4 ms·

If you read the article, you'd know that the problem isn't poaching, it's loss of habitat. The article more specifically calls out farm land. In that case, ess

by latch 10y ago

If you read the article, you'd know that the problem isn't poaching, it's loss of habitat. The article more specifically calls out farm land. In that case, essentially all eater share blame proportional to the energy and land efficiency of the food type they eat.

jimjimjim 10y ago
true. I did read the article but it's more socially acceptable to want poachers to come to harm than to express an opinion of wanting expansion of human settlements in africa to cease.
- grzm 10y ago
  it's more socially acceptable to want poachers to come to harm Interesting opinion. I agree that there's a common human tendency to look for someone to blame, so bringing poachers to justice might look like an easy solution rather than changing behavior. The article discusses ways of attacking the problem of range preservation. Is the opinion of wanting poachers to come to harm (rather than be criminally penalized) one you share yourself? If not, do you have figures that back this up?
  - jimjimjim 10y ago
    please note the use of the word 'hyperbolic' in the original post. I guess my point was driven by thoughts around preservation of endangered animals in general rather than just this specific case. There are animals where poaching IS the major problem. and I guess i don't want specific harm done to them, i would much rather they just didn't do it. but what does 'criminally penalized' look like in your opinion when the poachers might have no assets to fine, no reputation to lose and no fear of prison?
    - grzm 10y ago
      Yes, you used "hyperbolic" to describe your proposed solution. Your justification of it (in your followup) shouldn't be, and that is what I was responding to. Attributing exaggerated opinions to others is one way discussions get derailed. As for criminal penalties for poachers, I'd want to learn a lot more about the situation before weighing in. That said, prison can serve multiple purposes, one being a deterrent, and another, preventing future infractions by removing the individual from society. The latter is congruent, at least in part, with your desire that they don't poach.
    - Someone 10y ago
      Work towards them having assets, towards those _not_ poaching having prestige, and towards improving their lives so that they prefer staying out of prison. It may be different up in the chain of 'command', but those doing the poaching (typically) aren't evil people; they just want to make a living. In other ways: they aren't criminals, they act criminally. In this case, tourism may be part of a good answer. Rich westerners pay good money for seeing cheetahs. There may be more money there than in agriculture on those poor grounds. It may not work for cheetahs, though, because they need so much room (and in the case of Iran, other changes may be needed to get tourism going)

by latch 10y ago

jimjimjim 10y ago

true. I did read the article but it's more socially acceptable to want poachers to come to harm than to express an opinion of wanting expansion of human settlements in africa to cease.

grzm 10y ago
it's more socially acceptable to want poachers to come to harm Interesting opinion. I agree that there's a common human tendency to look for someone to blame, so bringing poachers to justice might look like an easy solution rather than changing behavior. The article discusses ways of attacking the problem of range preservation. Is the opinion of wanting poachers to come to harm (rather than be criminally penalized) one you share yourself? If not, do you have figures that back this up?
- jimjimjim 10y ago
  please note the use of the word 'hyperbolic' in the original post. I guess my point was driven by thoughts around preservation of endangered animals in general rather than just this specific case. There are animals where poaching IS the major problem. and I guess i don't want specific harm done to them, i would much rather they just didn't do it. but what does 'criminally penalized' look like in your opinion when the poachers might have no assets to fine, no reputation to lose and no fear of prison?
  - grzm 10y ago
    Yes, you used "hyperbolic" to describe your proposed solution. Your justification of it (in your followup) shouldn't be, and that is what I was responding to. Attributing exaggerated opinions to others is one way discussions get derailed. As for criminal penalties for poachers, I'd want to learn a lot more about the situation before weighing in. That said, prison can serve multiple purposes, one being a deterrent, and another, preventing future infractions by removing the individual from society. The latter is congruent, at least in part, with your desire that they don't poach.
  - Someone 10y ago
    Work towards them having assets, towards those _not_ poaching having prestige, and towards improving their lives so that they prefer staying out of prison. It may be different up in the chain of 'command', but those doing the poaching (typically) aren't evil people; they just want to make a living. In other ways: they aren't criminals, they act criminally. In this case, tourism may be part of a good answer. Rich westerners pay good money for seeing cheetahs. There may be more money there than in agriculture on those poor grounds. It may not work for cheetahs, though, because they need so much room (and in the case of Iran, other changes may be needed to get tourism going)