5 ms·

> We just don't want them stalking our children in the local park. Exactly. I'm all for conservation, so long as it doesn't lead to humans becoming part of the

by jobu 11y ago

> We just don't want them stalking our children in the local park. Exactly. I'm all for conservation, so long as it doesn't lead to humans becoming part of the food chain again.

igravious 11y ago
Sharks kill humans annually. So do big cats. And snakes. What are we going to do? Shoot all these on sight? Predate to extinction (and not even for their nutritional value) those species that harm us in even the slightest way? I oppose that. No thanks. That's not the type of world I want to live in. I want to co-exist with these amazing creatures, not drive them to extinction, or only have them alive in captivity.
- jmnicolas 11y ago
  This kind of reasoning is fine until YOUR child get killed ...
  - igravious 11y ago
    I have a child, but think about it this way. Every creature killed was the child of some creature. You're saying it's our children versus their children, all or nothing? But they're non-human animals so tough luck to them. We can do better I believe. What I'm asking is are we asserting that humanity has claimed the _entire_ globe as its habitat? Where do all the other species go that because of their nature run into trouble with us? Why not share a habitat with the creatures we can and make large wildlife reserves for the creatures we can't. Is this too idealistic? And if our paths do cross they need to be protected from us, not the other way around, because they don't know any better and we do.
    - jmnicolas 11y ago
      I'm certainly not advocating killing everything that moves and I certainly agree that there are too many humans on earth. I have no solution for that except stop making babies. However when there are dangerous animals around humans I will certainly not blame someone for protecting his / her family, especially in the case of an invasive specie like the coywolf that is not in danger of extinction.
      - igravious 11y ago
        By the way, I never said that I think there are too many humans on Earth. This is a populist viewpoint, and it is not one I share. Even with current technology I believe the Earth could sustain > 10,000,000,000 humans with the caveat that humanity recognises which activities are unsustainable and alters its collective behaviour possibly through regulation if people won't voluntarily change their lifestyles. Examples: increased urbanisation, cutting meat consumption to increase the amount of land for crops, increased shared use of transport, assuming hydrocarbons and peat-bogs are semi-scarce non-renewable resources then transition away from them as sources of energy to renewables, travel less by using telecommunication, and so on.
  - PepeGomez 11y ago
    Unless we're thinkíng of some apocalyptic scenario, your child is million times more likely to die in a car crash than being killed by a wolf and a hundred times more likely to be killed by your neughbor's pitbull.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Did you really just argue that if a snake were to kill your child, you would want the species eradicated? If an automobile driver were the cause of death instead, would you demand the removal of all automobile drivers? Or all automobiles? If your child were to drown, would you demand the removal of all swimming pools?
    - jmnicolas 11y ago
      Oh common stop putting words in my mouth ... When a specie is invasive and dangerous you thin it by removing the ones that are too close to human habitat, that's it.
      - dalke 11y ago
        Your response was to the statement by igravious, which highlighted "Sharks", "big cats", and "snakes". Two of those are not invasive species at all. Of the third, only a few species of snakes are invasive. You'll also notice that sharks have not gotten closer to human habitation in any significant way. So your response is almost irrelevant to what igravious was talking about. I assumed it was relevant, and the only way I could figure out how to assume you mean that human (and more specifically child) safety gets priority over everything else. If someone wants to live in or move to a place with big cats, then your view is that they should kill (or "thin") the species, yes? Eventually this means the extinction of all potentially dangerous creatures, does it not?
        jmnicolas 11y ago
        Do you see even what you do ? Your way of framing this argument can only lead to a fight. Of course you have to be 2 to fight, so I'm going to be reasonable and just drop the matter. I don't NEED to be right. Have a nice day.
- chroma 11y ago
  Many pathogens and parasites are amazing creatures. Do you take the same stance with those, or are you only in favor of charismatic megafauna roaming wild? From my point of view, lions, crocodiles, wolves, etc... they're basically microencephalized sociopaths. It would be better if they never harmed any creature capable of suffering. That means either eliminating them or drastically modifying them. Granted, this is currently neither feasible nor a high priority. The world has plenty of other problems that need addressed first. Still, I'd rather these predators not exist. The harm they inflict on other creatures far outweighs the warm fuzzies we get from seeing them on nature shows.
  - haylem 11y ago
    Interesting. Not wanting to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like trying to impose a vegan lifestyle (for the record: I'm vegetarian and mostly vegan now) to the animal kingdom. I can understand part of the sentiment, but I'm a bit cautious of 1) the possibility of that happening 2) the impacts 3) the ethics.
    - chroma 11y ago
      That's an accurate representation of my views. Though as I said, it's pretty low on the list of things that need fixing. One day –hopefully– humanity will have its shit together. Then the majority of suffering will be inflicted by (non-human) animals upon other animals. What do we do about that? I don't have an answer, but I'm pretty sure "let it continue" isn't it. To bring the discussion back to the present: I think most people don't consider the morality of letting predators exist. If it was a disease or parasite that killed 10 people a year, we'd all agree on eradication. If it was a human being who killed 10 people a year, we'd all want to lock that person away until they died of old age. Nobody would make arguments like, "Your child is 1,000x more likely to be killed by a car than by a serial killer." But give the creature some fur and claws and have it roar or howl majestically... suddenly all manner of rationalizations are brought out in support.
      - lost_my_pwd 11y ago
        Funny that you mention rationalizing; something these non-human predator can not do. They are simply doing what their instincts drive them to do: hunt and survive. That is nowhere near the same thing as a human killer that does it for non-survival reasons; anger, entertainment, sexual excitement, etc. Even if we say that human killers are driven by instinct, as animals are, they also have the ability to reason about the motivations, impact, and eventual consequences of those actions.

