Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
I'm ok with killing humans but not animals
ERROR_HUMANS_ARE_ANIMALS
-
@mikehurley looks like what I feared could happen, and what @topspin berated me for even considering whether such thing could happen, is actually happening.
-
@TimeBandit said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
I'm ok with killing humans but not animals
ERROR_HUMANS_ARE_ANIMALS
class Human extends Animal { override bool isOkayToKill() { return true; } }
-
@boomzilla said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Eat the Tigers!
(http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0509/stossel051309.php3)
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska That assumes both that this is the case
If it's not the case, then the answer is simple. But I doubt that any large predator could go from tens of thousands to just tens and not leave an impact on its surrounding environment for several decades. But maybe I'm wrong.
and that the ecosystem is stable now
It never is. But large actions cause large reactions. And a large predator going (almost) extinct is a large action.
But it can take a far larger time scale to adapt to “complete loss of large predator” in a way that, e.g. the resulting over-abundance of boas isn’t still causing massive further damage, even if there’s already been a large reaction. (You’ve said that below)
Yes, but the humanity is reintroducing so many species right now that the probability of there being not a single species anywhere that their former environment hasn't fully rebalanced itself after loss seems very close to zero.
(and again, desert wasteland is also stable)
Why do you assume the goal is to have stability? The goal is to have lots and lots and lots and lots of resources - including wild animals.
Agreed (if I ignore calling wild animals resources).
Are they not?
Only if you think of humans as resources, too.
Humans have souls, animals don't.
You're trolling, right?
Only a little. If you're asking whether I believe that humans are fundamentally different than animals, I do.
There's your problem.
What problem?
The problem of "humans have souls, animals don't".
It's just that the best way to have lots of wild animals is to not touch anything. At least that's my understanding.
Agreed. And attempts at preservation of wildlife are usually just that: creating environments with less external disturbance or stopping further destruction.
There's preservation, and there's restoration. Preservation I can understand - but restoration (like reintroduction of already (almost) extict species) is much harder for me to reconcile with the philosophy of "we shouldn't touch anything at all because even one additional/removed species can cause an environmental catastrophe that will turn the land into wasteland for decades to come".
There's a big difference for me between "restoration" in the Jurassic Park sense and in the sense of we've been eradicating this once large population of tigers across the continent, and now are trying to not let them go extinct completely. "Preservation" and "restoration" go hand in hand in there.
The only difference between this and Jurassic Park is time scale. I don't know the usual timespan after which one can say that the environment has fully rebalanced, and I don't know how long it took for tigers to get reintroduced in sizeable numbers after they were (almost) eradicated, or the hundreds of other species that have been (are being) reintroduced after being (almost) completely gone, but is the time passed always being taken into consideration by every major wildlife protection organization before they start a new reintroduction program? I never heard of it ever being discussed - of course it doesn't mean at all that they definitely don't do that; it's just that I don't have any basis to say that they do. And that seems to be a very important factor for determining consequences of reintroduction.
Jurassic Park is on the order of millions of years, where "adaption" means species have mutated to completely different things, among others. This is on the order of maybe a century, where "adaption" only means things like moving to different areas or more overpopulation by species formerly being prey.
Or does it? I've heard of cases where the local environment changed drastically in just a few decades due to human interference.
Was there any study that determined that "point of contention" (for lack of better term) is longer than 100 years? Because if not, I wouldn't be so sure about assuming that.
The change is ongoing, and it's possible the change is going towards total extinction of everything. And doing something, like restoring a species that has used to live there in the past, might prevent that outcome. But how do we know whether the ecosystem is going that way? And how do we know whether reintroduction of species won't cause the already-changed-a-little environment to go even worse? Serious questions.
We can’t know that for sure.
And doesn't the rule of "when in doubt, don't touch" apply here as well?
Depends on how unsure you are, really.
And how unsure are the scientists in charge of the current reintroduction programs? Serious question.
But anyways, "don't touch" would most likely mean no effort at preservation, either
Most of preservation is about not letting any humans interfere with nature. National parks, forest preserves, deindustrialization, emissions control... It's all about minimizing the human influence on nature. "Don't touch" means A LOT of preservation, not zero.
That's a good thing.
I don't quite follow. You said something, I said you're completely wrong, and now you say "that's a good thing"... Are you saying that it's good that I corrected you, or that it's good that preservation happens, or what?
The preservation measures are a good thing.
Well, that goes without saying. Especially since we've both said that some 50 posts ago.
If preservation of nature is mainly done through interfering with nature... that just raises more questions.
There's already been massive interference. Undoing just a tiny bit may be necessary before you can leave it back to its own.
And we're back to square one - how do we know (or how do we estimate chances) that the environment that suffered from massive interference, needs even more interference before leaving it alone?
If there's like 5 tigers left, that's not enough of a population to survive on its own. Boost it high enough to not go extinct, then you can leave it alone.
