.
- thesteamboat 11y ago
  > Why does it matter if, say, elephants go extinct? If they're extinct they're not suffering. That's the same logic a cartoon supervillain uses to justify a plan for destroying the world. To answer your question directly. I believe that elephants probably have inner lives at least as rich as humans with severe developmental problems, and thus should probably be afforded the same level of legal protection.
  - aianus 11y ago
    That statement was made in the context of the relative morality of exterminating a species or enslaving it and forcing it to reproduce in order to feed on it. So yes, the same logic applies to humans; I would prefer the human race including myself to be wiped out if the alternative was Matrix-style enslavement.
    - thesteamboat 11y ago
      If our only choices were exterminating elephants or raising them for food, I might agree with you. But that's not even close to the situation in the world today. Elephants are not in the same position as cattle. When lab-grown meat is a viable alternative there may well be a decision to abandon ranching (and by extension cows as a species) en masse. But we don't depend on eating elephants for food; people kill elephants for status reasons (ivory, 'medicines').
      - meric 11y ago
        You don't depend on elephants for food, it doesn't mean no one else does. Once an elephant is shot, the villagers just start to appear. Word gets out fast. It is like a celebration when an elephant is killed, the entire village will join in. The natives cut all of the meat off the bone and take it to their village to eat. They don’t let anything go to waste. http://gothunts.com/see-what-happens-to-an-elephant-after-elephant-hunting/ http://gothunts.com/see-what-happens-to-an-elephant-after-el... You're right, there is a distinction. We don't imprison elephants and raise them for the sole purpose of imprisonment, impregnation and death.

aianus 11y ago

> That's bad. Why? Why is it bad? Why does it matter if, say, elephants go extinct? If they're extinct they're not suffering.

dredmorbius 11y ago
Loss of species diversity, 50 million years of evolution, and potentially profound impacts on ecosystems. Look for the story in the past year or so about dramatic impacts of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone. How Wolves Change Rivers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q http://www.livescience.com/17263-yellowstone-wolf-environment-change.html http://www.livescience.com/17263-yellowstone-wolf-environmen... Destroy a species and it's gone forever. Moreover, if you're looking to eliminate suffering, it's humans and their rampant overconsumption which are driving that. Not the elephant.
- codyb 11y ago
  Thanks for sharing that video, I'd heard of keystone species before but never have I had it so concretely shown to me just how vital and vast the effects can be. Really enjoyed the watch.
erikpukinskis 11y ago
I hope people stop downvoting you because this is an excellent question. There is a number of species in that ecology today, let's call it N. It's a known good number of species: they work together, more or less, to stay alive as a group. There are smaller collections of species which are nonviable. For example, if all species disappeared except elephants and tigers (2 species) the entire ecosystem would then disappear (the elephants would starve and then the tigers would) and eventually only inorganic material would remain. There is a number of species, let's call it K, below which the probability of entire ecosystem collapse is nontrivial. We don't know what K is, but if we care about the existence of any ecosystem we must approach it carefully. And we won't know we've crossed it unless we go over. We know K is somewhere between 2 and N. I think a good strategy is just to put the brakes on all extinction to try to buy us extra time to do science while we are approaching N=K. As long as we keep N above K, we have a relatively easy problem: influencing a system at equilibrium. Once N drops below K we have a much harder problem: bootstrapping an ecology from nothing. Keeping N above K gives us more agency for less effort. For that reason, I think the extinction of elephants would be bad.
- hsitz 11y ago
  It's also not just that the loss of a species is bad. It's that some species are especially important, and it's not necessarily known which these species are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species
- stouset 11y ago
  Important also is the rate of species extinction. An ecosystem with some number of species in it can likely cope with a low rate of extinction (as species get outcompeted quicker than the my evolve), but can't cope with several species dying out in rapid succession. The issue with humans is that we are rapidly increasing the rate of extinction, by pollution, poaching, exclusively occupying large tracts of land, clear-cutting forests, etc.
- aianus 11y ago
  Surely an endangered animal would be the least likely to cause problems for us if it went extinct. Otherwise we would have noticed the ecosystem starting to go wonky as it neared extinction.
  - chrismcb 11y ago
    Maybe we don't figure out why an ecosystem went wonky until the species is extinct. Reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone us a great example.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jemmeh 11y ago
    According to the National Parks Service website, only 41 wolves were released into Yellowstone and it had -major- impacts on fixing the ecosystem there.(Source: http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolves.htm http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolves.htm ) It doesn't have to be " a lot" to keep an ecosystem in balance. A species that is there, even in low numbers(near extinction) could be the thread that ecosystem balance is hanging on by. The issue with extinction is while it's natural for a few species to go extinct, due to human influence we are losing between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate. (Source: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/ http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversi...) We are part of the ecosystem we are damaging. You may take it for granted that animals continue to pollinate the plants you eat at dinner time. You make take it for granted that vultures cleaning up the dead prevent the spread of disease. There are many other cases of how the ecosystem is all tied together in a way that is integral to the human race's survival.
thesteamboat 11y ago
> Why does it matter if, say, elephants go extinct? If they're extinct they're not suffering. That's the same logic a cartoon supervillain uses to justify a plan for destroying the world. To answer your question directly. I believe that elephants probably have inner lives at least as rich as humans with severe developmental problems, and thus should probably be afforded the same level of legal protection.
- aianus 11y ago
  That statement was made in the context of the relative morality of exterminating a species or enslaving it and forcing it to reproduce in order to feed on it. So yes, the same logic applies to humans; I would prefer the human race including myself to be wiped out if the alternative was Matrix-style enslavement.
  - thesteamboat 11y ago
    If our only choices were exterminating elephants or raising them for food, I might agree with you. But that's not even close to the situation in the world today. Elephants are not in the same position as cattle. When lab-grown meat is a viable alternative there may well be a decision to abandon ranching (and by extension cows as a species) en masse. But we don't depend on eating elephants for food; people kill elephants for status reasons (ivory, 'medicines').
    - meric 11y ago
      You don't depend on elephants for food, it doesn't mean no one else does. Once an elephant is shot, the villagers just start to appear. Word gets out fast. It is like a celebration when an elephant is killed, the entire village will join in. The natives cut all of the meat off the bone and take it to their village to eat. They don’t let anything go to waste. http://gothunts.com/see-what-happens-to-an-elephant-after-elephant-hunting/ http://gothunts.com/see-what-happens-to-an-elephant-after-el... You're right, there is a distinction. We don't imprison elephants and raise them for the sole purpose of imprisonment, impregnation and death.