4 ms·
It makes me sad that laying out the economic benefits of wildlife conservation is even necessary. This is interesting. But why can’t we conserve wolves just bec
by elliekelly 5y ago
It makes me sad that laying out the economic benefits of wildlife conservation is even necessary. This is interesting. But why can’t we conserve wolves just because? Why do we need to point to the economics of it? Are they not worth conserving unless they help the bottom line?
- gruez 5y ago>But why can’t we conserve wolves just because? evidently not, otherwise there wouldn't be endangered species. >Why do we need to point to the economics of it? Are they not worth conserving unless they help the bottom line? to get all the non-conservationists on board.
- Grakel 5y agoWe do put money and effort into protecting them just because. But committees sit around and think, "here's a way we can further justify and generate some press." How much human effort is wasted by group politics and general shrugging?
- eggsmediumrare 5y agoConsidering your comment is greyed out (or at least was), I supposed the answer to your last question, for some people, must be yes. I suspect it legitimately doesn't occur to some people that conservation need not be an economic activity.
- wpietri 5y agoWe can. And personally, I think we should. But these economic arguments are very useful for convincing people who don't share that value.
- eropple 5y agoI dunno. More and more it strikes me that people "moved by economic arguments" are in truth having already decided their position and work backwards to justify it.
- wpietri 5y agoIt's a mix for sure. Rich sociopaths and would-be rich sociopaths definitely love econ-style arguments for a whole bunch of reasons. But for people who are more technocratic, it can be handy. "X is better and cheaper" can be powerful. Of course, we live in an age where the nominally "fiscally responsible" people show declining interest in intellectual consistency and coherence, so maybe this argument is moving into the "elegant weapon for a more civilized age" category.
- klyrs 5y ago> But why can’t we conserve wolves just because? Because that isn't how [highly polarized] democracies work. The fact that environmentalists are aghast is a bonus for those in favor of wolf culls. But, even those politicians think with their wallets. Wolves aren't going to get out the vote. In reality, this is going to come down to how politicians personally feel about wolves, and how persuasive rancher, livestock insurance and car insurance lobbies are in making their respective cases.
- _emacsomancer_ 5y agoMultiple positive outcomes never hurt a case. In general, conservation often has other supporting factors - the failure to preserve ecosystems can have numerous knock-on negative effects for human populations.
- trynumber9 5y agoBecause wolves are assholes. Following the reintroduction of wolves to the area numerous people, including my neighbors, reported lost dogs. The state DNR takes forever to investigate and always concludes that it wasn't a wolf, of course, it is a mere coincidence.
- greedo 5y agoCould be coyotes. Coyotes are much more comfortable around humans, and routinely take pets.
- trynumber9 5y agoCoyotes have been here for a long time. It could be but what a magnificent co-incidence it was.
- greedo 5y agoCoyotes have become much more brazen in the last 40 years, as the suburbs have expanded so much, creating lucrative hunting grounds for them. Same with trash pandas. Some biologists actually think that wolves would help keep coyotes in check, but the odds of their populations reaching a size where they could have an effect is slim.