U.S. officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of barred owls to save another species from extinction

[Left Coast]

That's fine by me.

I find those that are anthropocentric tend to stay that way, and that's ok.

Not a knock against you. Just the way things are.

I suspect your reason for not answering is because you recognize how extreme - and frankly, suicidal - such a view would be.

But if you prefer not to answer, I understand.

 

[Quintessence]

I read an article about this and it pissed me off. It definitely is interfering with a natural process. Nature is not static and environments change over time. Those birds naturally learned to find their way to the West Coast. Plus, it does nothing to really solve the issue of them migrating there. They're still going to come. I expect them to drop this plan eventually when they realize it's not working.

It can work, but it will require sustained management which is not an ideal situation. It's an understandable policy decision as a stopgap when working to protect threatened/endangered species from extinction. Limited tools available and habitat protection alone hasn't been working. Deer overpopulation and deer grazing pressure on certain threatened/endangered plant species faces similar issues, but at least there hunters actually eat their kills (usually) and are incentivized to prioritize does because that helps control the population in the absence of other predators (that humans were responsible for driving out) more effectively.

In a less anthropocentric world, we might have more tools to manage the humans in the landscape. But we drove out the indigenous cultures here who more or less coexisted with the native biodiversity here in favor of the more scorched earth approaches of colonialists. Human-nature relations don't have to be toxic and unsustainable or incompatible with one another. It's fairly well-documented that the Eastern Deciduous Forests of North America were/are how they are because of indigenous stewardship, if that's the right word to put to it. Some harvesting is healthy for a population and makes room for new things to grow, but too much and it tips things towards extirpation of a population. Mutual flourishing does, as you say later, take time and effort. It is a long term relationship that doesn't lend itself to instant solutions or gratification.

 

[Quintessence]

'Murder' is a particular word we use for killing of innocent humans. We punish murderers with life in prison or even the death penalty. You're not seriously suggesting that murdering an innocent human has the same moral gravity (which would then entail a similar response from society) as killing an innocent bird...I hope?

I already answered your question - if you aren't a speciesist, species alone is not what makes the determination here. It is other things. Though this is true even for anthropocentrists if they stop to think about why they think the way they do. Anthropocentrists don't put humans on a pedestal becuse they are human, they do so because of the relationship they have with their own species. That's the reason behind the prioritization - relationships. It's the same reason why someone would prioritize saving the human life of a sister over a stranger. Or a human over a goldfinch. It's all about the personal (or societal) relationships we have with others. Anthropocentrist humans and anthropocentrist societies generally do not and cannot understand giving due consideration to our other-than-human brothers and sisters. They don't think twice about randomly killing someone that isn't human for basically no reason. I do.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In a less anthropocentric world, we might have more tools to manage the humans in the landscape.

Like what?

 

[Quintessence]

Like what?

We'd have actual rights and protections for non-human persons, for one. At present, my country has relatively little in the way of that. As such, the vital needs of non-human persons are often simply not considered at all and the non-vital needs of humans override the vital needs of non-humans on a routine basis. That is how we have so much habitat destruction in the first place - no consideration of the existinct ecosystem and the non-human persons who already live there, no real attempt to work together with them. Instead, just "getting rid of" them, like they are pests and reshaping the land to our own image and whims.

But there is so much messed up with how law is done in my country, it is difficult to even know where to begin. The "justice" system as a whole is far too punitive and not focused enough on recognizing we need to cooperate and connect with one another. To give back, not just take. To extend a hand to help, not just one to slap or hit. A few moons ago, there was a man who cut down one of the oldest trees of the state that was on public property. He claimed it was his, that he had a right to it. Did he plant trees of this species to give back? No. He just took. That's the kind of mentality that's the problem, in my view. He got punished with a fine because it was on state property. His "punishment" should've been planting more trees. Giving back, restoring what he took... even though that will take longer than his lifetime.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We'd have actual rights and protections for non-human persons, for one. At present, my country has relatively little in the way of that. As such, the vital needs of non-human persons are often simply not considered at all and the non-vital needs of humans override the vital needs of non-humans on a routine basis. That is how we have so much habitat destruction in the first place - no consideration of the existinct ecosystem and the non-human persons who already live there, no real attempt to work together with them. Instead, just "getting rid of" them, like they are pests and reshaping the land to our own image and whims.

But there is so much messed up with how law is done in my country, it is difficult to even know where to begin. The "justice" system as a whole is far too punitive and not focused enough on recognizing we need to cooperate and connect with one another. To give back, not just take. To extend a hand to help, not just one to slap or hit. A few moons ago, there was a man who cut down one of the oldest trees of the state that was on public property. He claimed it was his, that he had a right to it. Did he plant trees of this species to give back? No. He just took. That's the kind of mentality that's the problem, in my view. He got punished with a fine because it was on state property. His "punishment" should've been planting more trees. Giving back, restoring what he took... even though that will take longer than his lifetime.

Thanks. I find these points quite important to consider, and I largely agree.

 

[Twilight Hue]

More evidence that we should let nature run its course rather than interfering with it to not allow it to change according to nature's rules.
Slaughtering one type of wildlife to "save" another.....now, what would that be called if it was humans being killed in that way?

