6 ms·

Why would someone steal the world’s rarest water lily?

41 points by nsns 12y ago

_almosnow 12y ago
Because it's the world's rarest water lily.
- IbJacked 12y ago
  That was the exact same thing I thought after reading the title.
DiabloD3 12y ago
Because people are dicks. I know I'm going to get downvoted for stating this, but its the truth. People are dicks, and dicks do diskish things. The only thing you can do in life is to not be them.
- chc 12y ago
  Do you think you'll get downvoted because people disagreed with you, or because simply insulting the perpetrator is pointless and doesn't reveal anything about the motive? Because I think it's the second one.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    "doesn't reveal anything about the motive?" Semms misplaced. TLDR: Human nature. Nothing new to report.
    - chc 12y ago
      "Human nature" is neither an explanation nor a motive; it's a punt. I am also human, but I did not do this. I have been a dick now and then, but I never stole a rare water lily. These pseudo-pithy explanations are about as useful as answering the question "What causes things to fall when you drop them?" with "TLDR: It's natural that when you drop things, they fall. Nothing new to report." We all know that humans do lousy things, but there are usually specific reasons beyond "human nature" why they do them.
- disputin 12y ago
  I think you're on the right track, but "dicks" might be a little vague. Presumably some sort of delusion that they are special for possessing something so rare. As if they've accomplished something.
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    I guess that there's the accomplishment of having managed to steal it? I did that when I was a teen - stole game CDs, went home, copied them with this incredibly clunky single speed cd writer I had bought as defective (it wasn't defective, you just had to basically build the whole PC around it for it to not underrun the buffer), put them back in the boxes. At the time, you were cooler if you managed to "procure" stuff, rather than having to buy it. I eventually got caught (funny enough, when "returning" a disc, not when stealing it), the shop's owner had me do some chores for him for a couple months as punishment, this eventually turned into my first job because I picked up the putting together of desktops very quickly. Northern Italy, mid 90s. I wonder what'd happen in the US today.
- wernercd 12y ago
  I can't believe you said that... what a dick.
jcoder 12y ago
> At the time, Kew possessed virtually the entire planet’s population of Nymphaea thermarum. If preservation is the goal, maybe the plants ought to be spread around a bit. Sounds like the theft could be a net gain for the species (shrug)
sfk 12y ago
Synopsis: The plant is endangered, but we like it that way, since we control the IP.
- arjie 12y ago
  It seems it isn't that simple. It looks like wild plant conservation lacks funds, and that the operation of saving a plant from extinction is hard. To the thief it doesn't matter if he sells the last lily on the planet for $10k. That's $10k he wouldn't otherwise have. And he has no particular interest in selling to a conservationist. It doesn't matter to him if the plant dies. However, in general, we care. We want to preserve these plants for their own sake. But thieves don't. There is a strong feedback loop: the fewer of a plant there is, the better the gain from stealing. That's bad for us, since we want more plants, not fewer.
RexRollman 12y ago
Because humans.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
vacri 12y ago
The article isn't "question in title, answer in article", it's "set scene in title, story in article". It's not a FAQ.
aaron695 12y ago
This is pretty much a high art theft. Sure, people taking advantage of openness of displays of high art aren't cool, as perhaps some sort of oceans eleven, steal from a rich person who keeps it locked up kinda Hollywood way. But the only way to save species now, is stopping more habitat destruction. I do like high art, it does look pretty and while it's not commercially available the conservatory does hold a unique exhibit which makes life interesting. But don't confuse it with saving the world.
tomohawk 12y ago
It seems absurd that they actually think that by essentially prohibiting trade that they're going to make these plants more abundant.
PeterisP 12y ago
The article mentions the actual reason for the theft multiple times, and still seems to not notice it - they have had many collectors requesting to purchase seeds, but they have refused to release any due to bureaucratic reasons. Plants aren't artwork that's supposed to be unique, and most plants aren't animals that are hard and slow to breed, and have a limited number of offspring - if you have an endangered species, and there are seeds left remaining after they've sent them to the relevant seed banks and interested scientific institutions (as they had done), then you should distribute them. The current policies on endangered species, as described in the article, seem to prohibit this. Such policies are simply evil and broken - either by design or accident - and they should be changed, otherwise they simply facilitate extinction of such species. There is no reason why Kew gardens should be prohibited from selling the seeds/saplings to any interested collector at a price appropriate to the rarity and the limited supply. It would reduce incentives to employ thieves, as any collector can simply obtain the species legally, and it would produce revenue relevant to funding further maintenance of such species in Kew gardens.