So are we preserving tigers first, or are we preserving the entire rest of the environment first? If we are preserving environment first, then how was it determined that reintroducing tigers will be beneficial and not even more detrimental?
Why? Because it's just undoing some of the damage.
To use a poor analogy, if I smashed a car door with a hammer so badly that the lock doesn't work anymore, it's unlikely that hammering the door from the other side will fix it.
And repairing might fix it. Not all "interference" is equal, killing animals isn't the same as raising animals, so hammering isn't a very good analogy.
How do scientists know that more interference (because reintroduction is interference) will result in less damage to the entire environment than less interference (because no reintroduction means is no interference)?
Of course, if you don't agree with the goal of not letting them go extinct while there's still a chance to do that, your conclusions may vary.
I agree with the goal of preserving nature and the diversity of species, in as large areas/quantities as possible. Nothing in this statements implies we should preserve every single species in the world and reintroduce every single extinct/endangered one. Quite the opposite - it's certainly possible that reintroduction done badly can upset the natural balance even more, especially if it's about reintroducing species that went (almost) extinct naturally, which, to my knowledge, is done just as often as reintroduction of species killed off by humans. That's why I have concerns about reintroduction - because it sounds very much like artificially replanning natural environments, which has been shown time and time again to have very dire consequences. I have concerns about reintroduction because I care about the environment.
I'm perfectly okay with and even support reintroduction done right. But after this discussion with you, I'm still not the least bit more confident than I was before.
and won't stop others from "touching" the rest of the population, i.e. just watching them go extinct.
By others, do you mean other humans, or natural processes? If humans, see above. If natural processes... why exactly do we want to stop natural processes from doing their work?
Two things: 1) the reintroduction of the wolf example above is happening naturally (see the B*****m post), not artificially, so it’s not interference.
At the time I posted those things, I was under impression it's done artificially. But IIRC tigers are reintroduced artificially - as well as many other species?
The wolf discussion I'm pretty sure that (currently) that's a no. Tigers may be artificially, but even then it's done in a way that's arguably necessary to even hope to achieve preservation.
Preservation of what? Tigers? The environment they used to live in?
Those are interconnected.
Not since the tigers were gone.
The environment that technically is gone by now but we have fond memories of it so we want to change its replacement to better resemble what it was like before?
What's the goal of preservation? To prevent environmental disaster, or to conserve the nature in unchanged form against all odds?
To preserve nature and the diversity of species, in as large areas/quantities as possible.
And is the nature, if left alone, capable of taking care of that all by itself?
Depends on how damaged it already is. If it looks like Mars, then no.
Desert wasteland, Jurassic Park, Mars... why are all your examples absurd extremes? Why won't you talk about our world, about places that were heavily influenced by humans but that still have some wildlands left, about places where reintroduction is actually happening? We're not going to have any animals on Mars in foreseeable future, so talking about Mars is absolutely pointless. Indian rainforests, on the other hand, would make a very interesting conversation.
Because you're asking loaded questions to get the answer you want when answered indiscriminately. You'll take an answer of "it could work when left alone" as absolute to mean "then this is the only thing that must ever be done". Notice how there were two sentences following that did talk about progressively less damaged environments.
In our world there's "some wildlife left", but it's already quite diminished, and the point of preservation is to not let it go to those extremes.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin and since this "good thing" line turned out to be non sequitur. Do you still maintain that "don't touch" approach to preservation would mean no preservation happening at all?
No, that's just a different interpretation of those words.
I can call "I don't care about anything and won't do anything" (including no preservation) "don't touch". I can also call "create a wildlife reservation where humans aren't allowed to interfere" "don't touch". Since we're agreeing on the later being positive and I've called it out as such, I'm not sure why you're going on with that.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska That assumes both that this is the case
If it's not the case, then the answer is simple. But I doubt that any large predator could go from tens of thousands to just tens and not leave an impact on its surrounding environment for several decades. But maybe I'm wrong.
and that the ecosystem is stable now
It never is. But large actions cause large reactions. And a large predator going (almost) extinct is a large action.
But it can take a far larger time scale to adapt to “complete loss of large predator” in a way that, e.g. the resulting over-abundance of boas isn’t still causing massive further damage, even if there’s already been a large reaction. (You’ve said that below)
Yes, but the humanity is reintroducing so many species right now that the probability of there being not a single species anywhere that their former environment hasn't fully rebalanced itself after loss seems very close to zero.
(and again, desert wasteland is also stable)
Why do you assume the goal is to have stability? The goal is to have lots and lots and lots and lots of resources - including wild animals.
Agreed (if I ignore calling wild animals resources).
Are they not?
Only if you think of humans as resources, too.
Humans have souls, animals don't.
You're trolling, right?
Only a little. If you're asking whether I believe that humans are fundamentally different than animals, I do.
There's your problem.
What problem?
The problem of "humans have souls, animals don't".
How is this a problem?
It's just that the best way to have lots of wild animals is to not touch anything. At least that's my understanding.