Of course this is a justification for the gun lobby and puts a massive cash cow out for manufacturers of ammunition and arms.

I can just imagine all the spent brass laying all over the countryside and the smell of napalm... err...gunpowder in the morning.

I try to look past the stated cause and speculate other angles and motives for doing this. I can just see lips drooling as ammo is bought and the river of money flowing into someones coffers over the next three decades.

 

[Left Coast]

I already answered your question -

I didn't see it. See my reiteration of the yes/no question in post #20. Is the answer yes, or no?

if you aren't a speciesist, species alone is not what makes the determination here. It is other things. Though this is true even for anthropocentrists if they stop to think about why they think the way they do. Anthropocentrists don't put humans on a pedestal becuse they are human, they do so because of the relationship they have with their own species. That's the reason behind the prioritization - relationships. It's the same reason why someone would prioritize saving the human life of a sister over a stranger. Or a human over a goldfinch. It's all about the personal (or societal) relationships we have with others. Anthropocentrist humans and anthropocentrist societies generally do not and cannot understand giving due consideration to our other-than-human brothers and sisters. They don't think twice about randomly killing someone that isn't human for basically no reason. I do.

A lot of generalities here. If a random stranger I don't know is murdered, I would expect law enforcement and the justice system to work just as hard to track down, capture, and punish the murderer as I would expect them to if a member of my own family was murdered. So no, it's not just all down to who I personally know for me. And yes, I do understand giving some degree of consideration to what life we kill and why, including non-human life. It's not a binary of caring or not caring. It's a question of moral equivalence.

 

[Laniakea]

Yes. All taking of innocent life is murder. Imo

Maybe not from the American legal standpoint/definition, but yes imo it is.

I swatted a few mosquitoes that tried biting me a little while ago.
I can only imagine how you feel about me now, even though they may have been attempting to murder me with Malaria.

 

[The Hammer]

I swatted a few mosquitoes that tried biting me a little while ago.

That's good for you?

I can only imagine how you feel about me now, even though they may have been attempting to murder me with Malaria.

Uhm... I don't particularly think/feel about you at all.... Regardless of what you do.

Edit: although I will add the mosquito isnt trying to purposely give you malaria, it doesn't know it has it, if it does, it is immune to it. It's just hungry and eating what it is supposed to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sadly I think that letting nature take its course is the best answer. I can see that they want to preserve a species, but AGW is likely to make it impossible. And since there are two separate routs for barred owls to move into this new habitat there would be no end to the needed killing.

 

[The Hammer]

I suspect your reason for not answering is because you recognize how extreme - and frankly, suicidal - such a view would be.

But if you prefer not to answer, I understand.

No, I was at work.

But mostly because the question has been answered by another person, so I don't want to step on their toes and repeat the same things over and over.

 

[Quintessence]

I didn't see it. See my reiteration of the yes/no question in post #20. Is the answer yes, or no?

You didn't see where it was mentioned that if you aren't a speciesist, species alone doesn't determine anything about what you are asking? And you didn't see the litany of considerations that would determine something about what you are asking? It's not a yes/no question to begin with. Might as well ask if I've stopped sleeping my non-existent wife.

 

[Laniakea]

That's good for you?


Uhm... I don't particularly think/feel about you at all.... Regardless of what you do.

Edit: although I will add the mosquito isnt trying to purposely give you malaria, it doesn't know it has it, if it does, it is immune to it. It's just hungry and eating what it is supposed to.

Yes, and I also did what I am supposed to, which is to keep bugs that can give me malaria from doing so, and ridding the environment of insects that bite people.

 

[The Hammer]

Yes, and I also did what I am supposed to, which is to keep bugs that can give me malaria from doing so

Ok? And?

, and ridding the environment of insects that bite people.

They serve an ecological purpose. What's performing their job when their gone? You? (This is rhetoric)

 

[Quintessence]

They serve an ecological purpose. What's performing their job when their gone? You? (This is rhetoric)

I would SO pay to see that... hahahaha.

 

[The Hammer]

It's not a yes/no question to begin with. Might as well ask if I've stopped sleeping my non-existent wife.

People seem to think everything boils down to a black and white, yes/no.

When nothing ever really does.

And it's too frustrating for me to try and argue otherwise.

 

[Laniakea]

People seem to think everything boils down to a black and white, yes/no.

When nothing ever really does.

And it's too frustrating for me to try and argue otherwise.

Well, the environmental extremist position you're taking makes so little sense, it doesn't bridge the gap between your reasoning and the reality people live by.

 

[The Hammer]

Well, the environmental extremist position you're taking makes so little sense, it doesn't bridge the gap between your reasoning and the reality people live by.

I don't think the anthropocentric reasoning people live by lives up to their reasoning either.

*Shrug*. Spades a spade

 

[Laniakea]

I don't think the anthropocentric reasoning people live by lives up to their reasoning either.

*Shrug*. Spades a spade

Then I hope you take into consideration all the ants you may step on as you walk down the sidewalk, and all the germs you kill when you wash your hands, and the bugs that strike your windshield as you drive your car. And if you sleep inside your house, imagine all those hungry mosquitoes you're depriving of a meal! Many will die because you withheld a few drops of blood that could have kept them alive.