4 ms·

I never understand these arguments. You mean mastodon home,surely? They were there before bears! How about pterodactyl? How far do we go / where do we arbitra

I never understand these arguments. You mean mastodon home,surely? They were there before bears! How about pterodactyl? How far do we go / where do we arbitrarily draw the line? I am all for ecology, preservation, being in sync with nature etc, but I find fundamentally flawed and dishonest arguments like these don't contribute to the cause. Over billions of years, every single species alive displaced some other species, multiple times over.

generic92034 3y ago
> Over billions of years, every single species alive displaced some other species, multiple times over. I can mostly agree with the rest of your points. But how many species are killing off thousands of other species in such a short time frame?
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  And that's absolutely an argument I will support! and very much do care about. It's just a fundamentally different argument to "Well clearly, arbitrary species A here at some arbitrary time B is the natural and morally right owner of these lands".
  - generic92034 3y ago
    As long as this is not seen as justification to displace any other species just when we feel like it (because they probably displaced some other species), I can agree.
  - digging 3y ago
    Were bears completely extinct in the area and reintroduced from elsewhere? If not, there's no arbitrary line being drawn whatsoever. It's currently bear habitat.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    > "Well clearly, arbitrary species A here at some arbitrary time B is the natural and morally right owner of these lands". Which is not what the person you replied to said. I read it as "bears were there first, don't be surprised when you move there and find bears".
mlyle 3y ago
I think he's just saying that if you move in somewhere where there were lots of bears.... don't be surprised when bears show up and are annoying.
- Rinzler89 3y ago
  This. I just said humans should not complain about bear issues when they settle in bear territory. Don't know why others need to get their knickers in a twist.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The "surprise“ comes from the fact this was historically a solved problem. People simply killed the annoying predators and nuisance animals. We are in a transition state of cultural values and expectations. People expect to being free from annoyances because that was the norm for hundreds if not thousands of years. The rules have changed around how we treat animals, but people have not internalized all the resulting impacts. For what it is worth, there are still lots of places, even in the US, where the old solution is still in effect.
  - rsdfdfdfdf 3y ago
    Historically there were much less humans, and more wilderness for animals. Applying the historical solutions in modern day would mean extinction of species in many places.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      That may be true for some species, and not others. However, I was not attempting an appeal to history, just providing explanation. After all, historically, most people did not care about the extinction of many species, or even thought their eradication was a benefit.
mixmastamyk 3y ago
While I’d probably vote to shoo the bears, I don’t think the argument is particularly hard to understand. Like the folks who build their house at the bottom of a flood plain or fire area and then demand help for ensuing disaster.
keiferski 3y ago
The point of this argument is to compare humans with animals they replaced, not animals with other animals, because the assumption is that we, as humans, are ethically capable of engaging with this kind of question in the first place. I don't think anyone is arguing that "the land belongs to the bears and no one else."
dylan604 3y ago
> where do we arbitrarily draw the line? clearly, a line is if both species are alive at the same time and competing for resources. we don't have do be moronic/sophomoric about the discourse.

generic92034 3y ago

> Over billions of years, every single species alive displaced some other species, multiple times over. I can mostly agree with the rest of your points. But how many species are killing off thousands of other species in such a short time frame?

NikolaNovak 3y ago
And that's absolutely an argument I will support! and very much do care about. It's just a fundamentally different argument to "Well clearly, arbitrary species A here at some arbitrary time B is the natural and morally right owner of these lands".
- generic92034 3y ago
  As long as this is not seen as justification to displace any other species just when we feel like it (because they probably displaced some other species), I can agree.
- digging 3y ago
  Were bears completely extinct in the area and reintroduced from elsewhere? If not, there's no arbitrary line being drawn whatsoever. It's currently bear habitat.
- kelnos 3y ago
  > "Well clearly, arbitrary species A here at some arbitrary time B is the natural and morally right owner of these lands". Which is not what the person you replied to said. I read it as "bears were there first, don't be surprised when you move there and find bears".

mlyle 3y ago

I think he's just saying that if you move in somewhere where there were lots of bears.... don't be surprised when bears show up and are annoying.

Rinzler89 3y ago
This. I just said humans should not complain about bear issues when they settle in bear territory. Don't know why others need to get their knickers in a twist.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
The "surprise“ comes from the fact this was historically a solved problem. People simply killed the annoying predators and nuisance animals. We are in a transition state of cultural values and expectations. People expect to being free from annoyances because that was the norm for hundreds if not thousands of years. The rules have changed around how we treat animals, but people have not internalized all the resulting impacts. For what it is worth, there are still lots of places, even in the US, where the old solution is still in effect.
- rsdfdfdfdf 3y ago
  Historically there were much less humans, and more wilderness for animals. Applying the historical solutions in modern day would mean extinction of species in many places.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    That may be true for some species, and not others. However, I was not attempting an appeal to history, just providing explanation. After all, historically, most people did not care about the extinction of many species, or even thought their eradication was a benefit.

mixmastamyk 3y ago

While I’d probably vote to shoo the bears, I don’t think the argument is particularly hard to understand. Like the folks who build their house at the bottom of a flood plain or fire area and then demand help for ensuing disaster.

keiferski 3y ago

The point of this argument is to compare humans with animals they replaced, not animals with other animals, because the assumption is that we, as humans, are ethically capable of engaging with this kind of question in the first place. I don't think anyone is arguing that "the land belongs to the bears and no one else."

dylan604 3y ago

> where do we arbitrarily draw the line? clearly, a line is if both species are alive at the same time and competing for resources. we don't have do be moronic/sophomoric about the discourse.