Agreed. And attempts at preservation of wildlife are usually just that: creating environments with less external disturbance or stopping further destruction.
There's preservation, and there's restoration. Preservation I can understand - but restoration (like reintroduction of already (almost) extict species) is much harder for me to reconcile with the philosophy of "we shouldn't touch anything at all because even one additional/removed species can cause an environmental catastrophe that will turn the land into wasteland for decades to come".
There's a big difference for me between "restoration" in the Jurassic Park sense and in the sense of we've been eradicating this once large population of tigers across the continent, and now are trying to not let them go extinct completely. "Preservation" and "restoration" go hand in hand in there.
The only difference between this and Jurassic Park is time scale. I don't know the usual timespan after which one can say that the environment has fully rebalanced, and I don't know how long it took for tigers to get reintroduced in sizeable numbers after they were (almost) eradicated, or the hundreds of other species that have been (are being) reintroduced after being (almost) completely gone, but is the time passed always being taken into consideration by every major wildlife protection organization before they start a new reintroduction program? I never heard of it ever being discussed - of course it doesn't mean at all that they definitely don't do that; it's just that I don't have any basis to say that they do. And that seems to be a very important factor for determining consequences of reintroduction.
Jurassic Park is on the order of millions of years, where "adaption" means species have mutated to completely different things, among others. This is on the order of maybe a century, where "adaption" only means things like moving to different areas or more overpopulation by species formerly being prey.
Or does it? I've heard of cases where the local environment changed drastically in just a few decades due to human interference.
Was there any study that determined that "point of contention" (for lack of better term) is longer than 100 years? Because if not, I wouldn't be so sure about assuming that.
The change is ongoing, and it's possible the change is going towards total extinction of everything. And doing something, like restoring a species that has used to live there in the past, might prevent that outcome. But how do we know whether the ecosystem is going that way? And how do we know whether reintroduction of species won't cause the already-changed-a-little environment to go even worse? Serious questions.
We can’t know that for sure.
And doesn't the rule of "when in doubt, don't touch" apply here as well?
Depends on how unsure you are, really.
And how unsure are the scientists in charge of the current reintroduction programs? Serious question.
But anyways, "don't touch" would most likely mean no effort at preservation, either
Most of preservation is about not letting any humans interfere with nature. National parks, forest preserves, deindustrialization, emissions control... It's all about minimizing the human influence on nature. "Don't touch" means A LOT of preservation, not zero.
That's a good thing.
I don't quite follow. You said something, I said you're completely wrong, and now you say "that's a good thing"... Are you saying that it's good that I corrected you, or that it's good that preservation happens, or what?
The preservation measures are a good thing.
Well, that goes without saying. Especially since we've both said that some 50 posts ago.
If preservation of nature is mainly done through interfering with nature... that just raises more questions.
There's already been massive interference. Undoing just a tiny bit may be necessary before you can leave it back to its own.
And we're back to square one - how do we know (or how do we estimate chances) that the environment that suffered from massive interference, needs even more interference before leaving it alone?
If there's like 5 tigers left, that's not enough of a population to survive on its own. Boost it high enough to not go extinct, then you can leave it alone.
So are we preserving tigers first, or are we preserving the entire rest of the environment first? If we are preserving environment first, then how was it determined that reintroducing tigers will be beneficial and not even more detrimental?
Why? Because it's just undoing some of the damage.
To use a poor analogy, if I smashed a car door with a hammer so badly that the lock doesn't work anymore, it's unlikely that hammering the door from the other side will fix it.
And repairing might fix it.
"Might" doesn't sound too convincing. What happened to "when in doubt, don't"?
Not all "interference" is equal
Of course. But I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest this particular kind of interference is better than no interference.
killing animals isn't the same as raising animals,
Raising an animal - especially a large predator - has a consequence of killing other animals. That's the main reason why transplanting species to foreign habitats is considered a very bad idea.
so hammering isn't a very good analogy.
You've been warned.
How do scientists know that more interference (because reintroduction is interference) will result in less damage to the entire environment than less interference (because no reintroduction means is no interference)?
Of course, if you don't agree with the goal of not letting them go extinct while there's still a chance to do that, your conclusions may vary.
I agree with the goal of preserving nature and the diversity of species, in as large areas/quantities as possible. Nothing in this statements implies we should preserve every single species in the world and reintroduce every single extinct/endangered one. Quite the opposite - it's certainly possible that reintroduction done badly can upset the natural balance even more, especially if it's about reintroducing species that went (almost) extinct naturally, which, to my knowledge, is done just as often as reintroduction of species killed off by humans. That's why I have concerns about reintroduction - because it sounds very much like artificially replanning natural environments, which has been shown time and time again to have very dire consequences. I have concerns about reintroduction because I care about the environment.
I'm perfectly okay with and even support reintroduction done right. But after this discussion with you, I'm still not the least bit more confident than I was before.
and won't stop others from "touching" the rest of the population, i.e. just watching them go extinct.
