[Valéry Schollaert]

When I started birding (1986), I was happy to do something good for nature which is destroyed by human, and to meet people concious that we should do something. That we should change our behaviour, and respecting life (not only human). When I was back with "normal" (non-naturalist) people, I felt a big difference. Naturalists were in advance on their time.

Funnily, at that time I found a birding book, written in French in 1898. Long time ago indeed. The guy was a "birdwatcher" and explained his "birding". One day, in cold winter, he was watching the blackbirds. Suddenly, a Great Grey Shrikes turned up and obviously threatened to catch a blackbird. The "birdwatcher" killed to shrike, in order to protect the blackbirds...


Now I still love birding, I'm happy to be professional but I see that naturalists have evolved very little compare to other people. Now, if I want to find people in advance on their time in term of life respect, I can find them (generally) in non-naturalists groups... amazing, isn't it?

Culling Ruddy Duck today is as bad as killing that Great Grey Shrike in 1898, and reasons are as obvious. But as I wouldn't probably be able to change the mind on that former birdwatcher, I cannot change yours. I just hoped you see one point: reasons for culling are disputable, as are mine not too (read carefully what I said), but we should not kill a whole population (genocide) based on disputable reasons... that's quite easy to understand.

[csanchez7]

Valery,

Do you really believe that "normal" non-naturalist individuals have a moral high ground in terms of respecting life? I find myself working around them at this point in my life.

I gave them a theoretical situation. If there was a large, flightless green parrot restricted only to an island off of New Zealand and predatory stoats somehow arrived on the island, would it be morally OK to eradicate the stoats? They said no -- that the parrot should be allowed to go "naturally" through predation by the stoats. Their reasoning is that eradicating the stoats is "cruel" while allowing the parrot to go extinct would be part of "evolution."

I believe your description of the "Great Grey Shrike" and the blackbird incident completely misses the point. The naturalist probably felt it "cruel" to allow the shrike to kill the blackbirds. A modern day naturalist would have no such qualms unless the blackbirds were part of a tiny population of which only a handful remained. For the modern day conservationist, species and population preservation are paramount over the needs of individual creatures. That does not mean that they are not capable of loving individual animals, but they see the world in terms of populations and evolutionary units through vast geological time. In that context, an individual life is not significant.

Carlos

[Valéry Schollaert]

Hi Carlos,

I actually know many examples such the one you gave us, and it is a good example. But think all those paradoxes:
- We are unable to manage our own population, how would we be able to manage other's? It is like if Belarus decided to fight for democracy in Britain...
- We have the most destructive species in the world, so according to your theory where "an individual life is not significant", why aren't we culling humans?
- While we don't manage to organise our own ressources for 50 years, do you think we have the knowledge to manage evolution it long term? You say "they see the world in terms of populations and evolutionary units through vast geological time". Vast geological time. What is it for you? Go back in my Oxuyra example. It vast geological time, let's say 5 millions of years (it is not that long), do we have more chance that White-headed Duck has survived in Europe, or Ruddy? I bet on Ruddy but I admit it is difficult to know. No one knows.

Let me try a completely different point of view. We, naturalists, all know that situation of life on earth is terrible. Populations of 80% of wild species a crashing down locally or globally, some extinctions (such in frogs) even occur is proper, undisturbed habitats: they might due to pollution, climate changes otherand we have no control on that. And even when we clearly know the problem (habitat destruction, hunting, etc), most of time we have no means to really stop the problem: at best reduce the speed of destruction.

When we are passionate as we are, it is not acceptable. We wouldn't sleep knowing all that; in addition that we are all responsible: we pollute, we use ressources in conflict with natural habitat (even just to eat). So our mind (human is good in that) created a theory to make more confortable: if we manage to keep most of the species (conserve biodiversity), it is acceptable. Even if a bird that was abundant just survive with a tiny population in a national park, a nature reserve or even a zoo, we can sleep: biodiversity is there.

But this is a drop in the ocean, and the truth is not better with this theory: nice primary forest is still burnt, White-headed Duck is still hunted in central Asia, Fukushima is still polluting Pacific Ocean, pesticides are still spreading in ecosystems and poisoning frogs and birds, etc.

The true, real big problems for middle term future of much of life on earth are not solved with our attempt of managment. In opposite: while wildlife struggle to survie in our human-made world, naturalists add problems in poisoning crows, trapping rats and killing toads.

[Mysticete]

So you go from killing is wrong to a stance motivated by apathy?

[MJB]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

So you go from killing is wrong to a stance motivated by apathy?

I could have got a Master's in Apathy, but I couldn't be bothered...
MJB

[MichaelRetter]

Wow.