Mad Guardian Article (1 Viewer)

[Qingcol]

Why would you care which of these terms you applied to your action? They're just words, albeit ethically-loaded ones.

Because I am genuinely interested in the views of others and words are the only tools avavilable on this forum, perhaps I should have said " is this sort of intervention a widening of our limited altruism to include other species, or doing nothing, following the gene's law of universal ruthlessness" selfishness.

 

[fugl]

Because I am genuinely interested in the views of others and words are the only tools avavilable on this forum, perhaps I should have said " is this sort of intervention a widening of our limited altruism to include other species, or doing nothing, following the gene's law of universal ruthlessness" selfishness.

Fair enough. I guess my point was that such questions take us way off topic, having nothing to do with conservation as such. Also, I must admit, I've never been much of a navel-gazer, so don't find them very interesting.

 

[Qingcol]

Fair enough. I guess my point was that such questions take us way off topic, having nothing to do with conservation as such. Also, I must admit, I've never been much of a navel-gazer, so don't find them very interesting.

I considered my question to be fundamental in attempting to understand peoples differing views on our definition of conservation, and to be spot on topic. I fully except we all find some thread directions of less interest to us as individuals than others, but there appears to be no lack of space! and if the direction of that topic is totally ignored at least that gives the source of the question a little information.

 

[John o'Sullivan]

Going back to Graham's point above

However much adaptive radiation occurs in the wake of anthropogenic extinctions, the level of biodiversity regained is a function of the diversity of surviving lineages.

The level of biodiversity regained from surviving lineages is only one source of biodiversity. Evolution started with a few organic chemicals these chemicals still exist, evolution still exists, new biodiversity would develop. We are surrounded by bacteria, viruses, simple life forms all of which are potential evolutionary building blocks.

What these processes need are space and time. Complacent complicit conservationists lead to less space and less time although in the short term it looks like like they are creating space and time. The Titanic is sinking and they are throwing cups of water overboard.

A common fall back position of conservationists and one of their belief systems is

If we don't conserve nothing will be left but
Rats/pigeons/rabbits/crows/gulls/weeds/vermin/foxes/domestic cats etc etc etc.

The reality is that even without conservation, even with rampant uncontrolled human growth and development many many species would survive amongst us.

There is a hierachy of virtue attached to certain forms of life by conservationists e.g.
The Wolf for many conservationists scores highly (there is of course a move for their unecessary re-introduction into the U.K.) the domestic dog scores very poorly. Genetically Dogs are mostly wolf. Why do we need more wolf genes in the U.K. We already have lots. We even have Wolves, I've seen them at Longleat. How is u.k. biodiversity increased by re-introduction.

Username, I agree up to a point about the power of "human nature". However human nature is moderated by socialisation and education. The establishmet have used and are using conservation to push forward a particular view of the world and a particular way of operating on the world.

It is why I keep returning to the underlying belief systems. Change the belief sysytems and you change the practice.

 

[username]

Good mornin' John O....

Am not sure how 'we' would change 'belief systems'...however much our 'nature' is moderated...[or manipulated]!....by socialisation and education. Folk 'in power' would have no vested interests in doing so....[like i've said before....extreme global measures that 'might' make sense not exactly 'vote winners']! We know that humans are essentially tribal/selfish by nature...and the only way i can see 'the world' uniting in altruistic manner would be if there was an outside threat to the entire planet...that everyone could 'see'....

ps...[by 'outside threat'...i mean hostile aliens...apologies for bringing sci-fi into serious debate]!

 

[Qingcol]

It is why I keep returning to the underlying belief systems. Change the belief sysytems and you change the practice.

Very little chance of changing 'any' belief systems, at least if this thread is anything to go by! Most appear to have formulated a fixed position and are just waiting their turn to procliam it, with no one giving an inch! Where are all the free thinkers?

 

[John o'Sullivan]

If you go back through the threads relating to conservation and culling and invasive species etc you will find that bit by bit a number of people have changed/adapted/developed their position because of these discussions.