By others, do you mean other humans, or natural processes? If humans, see above. If natural processes... why exactly do we want to stop natural processes from doing their work?
Two things: 1) the reintroduction of the wolf example above is happening naturally (see the B*****m post), not artificially, so it’s not interference.
At the time I posted those things, I was under impression it's done artificially. But IIRC tigers are reintroduced artificially - as well as many other species?
The wolf discussion I'm pretty sure that (currently) that's a no. Tigers may be artificially, but even then it's done in a way that's arguably necessary to even hope to achieve preservation.
Preservation of what? Tigers? The environment they used to live in?
Those are interconnected.
Not since the tigers were gone.
The environment that technically is gone by now but we have fond memories of it so we want to change its replacement to better resemble what it was like before?
What's the goal of preservation? To prevent environmental disaster, or to conserve the nature in unchanged form against all odds?
To preserve nature and the diversity of species, in as large areas/quantities as possible.
And is the nature, if left alone, capable of taking care of that all by itself?
Depends on how damaged it already is. If it looks like Mars, then no.
Desert wasteland, Jurassic Park, Mars... why are all your examples absurd extremes? Why won't you talk about our world, about places that were heavily influenced by humans but that still have some wildlands left, about places where reintroduction is actually happening? We're not going to have any animals on Mars in foreseeable future, so talking about Mars is absolutely pointless. Indian rainforests, on the other hand, would make a very interesting conversation.
Because you're asking loaded questions to get the answer you want when answered indiscriminately. You'll take an answer of "it could work when left alone" as absolute to mean "then this is the only thing that must ever be done".
No I wouldn't. I would make a new argument, separate from the one you're making, that it is the best thing to do in absence of more data.
Why are you so opposed to the idea of leaving it alone when leaving it alone could work?
Also, I would be perfectly happy with an answer like "look, such and such scientists are doing the reintroduction, they've made such and such analysis, and thanks to this analysis, they've figured out that this is indeed the best course of action". But instead I've got from you lots of handwaving and zero actual arguments.
Notice how there were two sentences following that did talk about progressively less damaged environments.
No tigers -> no tigers -> all tigers doesn't look very progressive. And coincidentally, all three are trivial cases where the answer is obvious (ie. there's nothing to learn from considering those examples).
In our world there's "some wildlife left", but it's already quite diminished, and the point of preservation is to not let it go to those extremes.
Exactly. And reintroducing a large predator into an ecosystem that has no place for a large predator might just push it into the extreme. I don't want the world - or even just India - to become barren wasteland.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin and since this "good thing" line turned out to be non sequitur. Do you still maintain that "don't touch" approach to preservation would mean no preservation happening at all?
No, that's just a different interpretation of those words.
I can call "I don't care about anything and won't do anything" (including no preservation) "don't touch". I can also call "create a wildlife reservation where humans aren't allowed to interfere" "don't touch". Since we're agreeing on the later being positive and I've called it out as such, I'm not sure why you're going on with that.I see. I'm just surprised that after all that I've said in this topic up to that point, you'd still think that I'd prefer all preservation efforts to stop altogether.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin and since this "good thing" line turned out to be non sequitur. Do you still maintain that "don't touch" approach to preservation would mean no preservation happening at all?
No, that's just a different interpretation of those words.
I can call "I don't care about anything and won't do anything" (including no preservation) "don't touch". I can also call "create a wildlife reservation where humans aren't allowed to interfere" "don't touch". Since we're agreeing on the later being positive and I've called it out as such, I'm not sure why you're going on with that.I see. I'm just surprised that after all that I've said in this topic up to that point, you'd still think that I'd prefer all preservation efforts to stop altogether.
Since you started off with "I never understood this whole protection of endangered species thing" and want to let endangered species die off instead, it was hard to assume otherwise. Preservation and letting them die off don't go well together.
-
@topspin apparently, you ignored the entire second half of my initial post. "So isn't it more of harm to keep those species alive at all cost than to just let them die off?"
-
@Polygeekery said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Polygeekery
In 'murica we's got figured it out - we kills'n eats 'em. Deer'n boar, them's good eatin'
?Basically, yes.
I’m Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and my other brother Darryl...
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin apparently, you ignored the entire second half of my initial post. "So isn't it more of harm to keep those species alive at all cost than to just let them die off?"
Creating preservation areas is part of keeping "those species alive", though, and not part of just letting them die off. Could just as well have meant that preservation areas are "more harm".
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin apparently, you ignored the entire second half of my initial post. "So isn't it more of harm to keep those species alive at all cost than to just let them die off?"
Creating preservation areas is part of keeping "those species alive", though, and not part of just letting them die off.
Depends on whether they're numerous enough to live on on their own or not. In context of reintroduction, it's implicitly assumed they're not (otherwise, why reintroduction?)
Could just as well have meant that preservation areas are "more harm".
