3 ms·

I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted. Nor do I accept the premise that man is somehow unnatural. A

I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted. Nor do I accept the premise that man is somehow unnatural. All things, including men, obey the laws of thermodynamics. There is no problem with man changing the course of nature. Why not release some white tigers and actually see how they evolve, instead of simply assuming that they won't thrive?

manojlds 14y ago
Where is the assumption? How will a tiger that can be easily spotted, is cross eyed and has problems including kidney failure supposed to survive in the wild?
- maxharris 14y ago
  From an evolutionary standpoint, all that matters is that the tiger is able to reproduce. If it isn't, an attempt to introduce the breed somewhere will fail. No big deal. ...unless you hold the tiger in your mind in the same way you would your own house cat. But that's warped, because a house cat can't and won't eat you. I still think the claims of all these problems with captive tigers are overblown. Animals in the wild have plenty of health problems. The difference is that there aren't nearly as many people scrutinizing and treating them.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    …a house cat can't and won't eat you… Never say never: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1922/will-cats-eat-their-owners http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1922/will-cats-eat-...
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    Suitable habitat is a limited resource. It might be a big deal wasting it on white tigers (or it might be a big deal wasting the political energy required to do the reintroduction on doomed animals).
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 14y ago
    Except there are plenty of healthy wild animals and zero healthy white tigers. So, in the wild ALL white tigers are unable to survive long enough to reproduce.
theshadow 14y ago
Did you read the article? It clearly states that the "species" is unstable, prone to health problems and has major reproductive issues. What do you expect is going to happen if they are in the wild?
- simonsarris 14y ago
  Well, that's true of a lot of dog breeds, especially ones with very long or very short noses. Massive reproductive issues and would not survive in the wild. French bulldogs have to be almost exclusively birthed by C-section, because their heads are so big, and the females typically need to be inseminated by artificial insemination, because the males have a very hard time mounting females. But they're very popular and widespread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Bulldog#Health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Bulldog#Health
  - lazerwalker 14y ago
    Yes, but dogs are domesticated animals we enjoy keeping as pets, not untamed wild animals we're discussing releasing into natural environments.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      Also, while some dog breeds are indeed endangered (or newly extinct) on the verge of extinction[1], many are dramatically overpopulated beyond sustainable proportions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahltan_Bear_Dog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahltan_Bear_Dog [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_dog_breeds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_dog_breeds
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    But nobody is saying "We are breeding these wolves that have been led down a genetic path that makes them unable to survive without man's help to save the wolves in the wild". It is also highly unlikely that any dog breeding programs are taking any resources away from wolf conservation, but that is exactly what is happening in the white tiger case.
antidaily 14y ago
nuff said http://cdn.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/inbred-white-tiger-kenny-2.jpg http://cdn.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/inb...
mscarborough 14y ago
Release them where? And to "thrive" like the general tiger population? Nothing in this article posits the premises you argue against.
pavanky 14y ago
> I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted. That is not what the author is pointing to at all! Nothing even remotely close to it. > There is no problem with man changing the course of nature. Of course not, look at all the dogs we have. Not many have issues with it. But some of the breeds are just bred for humans to go "awww", that we do not consider how many of these breeds have high risk of disease and death. > Why not release some white tigers and actually see how they evolve, instead of simply assuming that they won't thrive? There are already 4000 tigers in the wild. The author is not asking for planned execution, but to put an end to the inbreeding programs disguised as "conservation efforts". Also the gene in the wild for thousands of years before humans started breeding them selectively. And that gene did not win out the evolutionary race.
wpietri 14y ago
Why in the would we introduce an artificial species to compete with existing endangered species in a shrinking ecosystem?
bluedanieru 14y ago
>I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted. Nor do I accept the premise that man is somehow unnatural. I accept both, and especially the second, but I'm not anti-human or anything. It's just that we have really, really, rocketed past the rest of life on Earth, evolutionarily speaking. We destroy species, entire ecosystems, accidentally with little effort and often without even noticing until after the fact, if we notice at all. We are probably within the next 100-500 years going to reach a point where the existence of other life on Earth is not necessary for our survival. We have already passed the point where we can kill off most of it, perhaps all. So, I don't know if you could say we have a "responsibility" to other life on Earth (although I tend to think we do), but, if we want to keep it around in anything resembling its current form, we do have to consider ourselves as apart from it in some sense. If we engage the rest of life on Earth as equals, we will likely kill most or all of it off, because there really is no contest.