by jobu 11y ago

> We just don't want them stalking our children in the local park. Exactly. I'm all for conservation, so long as it doesn't lead to humans becoming part of the food chain again.

igravious 11y ago

Sharks kill humans annually. So do big cats. And snakes. What are we going to do? Shoot all these on sight? Predate to extinction (and not even for their nutritional value) those species that harm us in even the slightest way? I oppose that. No thanks. That's not the type of world I want to live in. I want to co-exist with these amazing creatures, not drive them to extinction, or only have them alive in captivity.

jmnicolas 11y ago
This kind of reasoning is fine until YOUR child get killed ...
- igravious 11y ago
  I have a child, but think about it this way. Every creature killed was the child of some creature. You're saying it's our children versus their children, all or nothing? But they're non-human animals so tough luck to them. We can do better I believe. What I'm asking is are we asserting that humanity has claimed the _entire_ globe as its habitat? Where do all the other species go that because of their nature run into trouble with us? Why not share a habitat with the creatures we can and make large wildlife reserves for the creatures we can't. Is this too idealistic? And if our paths do cross they need to be protected from us, not the other way around, because they don't know any better and we do.
  - jmnicolas 11y ago
    I'm certainly not advocating killing everything that moves and I certainly agree that there are too many humans on earth. I have no solution for that except stop making babies. However when there are dangerous animals around humans I will certainly not blame someone for protecting his / her family, especially in the case of an invasive specie like the coywolf that is not in danger of extinction.
    - igravious 11y ago
      By the way, I never said that I think there are too many humans on Earth. This is a populist viewpoint, and it is not one I share. Even with current technology I believe the Earth could sustain > 10,000,000,000 humans with the caveat that humanity recognises which activities are unsustainable and alters its collective behaviour possibly through regulation if people won't voluntarily change their lifestyles. Examples: increased urbanisation, cutting meat consumption to increase the amount of land for crops, increased shared use of transport, assuming hydrocarbons and peat-bogs are semi-scarce non-renewable resources then transition away from them as sources of energy to renewables, travel less by using telecommunication, and so on.
- PepeGomez 11y ago
  Unless we're thinkíng of some apocalyptic scenario, your child is million times more likely to die in a car crash than being killed by a wolf and a hundred times more likely to be killed by your neughbor's pitbull.
- dalke 11y ago
  Did you really just argue that if a snake were to kill your child, you would want the species eradicated? If an automobile driver were the cause of death instead, would you demand the removal of all automobile drivers? Or all automobiles? If your child were to drown, would you demand the removal of all swimming pools?
  - jmnicolas 11y ago
    Oh common stop putting words in my mouth ... When a specie is invasive and dangerous you thin it by removing the ones that are too close to human habitat, that's it.
    - dalke 11y ago
      Your response was to the statement by igravious, which highlighted "Sharks", "big cats", and "snakes". Two of those are not invasive species at all. Of the third, only a few species of snakes are invasive. You'll also notice that sharks have not gotten closer to human habitation in any significant way. So your response is almost irrelevant to what igravious was talking about. I assumed it was relevant, and the only way I could figure out how to assume you mean that human (and more specifically child) safety gets priority over everything else. If someone wants to live in or move to a place with big cats, then your view is that they should kill (or "thin") the species, yes? Eventually this means the extinction of all potentially dangerous creatures, does it not?
      - jmnicolas 11y ago
        Do you see even what you do ? Your way of framing this argument can only lead to a fight. Of course you have to be 2 to fight, so I'm going to be reasonable and just drop the matter. I don't NEED to be right. Have a nice day.
chroma 11y ago
Many pathogens and parasites are amazing creatures. Do you take the same stance with those, or are you only in favor of charismatic megafauna roaming wild? From my point of view, lions, crocodiles, wolves, etc... they're basically microencephalized sociopaths. It would be better if they never harmed any creature capable of suffering. That means either eliminating them or drastically modifying them. Granted, this is currently neither feasible nor a high priority. The world has plenty of other problems that need addressed first. Still, I'd rather these predators not exist. The harm they inflict on other creatures far outweighs the warm fuzzies we get from seeing them on nature shows.
- haylem 11y ago
  Interesting. Not wanting to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like trying to impose a vegan lifestyle (for the record: I'm vegetarian and mostly vegan now) to the animal kingdom. I can understand part of the sentiment, but I'm a bit cautious of 1) the possibility of that happening 2) the impacts 3) the ethics.
  - chroma 11y ago
    That's an accurate representation of my views. Though as I said, it's pretty low on the list of things that need fixing. One day –hopefully– humanity will have its shit together. Then the majority of suffering will be inflicted by (non-human) animals upon other animals. What do we do about that? I don't have an answer, but I'm pretty sure "let it continue" isn't it. To bring the discussion back to the present: I think most people don't consider the morality of letting predators exist. If it was a disease or parasite that killed 10 people a year, we'd all agree on eradication. If it was a human being who killed 10 people a year, we'd all want to lock that person away until they died of old age. Nobody would make arguments like, "Your child is 1,000x more likely to be killed by a car than by a serial killer." But give the creature some fur and claws and have it roar or howl majestically... suddenly all manner of rationalizations are brought out in support.
    - lost_my_pwd 11y ago
      Funny that you mention rationalizing; something these non-human predator can not do. They are simply doing what their instincts drive them to do: hunt and survive. That is nowhere near the same thing as a human killer that does it for non-survival reasons; anger, entertainment, sexual excitement, etc. Even if we say that human killers are driven by instinct, as animals are, they also have the ability to reason about the motivations, impact, and eventual consequences of those actions.