Could I? Just what kind of harm would it be?
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin apparently, you ignored the entire second half of my initial post. "So isn't it more of harm to keep those species alive at all cost than to just let them die off?"
Creating preservation areas is part of keeping "those species alive", though, and not part of just letting them die off.
Depends on whether they're numerous enough to live on on their own or not. In context of reintroduction, it's implicitly assumed they're not (otherwise, why reintroduction?)
Could just as well have meant that preservation areas are "more harm".
Could I? Just what kind of harm would it be?
Hmm, is it going to be called a strawman if you actually ask me to make up arguments for you?
It costs money to create preservation areas. It restricts your "personal liberties" when you're not allowed to go there and do as you please. It prevents companies from using it as farm lands, mining resources, drilling for oil, whatever have you.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin apparently, you ignored the entire second half of my initial post. "So isn't it more of harm to keep those species alive at all cost than to just let them die off?"
Creating preservation areas is part of keeping "those species alive", though, and not part of just letting them die off.
Depends on whether they're numerous enough to live on on their own or not. In context of reintroduction, it's implicitly assumed they're not (otherwise, why reintroduction?)
Could just as well have meant that preservation areas are "more harm".
Could I? Just what kind of harm would it be?
Hmm, is it going to be called a strawman if you actually ask me to make up arguments for you?
I think you're safe.
It costs money to create preservation areas.
That's not really harm.
It restricts your "personal liberties" when you're not allowed to go there and do as you please.
Dangerous wild animals take care of that themselves.
It prevents companies from using it as farm lands, mining resources, drilling for oil, whatever have you.
In most cases, it doesn't, because nothing usable in there. Except maybe wood, but you can get a lot of that elsewhere.
If you weren't sure what I mean by harm, couldn't you just ask? And haven't all those later posts about protecting the environment and preservation vs. restoration clued you in that maybe I care about the environment after all?
-
@topspin and since you still haven't answered - what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin apparently, you ignored the entire second half of my initial post. "So isn't it more of harm to keep those species alive at all cost than to just let them die off?"
Creating preservation areas is part of keeping "those species alive", though, and not part of just letting them die off.
Depends on whether they're numerous enough to live on on their own or not. In context of reintroduction, it's implicitly assumed they're not (otherwise, why reintroduction?)
Could just as well have meant that preservation areas are "more harm".
Could I? Just what kind of harm would it be?
Hmm, is it going to be called a strawman if you actually ask me to make up arguments for you?
I think you're safe.
It costs money to create preservation areas.
That's not really harm.
Then why aren't there a lot more preservation areas.
It restricts your "personal liberties" when you're not allowed to go there and do as you please.
Dangerous wild animals take care of that themselves.
Last tiger, meet shotgun.
It prevents companies from using it as farm lands, mining resources, drilling for oil, whatever have you.
In most cases, it doesn't, because nothing usable in there. Except maybe wood, but you can get a lot of that elsewhere.
If you weren't sure what I mean by harm, couldn't you just ask? And haven't all those later posts about protecting the environment and preservation vs. restoration clued you in that maybe I care about the environment after all?
Do you care about endangered species, then? That still doesn't seem clear.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
Nothing.
Most humans don't earn my sympathy.
Most other animals do.
-
Somebody here is not taking into account that the destruction of habitats and the related extinction of species cause an avalanche-like chain of events that end up being worse for humans too. Like, economically worse too. Anyway, if we can destroy a habitat and cause a species to be endangered, I suppose we can also try to preserve habitats and also reintroduce species (or allow them to reproliferate. No big difference, it's still humans interacting with their environment, by inaction or by proaction). I don't see the issue. These things happen because people want them to happen (or try to). Is there any value in preserving panda populations? Apparently there is because, even without considering the implications of species going extinct, apparently we (not somebody in particular) also get all sad and teary-eyed when a species does go extinct.
Anyway I don't see an issue with being OK with killing humans in a game (the idea is that humans are our equals) and killing (other) animals (the idea is that it is an unfair match). It's a bit like killing military personnel and killing civilians. It's perfectly consistent. You may disagree with the idea that animals are unfairly matched against humans, but then discuss that.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin and since you still haven't answered - what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
Oh boy, should I answer this in the garage?
What's wrong with treating gingers different from real people?And before you take that too literal: Yes, I also eat non-human animal meat. I still consider animals, and especially endangered wildlife, to be more than resources.
-
Anyway @Gąska reminds me of the rebel chief in Demolition Man. The film ends with Stallone urging him to wash more.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin and since you still haven't answered - what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
Oh boy, should I answer this in the garage?
What's wrong with treating gingers different from real people?It violates gingers' (or other people's) human rights. Now, what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
And before you take that too literal: Yes, I also eat non-human animal meat.
Hey, it looks like you lied straight to my face! That, or you must really despise yourself. Or maybe you're a cannibal. Or maybe you don't consider universal and inalienable right to live an important enough difference to make a distinction.