manojlds 14y ago

Where is the assumption? How will a tiger that can be easily spotted, is cross eyed and has problems including kidney failure supposed to survive in the wild?

maxharris 14y ago
From an evolutionary standpoint, all that matters is that the tiger is able to reproduce. If it isn't, an attempt to introduce the breed somewhere will fail. No big deal. ...unless you hold the tiger in your mind in the same way you would your own house cat. But that's warped, because a house cat can't and won't eat you. I still think the claims of all these problems with captive tigers are overblown. Animals in the wild have plenty of health problems. The difference is that there aren't nearly as many people scrutinizing and treating them.
- gojomo 14y ago
  …a house cat can't and won't eat you… Never say never: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1922/will-cats-eat-their-owners http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1922/will-cats-eat-...
- maxerickson 14y ago
  Suitable habitat is a limited resource. It might be a big deal wasting it on white tigers (or it might be a big deal wasting the political energy required to do the reintroduction on doomed animals).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 14y ago
  Except there are plenty of healthy wild animals and zero healthy white tigers. So, in the wild ALL white tigers are unable to survive long enough to reproduce.

theshadow 14y ago

Did you read the article? It clearly states that the "species" is unstable, prone to health problems and has major reproductive issues. What do you expect is going to happen if they are in the wild?

simonsarris 14y ago
Well, that's true of a lot of dog breeds, especially ones with very long or very short noses. Massive reproductive issues and would not survive in the wild. French bulldogs have to be almost exclusively birthed by C-section, because their heads are so big, and the females typically need to be inseminated by artificial insemination, because the males have a very hard time mounting females. But they're very popular and widespread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Bulldog#Health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Bulldog#Health
- lazerwalker 14y ago
  Yes, but dogs are domesticated animals we enjoy keeping as pets, not untamed wild animals we're discussing releasing into natural environments.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    Also, while some dog breeds are indeed endangered (or newly extinct) on the verge of extinction[1], many are dramatically overpopulated beyond sustainable proportions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahltan_Bear_Dog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahltan_Bear_Dog [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_dog_breeds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_dog_breeds
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  But nobody is saying "We are breeding these wolves that have been led down a genetic path that makes them unable to survive without man's help to save the wolves in the wild". It is also highly unlikely that any dog breeding programs are taking any resources away from wolf conservation, but that is exactly what is happening in the white tiger case.

antidaily 14y ago

nuff said http://cdn.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/inbred-white-tiger-kenny-2.jpg http://cdn.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/inb...

mscarborough 14y ago

Release them where? And to "thrive" like the general tiger population? Nothing in this article posits the premises you argue against.

pavanky 14y ago

> I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted. That is not what the author is pointing to at all! Nothing even remotely close to it. > There is no problem with man changing the course of nature. Of course not, look at all the dogs we have. Not many have issues with it. But some of the breeds are just bred for humans to go "awww", that we do not consider how many of these breeds have high risk of disease and death. > Why not release some white tigers and actually see how they evolve, instead of simply assuming that they won't thrive? There are already 4000 tigers in the wild. The author is not asking for planned execution, but to put an end to the inbreeding programs disguised as "conservation efforts". Also the gene in the wild for thousands of years before humans started breeding them selectively. And that gene did not win out the evolutionary race.

wpietri 14y ago

Why in the would we introduce an artificial species to compete with existing endangered species in a shrinking ecosystem?

bluedanieru 14y ago

>I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted. Nor do I accept the premise that man is somehow unnatural. I accept both, and especially the second, but I'm not anti-human or anything. It's just that we have really, really, rocketed past the rest of life on Earth, evolutionarily speaking. We destroy species, entire ecosystems, accidentally with little effort and often without even noticing until after the fact, if we notice at all. We are probably within the next 100-500 years going to reach a point where the existence of other life on Earth is not necessary for our survival. We have already passed the point where we can kill off most of it, perhaps all. So, I don't know if you could say we have a "responsibility" to other life on Earth (although I tend to think we do), but, if we want to keep it around in anything resembling its current form, we do have to consider ourselves as apart from it in some sense. If we engage the rest of life on Earth as equals, we will likely kill most or all of it off, because there really is no contest.