I've moved over the time I've been a member of Birdforum from a pro-conservation to a conservation skeptic position. The more I read and learn the more anti certain conservation practices I am.

There was a time when I posted on the GOS website congratulating those responsible for the success of the Goldcliff reserve. Now I think it’s an example of much that is wrong about conservation. The Ruddy duck cull, the £3,000,000 pound reserve centre, the claiming of conservation success for species that are actually a result of global warming, the reserves remit with regards to what appear to be unsustainable target species, the reserves place in the overall eco-system being the most glaring examples as to why,.

I agree with username as to the difficulty of changing belief systems however even if humans were by nature selfish and tribal (not something I totally agree with) education and socialization and other forms of action could still change peoples belief systems and/or their behaviour.

If the powers that be wanted to really concentrate on the threat to the environment posed by human consumer driven behaviour and aim to change this behaviour which along with population growth is by far and away the most important factor in anthropogenic change they could do but they want to concentrate on economic needs and hijack the conservation argument for their own purposes.

Ultimately I believe that when they need the reserves for resources they'll just move in and take them. They are already doing this all over the world to habitat that is much more important and unique than Goldcliff for example. Once food becomes expensive and scarce because of the demands of population population growth the pressure on eco-systems will become even more extreme then it is now. Without systemic cognitive change it is only a matter of time.

 

[ColonelBlimp]

If the powers that be wanted to really concentrate on the threat to the environment posed by human consumer driven behaviour and aim to change this behaviour which along with population growth is by far and away the most important factor in anthropogenic change they could do but they want to concentrate on economic needs and hijack the conservation argument for their own purposes.

What threat? You yourself say that left alone everything will return to 'normal' etc.

Also I take issue with your presentation of conservation in general as some great political charade. Goldcliff is the exception, not the rule.

 

[username]

John 'O'......i should clarify my tribal/selfish comment shouldn't i..? [could be misunderstood]! By 'selfish' i mean 'self-interests'...as in food/heat etc..essential to maintain human life....extending from oneself...to partner...to family....'group/community' etc. We are all tribal to a certain extent..if not wholly...[in my opinion]...and it is only because of our 'current situation'...[in 'time']...regards civilization...that allows us to think in 'other ways'. Should 'untoward things' happen...a crisis of some sort...on a global scale....then i believe most would revert to...[naturally]...a tribal mentality.

ps...hope that makes some sense....[i'm rushing a bit coz i haven't eaten yet...and i can smell me jacket potatoes in the oven...not that anyone needs to know that of course]!

 

[Jos Stratford]

There was a time when I posted on the GOS website congratulating those responsible for the success of the Goldcliff reserve...

However, as a Gwent birder, you cannot deny Goldcliff is anything other than a success - in a clever twist, the powers that be not only gave Gwent birders something to do on the weekend, but at the same time screwed Glamorgan birders by eliminating one of their sites. A master stroke before we even think of the birds.

 

[Qingcol]

If you go back through the threads relating to conservation and culling and invasive species etc you will find that bit by bit a number of people have changed/adapted/developed their position because of these discussions.

I've moved over the time I've been a member of Birdforum from a pro-conservation to a conservation skeptic position. The more I read and learn the more anti certain conservation practices I am.

There was a time when I posted on the GOS website congratulating those responsible for the success of the Goldcliff reserve. Now I think it’s an example of much that is wrong about conservation. The Ruddy duck cull, the £3,000,000 pound reserve centre, the claiming of conservation success for species that are actually a result of global warming, the reserves remit with regards to what appear to be unsustainable target species, the reserves place in the overall eco-system being the most glaring examples as to why,.

I agree with username as to the difficulty of changing belief systems however even if humans were by nature selfish and tribal (not something I totally agree with) education and socialization and other forms of action could still change peoples belief systems and/or their behaviour.

If the powers that be wanted to really concentrate on the threat to the environment posed by human consumer driven behaviour and aim to change this behaviour which along with population growth is by far and away the most important factor in anthropogenic change they could do but they want to concentrate on economic needs and hijack the conservation argument for their own purposes.