-
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Anyway, if we can destroy a habitat and cause a species to be endangered, I suppose we can also try to preserve habitats and also reintroduce species (or allow them to reproliferate
Somebody here is not taking into account that artificial reshaping of habitats and the related extinction of other species cause an avalanche-like chain of events that end up being worse for humans too.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin and since you still haven't answered - what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
Oh boy, should I answer this in the garage?
What's wrong with treating gingers different from real people?It violates gingers' (or other people's) human rights.
Do they have rights if they don't have a soul?
Now, what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
And before you take that too literal: Yes, I also eat non-human animal meat.
Hey, it looks like you lied straight to my face! That, or you must really despise yourself. Or maybe you're a cannibal. Or maybe you don't consider universal and inalienable right to live an important enough difference to make a distinction.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin and since you still haven't answered - what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
Oh boy, should I answer this in the garage?
What's wrong with treating gingers different from real people?It violates gingers' (or other people's) human rights.
Do they have rights if they don't have a soul?
Do they not have a soul?
Now, what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
And before you take that too literal: Yes, I also eat non-human animal meat.
Hey, it looks like you lied straight to my face! That, or you must really despise yourself. Or maybe you're a cannibal. Or maybe you don't consider universal and inalienable right to live an important enough difference to make a distinction.
I see your lack of answer. I'm going to assume the option that makes you the least evil - you're a cannibal.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin and since you still haven't answered - what's wrong with treating animals differently from humans?
Oh boy, should I answer this in the garage?
What's wrong with treating gingers different from real people?It violates gingers' (or other people's) human rights.
Do they have rights if they don't have a soul?
Do they not have a soul?
No. Gingers do not have a soul. That was the point.
(The "real people" should have been a cue. Go watch some South Park for ginger jokes.)
-
@topspin I'm not sure I should take TV recommendations from a cannibal.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Anyway, if we can destroy a habitat and cause a species to be endangered, I suppose we can also try to preserve habitats and also reintroduce species (or allow them to reproliferate
Somebody here is not taking into account that artificial reshaping of habitats and the related extinction of other species cause an avalanche-like chain of events that end up being worse for humans too.
Maybe it does. Artificial reshaping may be better thought out though. Anyway the issue is not whether it's the best course of action but whether it is a desirable course of action. If these things happen, evidently there is a shared sentiment as to make wolves (for example) reappear.
-
@Gąska At least he didn't tell you his favourite restaurant
-
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Anyway, if we can destroy a habitat and cause a species to be endangered, I suppose we can also try to preserve habitats and also reintroduce species (or allow them to reproliferate
Somebody here is not taking into account that artificial reshaping of habitats and the related extinction of other species cause an avalanche-like chain of events that end up being worse for humans too.
Maybe it does. Artificial reshaping may be better thought out though.
"May"? What happened to "when in doubt, don't"?
Anyway the issue is not whether it's the best course of action but whether it is a desirable course of action.
Exactly. I haven't seen anything that would prove that reintroduction is always beneficial, or even neutral - let alone the best.
If these things happen, evidently there is a shared sentiment as to make wolves (for example) reappear.
And if the goal was specifically to have wolves (because people apparently love wolves than other animals or something), then I could understand that. But my understanding is that the goal is preservation of the ecosystem as a whole - not in any particular shape or form, but it must have enough stability not to descend into barren wasteland.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@mikehurley looks like what I feared could happen, and what @topspin berated me for even considering whether such thing could happen, is actually happening.
Maybe I missed something (like I said I skimmed this version), but what in there didn't turn out generally for the best?
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Anyway, if we can destroy a habitat and cause a species to be endangered, I suppose we can also try to preserve habitats and also reintroduce species (or allow them to reproliferate
Somebody here is not taking into account that artificial reshaping of habitats and the related extinction of other species cause an avalanche-like chain of events that end up being worse for humans too.
Maybe it does. Artificial reshaping may be better thought out though.
"May"? What happened to "when in doubt, don't"?
Apart from the fact that this does not apply here at all, but even if it did, this kind of approach can be rejected hilariously with the following:
Chicken of the Room – 00:23
— Emoji Dystopia(Watching Greg Sestero die inside in the second scene is priceless).
Anyway the issue is not whether it's the best course of action but whether it is a desirable course of action.
Exactly. I haven't seen anything that would prove that reintroduction is always beneficial, or even neutral - let alone the best.
That's not the point. The idea that you're at least trying is more appealing (supposedly, considering that ecosystem preservation is and has been popular for over a century, eg. the existence of National Parks).
If these things happen, evidently there is a shared sentiment as to make wolves (for example) reappear.
And if the goal was specifically to have wolves (because people apparently love wolves than other animals or something), then I could understand that. But my understanding is that the goal is preservation of the ecosystem as a whole - not in any particular shape or form, but it must have enough stability not to descend into barren wasteland.
What can I say? Sometimes scope may be narrow, sometimes scope may be wide. It depends on what we're talking about.
