Farnboro John
Well-known member
One observation is "Does anyone participating here attribute any value whatsoever to the life of individual organisms?"
By focusing only on population viability, the answer is "No, individual antbird lives are of no intrinsic value." Most papers by museum folks on collecting issues tend to either start off saying one of these things:
1. "I don't know anything about ethics, so will not comment on that. But I do know about why collections are useful and important." And then you say collections are important and therefore because there is nothing on ethics, then collections are important so collecting stuff is really good. OR
2. "Collecting does not endanger populations" (somewhat dubious claim as there are examples like the Guadelupe Caracara, Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Great Auk where collecting - some of it museum based - doubtless contributed to actual avian extinctions). And then the same thing.
Either way, there is no value attributed to animal life, and if that is the case then because scientific collections are a great resource, you can conclude that all collecting is a great idea.
I think that some of those persons questioning this particular example would actually attribute value to individual organism life. Some of the discussion above is shrouded in population viability issues, but I am not sure that is really where people are coming from in their hearts. I am not sure anyone should feel embarrassed about that. In western "monotheistic theism" based societies most belief systems place zero value on animal lives, people eat meat and so on. Many of the most ardent proponents of museums and collecting these days are from North and South America, and I think it is no coincidence that "monotheistic theism" ideology is very widespread there and that recreational hunting and the eating of meat with most meals is also normal. In some parts of Asia, animal lives are valued. And in some parts of Europe, particularly the UK, many people would identify with a post-religious secular society where vegetarianism is very widespread. So there are cultural differences in where people come from on this topic.
Under a non-religious approach where some value (whatever weight) is placed on individual animal life, then an existentialist philosopher would ask: "Does the scientific or other benefit of the killing of these individual organisms outweigh the negative aspects of killing the organism." Possibly, scientists in the field are best placed to answer that question, but I don't think that many of them ask it very often. Many are just connected with museums being great and think only about whether having more specimens is a good thing for the museum or their study. And probably convince themselves they are not going to cause an extinction, hopefully, but that's it.
So I think there is a bit of a disconnect in terms of where people come from on this issue.
Thomas
Your problem is clearly in guessing that people attribute the same weight to each animal life and are incapable of distinguishing between different animals.
As a meat eater I can tell you beyond the legal definition of reasonable doubt that this is complete rubbish. Death happens all over the world and everything eats something: but extinction is forever. Accordingly, the life of an individual antpitta of unknown but (most likely, if newly discovered) limited population and distribution, strikes me as terribly important: whereas a domestic chicken is simply a basis for a nice Sunday roast. This is not a religious position.
Which concrete evidence of opinion renders your speculation and abstract philosophising absurd.
What would be speculation on my part would be if I tried to tell you that others feel as I do: but go ahead and ask as widely as you like. I am happy to speculate that I know what the majority of reasonable people in the UK would answer. Very much to the point, I have yet to see a communal eating situation in the UK where vegetarians were not hugely outnumbered by meat-eaters, and my experience is that when engaged in conversation UK people are generally against extinction and those who work towards it.
Incidentally it is in Asia that the annihilation of Tigers (and, I understand, now also Lions, presumably because the supply of Tiger bones is no longer assurable) is pursued relentlessly in order to supply a fake medicine market. Don't talk to me about the value placed on animal life in Asia. It is no more widespread or culturally ingrained than vegetarianism in Britain.
John