Ultimately I believe that when they need the reserves for resources they'll just move in and take them. They are already doing this all over the world to habitat that is much more important and unique than Goldcliff for example. Once food becomes expensive and scarce because of the demands of population population growth the pressure on eco-systems will become even more extreme then it is now. Without systemic cognitive change it is only a matter of time.

You are right of course! it is possible to find 'some' opinions that have adapted in the light of new information, your own included, please put my remark down to 'me having a bad day'.
As for the 'majority' of humans being hard wired to be selfish, you only have to witness the scenes in our local supermarket if some commodity happens to be in short supply! It doesn't take a vivid imagination to see what would happen in a real food shortage.
Plus living in a democracy you would need more than half the population to adopt a beleif system to make any real meaningful changes.
At the level of the gene I have very little doubt we are selfish, and that has been key to our survival as a species so far, the puzzle is 'with the successful combination of large brain, hands and language, enabling us to land on the moon' why do we appear to be incapable of controlling our own numbers or fowling are own nest? (poisoning the earth)
It seems are only realistic hope of any meaningful conservation is to try and introduce an element of profit or prestige (channel the greed) as a carrot to governments or powerful individuals to set land aside for wildlife, even this is not acceptable if we fail to control our numbers. Not many would advocate letting people starve to allow the creation of wildlife sanctuaries.

 

[username]

Qingcol..agree with all of your last post..[loved the 'bit' about the supermarket...chuckle]!
I presume the question you posed was rhetorical?..'why do we appear to be incapable of controlling our numbers and fowling our planet'? See under 'selfish/self-interest'!!
'Our' success as a species will...[in all probability]...be the cause of our ultimate downfall...but hey....it's been fun...[for those privileged enuff to have been able to enjoy it]...protect wot you can...for as long as you can i say.....[might change my mind later]!

 

[John o'Sullivan]

Hi JOS

I have a love hate relationship with the reserve.

As a birding site it is by far and away the best in South Wales even though the facilities and access for birders are a joke. As an example of conservation in action it has been a first hand example of much that is wrong with U.K. conservation. Nothing of any real importance to protect (in international let alone global terms) yet a shed load of money spent and stuff killed attempting to protect it, then a whole load of smug propoganda spouted about the importance of the reserve.

It is lovely habitat however.

As well the Glam birders keep popping over the border and finding stuff giving them many opportunities for one-upmanship.

It is not an isolated example however it is typical of much that goes on in U.K. conservation. Localised short term irrelevant action taking precedence over meaningful international action. One of the main reasons for the localised nature of this action being tribalism partly reinforced by jingoistic belief systems which are supported by some of the language used by journalists and conservation organisations.

Be children of the world not IMBY's In My Back Yard's.

I know it's not going to happen on a scale big enough to promote meaningful change but at least in explaining my position I get some catharsis and it may prevent individuals accusing people who hold a different position to theirs of being ignorant.

Difference is not ignorance.

 

[Imaginos]

From Science Daily ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0420103542.htm )

Invasive species can disrupt natural and human-made ecosystems, throwing food webs out of balance and damaging the services they provide to people. Now scientists have begun to put a price tag on this damage. In a study published the week of April 20 in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment e-view, ecologists have listed the invasive species that cause the most harm to environment and cost the most money to control.

...

Vilà and her colleagues produced a list of the top 10 invasive species in Europe by assessing which species had the most impacts in the most categories. Among the top invaders were Canada geese, zebra mussels, brook trout, the Bermuda buttercup and coypu, also known as nutria. Terrestrial vertebrates produced the widest range of impacts, often showing effects in all of the ecosystem service categories.

"Many terrestrial vertebrates are top predators, and their introduction causes cascading effects in the food web," Vilà says.

By contrast, terrestrial invertebrates such as insects and spiders had the narrowest range of effects, but wreaked the most financial havoc. Vilà points out that terrestrial invertebrates cause the most damage to crops and forests, sectors in which there are well-established methods to quantify the costs of food and lumber production. The authors estimate annual crop losses in the United Kingdom due to alien arthropods at €2.8 billion (about $3.7 billion); other studies say that the cost of eradicating the 30 most common weeds could be more than €150 million ($197 million).