41 points by nsns 12y ago

_almosnow 12y ago

Because it's the world's rarest water lily.

IbJacked 12y ago
That was the exact same thing I thought after reading the title.

DiabloD3 12y ago

Because people are dicks. I know I'm going to get downvoted for stating this, but its the truth. People are dicks, and dicks do diskish things. The only thing you can do in life is to not be them.

chc 12y ago
Do you think you'll get downvoted because people disagreed with you, or because simply insulting the perpetrator is pointless and doesn't reveal anything about the motive? Because I think it's the second one.
- 001sky 12y ago
  "doesn't reveal anything about the motive?" Semms misplaced. TLDR: Human nature. Nothing new to report.
  - chc 12y ago
    "Human nature" is neither an explanation nor a motive; it's a punt. I am also human, but I did not do this. I have been a dick now and then, but I never stole a rare water lily. These pseudo-pithy explanations are about as useful as answering the question "What causes things to fall when you drop them?" with "TLDR: It's natural that when you drop things, they fall. Nothing new to report." We all know that humans do lousy things, but there are usually specific reasons beyond "human nature" why they do them.
disputin 12y ago
I think you're on the right track, but "dicks" might be a little vague. Presumably some sort of delusion that they are special for possessing something so rare. As if they've accomplished something.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  I guess that there's the accomplishment of having managed to steal it? I did that when I was a teen - stole game CDs, went home, copied them with this incredibly clunky single speed cd writer I had bought as defective (it wasn't defective, you just had to basically build the whole PC around it for it to not underrun the buffer), put them back in the boxes. At the time, you were cooler if you managed to "procure" stuff, rather than having to buy it. I eventually got caught (funny enough, when "returning" a disc, not when stealing it), the shop's owner had me do some chores for him for a couple months as punishment, this eventually turned into my first job because I picked up the putting together of desktops very quickly. Northern Italy, mid 90s. I wonder what'd happen in the US today.
wernercd 12y ago
I can't believe you said that... what a dick.

jcoder 12y ago

> At the time, Kew possessed virtually the entire planet’s population of Nymphaea thermarum. If preservation is the goal, maybe the plants ought to be spread around a bit. Sounds like the theft could be a net gain for the species (shrug)

sfk 12y ago

Synopsis: The plant is endangered, but we like it that way, since we control the IP.

arjie 12y ago
It seems it isn't that simple. It looks like wild plant conservation lacks funds, and that the operation of saving a plant from extinction is hard. To the thief it doesn't matter if he sells the last lily on the planet for $10k. That's $10k he wouldn't otherwise have. And he has no particular interest in selling to a conservationist. It doesn't matter to him if the plant dies. However, in general, we care. We want to preserve these plants for their own sake. But thieves don't. There is a strong feedback loop: the fewer of a plant there is, the better the gain from stealing. That's bad for us, since we want more plants, not fewer.

RexRollman 12y ago

Because humans.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

vacri 12y ago

The article isn't "question in title, answer in article", it's "set scene in title, story in article". It's not a FAQ.

aaron695 12y ago

This is pretty much a high art theft. Sure, people taking advantage of openness of displays of high art aren't cool, as perhaps some sort of oceans eleven, steal from a rich person who keeps it locked up kinda Hollywood way. But the only way to save species now, is stopping more habitat destruction. I do like high art, it does look pretty and while it's not commercially available the conservatory does hold a unique exhibit which makes life interesting. But don't confuse it with saving the world.

tomohawk 12y ago

It seems absurd that they actually think that by essentially prohibiting trade that they're going to make these plants more abundant.

PeterisP 12y ago

The article mentions the actual reason for the theft multiple times, and still seems to not notice it - they have had many collectors requesting to purchase seeds, but they have refused to release any due to bureaucratic reasons. Plants aren't artwork that's supposed to be unique, and most plants aren't animals that are hard and slow to breed, and have a limited number of offspring - if you have an endangered species, and there are seeds left remaining after they've sent them to the relevant seed banks and interested scientific institutions (as they had done), then you should distribute them. The current policies on endangered species, as described in the article, seem to prohibit this. Such policies are simply evil and broken - either by design or accident - and they should be changed, otherwise they simply facilitate extinction of such species. There is no reason why Kew gardens should be prohibited from selling the seeds/saplings to any interested collector at a price appropriate to the rarity and the limited supply. It would reduce incentives to employ thieves, as any collector can simply obtain the species legally, and it would produce revenue relevant to funding further maintenance of such species in Kew gardens.