-
@mikehurley dunno, didn't read the article. I just read "unexpected changes" and "cascade of ecological change". Lemme get back to you on that.
-
@mikehurley said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@mikehurley looks like what I feared could happen, and what @topspin berated me for even considering whether such thing could happen, is actually happening.
Maybe I missed something (like I said I skimmed this version), but what in there didn't turn out generally for the best?
For those that dislike reading, a short summary:
- Wolves re-introduced to Yellowstone, U.S. in 1968 (extinct there since 1930s)
- Elk population increased
- Beaver population increased
- Ecosystem seems to be in better health
- Cascade still going on (in 2011)
-
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Anyway, if we can destroy a habitat and cause a species to be endangered, I suppose we can also try to preserve habitats and also reintroduce species (or allow them to reproliferate
Somebody here is not taking into account that artificial reshaping of habitats and the related extinction of other species cause an avalanche-like chain of events that end up being worse for humans too.
Maybe it does. Artificial reshaping may be better thought out though.
"May"? What happened to "when in doubt, don't"?
Apart from the fact that this does not apply here at all
Why does it not apply here at all, if it applies when doing the exact same thing with a species that never lived in given area instead of a species that used to live in given area but not anymore?
but even if it did, this kind of approach can be rejected hilariously with the following:
BRB, mowing down Naples suburbs to make room for more wolves. Let's go big on this reintroduction thing. Ain't nobody gonna call me a chicken then!
Anyway the issue is not whether it's the best course of action but whether it is a desirable course of action.
Exactly. I haven't seen anything that would prove that reintroduction is always beneficial, or even neutral - let alone the best.
That's not the point. The idea that you're at least trying is more appealing (supposedly, considering that ecosystem preservation is and has been popular for over a century, eg. the existence of National Parks).
Oh, so you mean ecologists don't actually care about the environment or nature preservation after all? They just want pretty animals in pretty parks?
If these things happen, evidently there is a shared sentiment as to make wolves (for example) reappear.
And if the goal was specifically to have wolves (because people apparently love wolves than other animals or something), then I could understand that. But my understanding is that the goal is preservation of the ecosystem as a whole - not in any particular shape or form, but it must have enough stability not to descend into barren wasteland.
What can I say? Sometimes scope may be narrow, sometimes scope may be wide. It depends on what we're talking about.
With environment manipulation, the scope is always the whole region and everything that lives there. At least that's what I was always taught at school. Butterfly effect, unintended consequences and all that.
-
@loopback0 said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Also I still don't understand why people ask questions like this?
Right way to ask a colleague not to slam the door
We have the following problem in the office: there is a colleague who, I think is nice enough once you get to know him a bit more closely. The thing is, most of the time he looks really grumpy or
Just ask them not to do it FFS.
LMFAO. When I was straight outta uni I lacked the confidence to just say "that is really annoying mate, can you not do it please".
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Anyway, if we can destroy a habitat and cause a species to be endangered, I suppose we can also try to preserve habitats and also reintroduce species (or allow them to reproliferate
Somebody here is not taking into account that artificial reshaping of habitats and the related extinction of other species cause an avalanche-like chain of events that end up being worse for humans too.
Maybe it does. Artificial reshaping may be better thought out though.
"May"? What happened to "when in doubt, don't"?
Apart from the fact that this does not apply here at all
Why does it not apply here at all, if it applies when doing the exact same thing with a species that never lived in given area instead of a species that used to live in given area but not anymore?
I said, artificial reshaping may be better thought out. That means that sometimes this stuff is well thought out, sometimes it may not be as well thought out. Therefore, "when in doubt, don't" does not apply here. Don't do what?
but even if it did, this kind of approach can be rejected hilariously with the following:
BRB, mowing down Naples suburbs to make room for more wolves. Let's go big on this reintroduction thing. Ain't nobody gonna call me a chicken then!
I wouldn't take the trouble if I were you. The Vesuvius is going to wipe out at least half of the Neapolitan metropolitan area sooner or later anyway.
Anyway the issue is not whether it's the best course of action but whether it is a desirable course of action.
Exactly. I haven't seen anything that would prove that reintroduction is always beneficial, or even neutral - let alone the best.
That's not the point. The idea that you're at least trying is more appealing (supposedly, considering that ecosystem preservation is and has been popular for over a century, eg. the existence of National Parks).
Oh, so you mean ecologists don't actually care about the environment or nature preservation after all? They just want pretty animals in pretty parks?
Not all ecologists are equal. Not all environmental measures are actually liked by ecologists.
If these things happen, evidently there is a shared sentiment as to make wolves (for example) reappear.
And if the goal was specifically to have wolves (because people apparently love wolves than other animals or something), then I could understand that. But my understanding is that the goal is preservation of the ecosystem as a whole - not in any particular shape or form, but it must have enough stability not to descend into barren wasteland.