The authors also describe the alien species generating the highest reported financial investment, including costs of monitoring, controlling and eradicating the invader, along with environmental education programs. Among the most expensive invaders were water hyacinth (€3.4 /$4.5 million), coypu (€2.8/$3.7 million) and a marine alga (€8.2/$10.9 million).

__________________________________________________ ________

The paper itself is currently paywalled but here's a link to the abstract: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/080083

 

[s. james]

Article in a recent New Scientist reminded me of this thread...

"However, you may be surprised to learn that only a few per cent of introduced species are harmful. Most are relatively benign; some, such as the honeybee, can even have beneficial effects."

"Others have pointed out flaws in the claim that non-native species are the second-greatest extinction threat after habitiat destruction. In fact, with the exception of insular environments such as islands and lakes, there are very few examples of extinctions being caused by non-native species."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327275.900-immigrant-species-arent-all-bad.html

 

[jaco]

"Others have pointed out flaws in the claim that non-native species are the second-greatest extinction threat after habitiat destruction. In fact, with the exception of insular environments such as islands and lakes, there are very few examples of extinctions being caused by non-native species."

The above statement is ridiculous, and isn't really saying much.

a) what is "very few?"
b) lack of extinction evidence isn't a lack of extinction threat
c) there are "very few" extinctions attributed to a single cause, which might explain why "very few" extinctions are "caused by non-native species"
d) Factor A could be a thousand (or a million) times greater than Factor B, but Factor B is still the "second-greatest" if there's nothing else between A & B.
e) Why the "exception of insular environments?" Oh yeah, his sentence wouldn't be possible without it.

 

[Imaginos]

jaco has had a go at the second sentence, I'll take on the first.

"However, you may be surprised to learn that only a few per cent of introduced species are harmful. Most are relatively benign; some, such as the honeybee, can even have beneficial effects."

I'd like to focus on three sections of this statement:

1: "only a few per cent of introduced species are harmful". This is disingenuous on several levels, firstly it does not define precisely what percentage - in the authors eyes how much is a few - 5%? 10%? 45%? Secondly, how is the total number calculated? If the author included every garden plant (for example) that would pad the total out nicely (and thus reduce the percentage of harmfuls) further padding could be gained by also including specialist pests on those plants (e.g. Crypyuraphis grassii is an introduced aphid in the UK that feeds exclusively on Italian Alder).

2: "Most are relatively benign" What is the definition of "relatively" here? Is the Grey Squirrel "relatively benign" as it has only displaced one species (red squirrel) in one country? Is the Fox "relatively benign" in Australia as it has not driven many marsupials to extinction (ignoring for the moment that many species now only survive in isolated pockets)? Is the Rhododendron "relatively benign" because it does not directly impact native species, just reduces the amount of available habitat?

3."some, such as the honeybee, can even have beneficial effects" That's one example, how many more can anyone name? I'll bet it's a smaller percentage of the total than those that are harmful.



"Make no mistake, some introduced species have caused great harm. For example, the brown tree snake, introduced into Guam in the mid-20th century, caused the extinction of most of the island's native birds. Many other island and lake species have been driven extinct by introduced predators. The global cost of damage by non-native species to farming, timber, fisheries and waterways is estimated at well over $100 billion annually. Many of the human diseases of greatest concern are viruses that have been transported to new regions, such as SARS, West Nile virus, Ebola, H1N1 flu and HIV."

 

[s. james]

"some, such as the honeybee, can even have beneficial effects" That's one example, how many more can anyone name? I'll bet it's a smaller percentage of the total than those that are harmful.

I gave a few examples earlier in the thread but don't want the thread to go round in circles so won't do so again.

 

[s. james]

Factor A could be a thousand (or a million) times greater than Factor B, but Factor B is still the "second-greatest" if there's nothing else between A & B.

Good point.

 

[fugl]

. . . but don't want the thread to go round in circles so . . ..

It’s way too late to start worrying about that!