3 ms·

There is definitely a "museum mentality" where is something is worth collecting it gets collected. That does not sit well with, shall we say, an over-sensitivit

There is definitely a "museum mentality" where is something is worth collecting it gets collected. That does not sit well with, shall we say, an over-sensitivity to the plight of individual animals while blithely ignoring the fate of millions or billions - as the article suggests. Museums have come a long way, since the golden age of collecting of Victorian times. A lot of museums run tissue banks, mainly blood, which are an invaluable resource. More of less anyone in the world has access to the material. The animals or birds that are unfortunate enough to enter a museum are put to good use and ultimately mean that a lot less are killed in the name research. Disclaimer: I knew Chris when I lived in Seattle. He's a stand-up guy.

trhway 8y ago
>an over-sensitivity to the plight of individual animals while blithely ignoring the fate of millions or billions the fate of the billions isn't ignored. It just can't be changed immediately as if by a magic wand. The process has to start somewhere, and the plight of individual animals who one way or another got some connection to people mind is a natural place to start as people pay attention to those animals, and with time the people would understand and would be able to extend that empathy from those individual to the rest of the billions. I for one happy to see that cold killing in the name of science doesn't sit ok anymore with a lot of people. 120 years ago scientists were cutting dogs alive without anesthesia. Back then one could also argue about "an over-sensitivity to the plight of individual animals while blithely ignoring the fate of millions or billions". Fortunately the plight of those individual animals back then had ultimately got its attention, and animal torture is a crime today.
- jhbadger 8y ago
  You are missing the point that in order to save species, often individual animals need to be killed. Even in the modern era of DNA sequencing, museum collections tell us much about animals and even work as a sort of time machine for sequencing. I recently went to a seminar about a project that was studying the microbiomes from the gut contents of 19th century preserved animals in order to see if they were different from modern ones. This will help us know to what degree the greater human impact in the 21st century is affecting the health of wildlife. If people hadn't collected animals in the 19th century how could we do this? How will people in the future do the same if we don't collect animals now?
  - trhway 8y ago
    take any nightmarish atrocity and torture committed by people against other people or animals, and you'll always find a logical and reasonable rationale for it - at least held at the time by the people committing it.
    - jhbadger 8y ago
      Why exactly do you think people do wildlife research? Because they care about animals in a deep way. If endangered species get saved it will be through the result of their research. The true "atrocity" is the great extinction period we are going through.

trhway 8y ago

>an over-sensitivity to the plight of individual animals while blithely ignoring the fate of millions or billions the fate of the billions isn't ignored. It just can't be changed immediately as if by a magic wand. The process has to start somewhere, and the plight of individual animals who one way or another got some connection to people mind is a natural place to start as people pay attention to those animals, and with time the people would understand and would be able to extend that empathy from those individual to the rest of the billions. I for one happy to see that cold killing in the name of science doesn't sit ok anymore with a lot of people. 120 years ago scientists were cutting dogs alive without anesthesia. Back then one could also argue about "an over-sensitivity to the plight of individual animals while blithely ignoring the fate of millions or billions". Fortunately the plight of those individual animals back then had ultimately got its attention, and animal torture is a crime today.

jhbadger 8y ago
You are missing the point that in order to save species, often individual animals need to be killed. Even in the modern era of DNA sequencing, museum collections tell us much about animals and even work as a sort of time machine for sequencing. I recently went to a seminar about a project that was studying the microbiomes from the gut contents of 19th century preserved animals in order to see if they were different from modern ones. This will help us know to what degree the greater human impact in the 21st century is affecting the health of wildlife. If people hadn't collected animals in the 19th century how could we do this? How will people in the future do the same if we don't collect animals now?
- trhway 8y ago
  take any nightmarish atrocity and torture committed by people against other people or animals, and you'll always find a logical and reasonable rationale for it - at least held at the time by the people committing it.
  - jhbadger 8y ago
    Why exactly do you think people do wildlife research? Because they care about animals in a deep way. If endangered species get saved it will be through the result of their research. The true "atrocity" is the great extinction period we are going through.