What can I say? Sometimes scope may be narrow, sometimes scope may be wide. It depends on what we're talking about.
With environment manipulation, the scope is always the whole region and everything that lives there. At least that's what I was always taught at school. Butterfly effect, unintended consequences and all that.
It depends on the scale of the programme. Some have a narrow scope, others have a wider scope. Maybe the ones that presume to be narrow in scope really aren't, but that's another discussion. Certainly one where you can't generalise.
-
@mikehurley after reading the article, it sounds like a true success story in every regard. I just wish someone posted an article like that some 150 posts earlier, instead of fighting against the imaginary evil capitalist who wants to eradicate all life except human life from the face of Earth.
-
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Anyway, if we can destroy a habitat and cause a species to be endangered, I suppose we can also try to preserve habitats and also reintroduce species (or allow them to reproliferate
Somebody here is not taking into account that artificial reshaping of habitats and the related extinction of other species cause an avalanche-like chain of events that end up being worse for humans too.
Maybe it does. Artificial reshaping may be better thought out though.
"May"? What happened to "when in doubt, don't"?
Apart from the fact that this does not apply here at all
Why does it not apply here at all, if it applies when doing the exact same thing with a species that never lived in given area instead of a species that used to live in given area but not anymore?
I said, artificial reshaping may be better thought out. That means that sometimes this stuff is well thought out, sometimes it may not be as well thought out. Therefore, "when in doubt, don't" does not apply here. Don't do what?
Okay I read your post a bit wrong. Basically, you've said the exact same thing I've been saying all along, except from a different angle ("things might go well if done right" vs. "things might go bad if done wrong").
but even if it did, this kind of approach can be rejected hilariously with the following:
BRB, mowing down Naples suburbs to make room for more wolves. Let's go big on this reintroduction thing. Ain't nobody gonna call me a chicken then!
I wouldn't take the trouble if I were you. The Vesuvius is going to wipe out at least half of the Neapolitan metropolitan area sooner or later anyway.
Gotta go fast then!
Anyway the issue is not whether it's the best course of action but whether it is a desirable course of action.
Exactly. I haven't seen anything that would prove that reintroduction is always beneficial, or even neutral - let alone the best.
That's not the point. The idea that you're at least trying is more appealing (supposedly, considering that ecosystem preservation is and has been popular for over a century, eg. the existence of National Parks).
Oh, so you mean ecologists don't actually care about the environment or nature preservation after all? They just want pretty animals in pretty parks?
Not all ecologists are equal.
What about ecologists doing reintroductions?
Not all environmental measures are actually liked by ecologists.
What are the measures used by ecologists doing reintroductions?
If these things happen, evidently there is a shared sentiment as to make wolves (for example) reappear.
And if the goal was specifically to have wolves (because people apparently love wolves than other animals or something), then I could understand that. But my understanding is that the goal is preservation of the ecosystem as a whole - not in any particular shape or form, but it must have enough stability not to descend into barren wasteland.
What can I say? Sometimes scope may be narrow, sometimes scope may be wide. It depends on what we're talking about.
With environment manipulation, the scope is always the whole region and everything that lives there. At least that's what I was always taught at school. Butterfly effect, unintended consequences and all that.
It depends on the scale of the programme. Some have a narrow scope, others have a wider scope. Maybe the ones that presume to be narrow in scope really aren't, but that's another discussion. Certainly one where you can't generalise.
You didn't get it. There is no such thing as small scale in ecosystem. Everything is strongly interconnected and you can't separate one small part from everything else. If you could, transplanting species willy-nilly wouldn't be a problem at all, as long as you kept it small scale.
-
@Gąska It depends really. There can be such a thing as a small scale programme. For example, you can ban hunting of a certain animal in a relatively small area and thats not going to affect the rest of the ecosystem much.
-
@admiral_p said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska It depends really. There can be such a thing as a small scale programme. For example, you can ban hunting of a certain animal in a relatively small area and thats not going to affect the rest of the ecosystem much.
On the other hand, introducing a new species and containing it to a relatively small area is pretty much impossible without physical barriers.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
instead of fighting against the imaginary evil capitalist who wants to eradicate all life except human life from the face of Earth.
-
@boomzilla I circulated that for the 2016 one, didn't help. I'm going with Camacho next time.
-
@topspin I'm actually a SMOD guy myself.
-
@boomzilla While that picture took a while too load, Urban Dictionary suggested either Sweet Meteor Of Death or Suck My Own Dick. YMMV.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Sweet Meteor Of Death or Suck My Own Dick.
One during the other.
-
@loopback0 according to somebody on Reddit, sucking your own dick is not worth the immense effort because it ends up feeling more like sucking a dick instead of your own dick. If you have to check those boxes in your "100 things to do before you die", I'd say this isn't worth wasting time on.
-
@admiral_p Good to know that you've seriously researched the matter. I was going for a cheap joke though
-
@admiral_p And now I feel this thread has come full circle.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
come full circle
