The Conservationists...

[Jesse]

Hello all:
First off, I want to say I am a Conservationist. The reason I started this thread is simple: To discuss Conservation. Here's some questions for you all:

Are you a Conservationist (One who believes in preserving and protecting the animal world.) ? How much has America changed through this movement? Do you support Conservation? If not, why don't you?

[Celebthôl]

i agree with it totally 100% but i must confess that i havent really done anything to support it, but it is a good thing to conserve animals and plants and i believe that the human race is only just in time realising that once a certain species/breed etc is gone its not coming back, so more people are taking action....

[Hadhafang]

I am an Environmental Scientist...That should tell you where I astand as well. I think the key to conserving animals and plants is to conserve habitats. One of the things that breaks my heart is to see acres and acres of natural land destroyed for ugly cookie-cutter homes, shopping malls, or industrial parks. Just the site of a for sale sign on an old farm or on a wooded lot makes me sick. I would love to see my local taxes raised for the sole purpose of the state buying and conserving land. Afterall, landowners to have the right to sell there propety. I just wish they would sell to conservationists instead of industrialists.

The Tolkien forum may give you an artificial skewing of what the rest of the population feels on this issue. Afterall one of Tolkien's main themes is "industry destroys nature" One of the things I loved about the book was that it depicted an avid love of the "Wild" amongst the characters.

[Jesse]

Well said. Thank you for replying.

[Rogue666666]

Nevertheless, even in the Tolkien forum you will always find those who disagree.

I believe in Conservationism only for so far. The needs of nature and of animals must NEVER be put before the needs of humans. Unfortunately, there is a very fine line between human 'needs' and human 'wants'. SO, we must decide were that line is, and then we must draw it.

When it comes to something like eating animals, then I am not against it. Many say stuff like " Well, how would you like it if they killed and ate you?"

And of course I say, "Not at all, so the next time an animal tells me it doesn't want to be eaten, I will be sure and respect its whishes."

This is to illustrate that animals do not have a high enough intelligence to comprehend their impending demise. If they did, then we would all be vegetarians. Of course, I could argue that plants have a small amount of intelligence, and therefore we shouldn't eat them too.

SO, that is my opinion.

[Niniel]

I am certainly a conservationist. I think humans are just as much a part of nature as animals and plants. The only difference between us and them is our higher intelligence, so we can shape the world the way we want it. It's only natural that some animals eat others to survive, so I don't think it is absolutely wrong for people to eat meat. But it is also natural that animals don't hurt their environment more than is necessary, because if their habitat is destroyed they will not be able to survive. The way humans destroy their natural is totally ridiculous and very dangerous. If we go on like this the world will be destroyed in a few hundred years.
I try to preserve nature as much as possible. I don't eat meat (because the way it is produced is harmful to the environment and an unnecessary use of natural resources), I don't have a car, I buy natural products (cotton clothes, non-leather shoes, biologically produced food, no rainforest wood), I separate my garbage (paper, glass etc. apart from the other waste).
The difference only one person can make is limited, but, as our government said in a campaign to make peole aware of environmental problems: 'a better environment starts with yourself', so I try my best.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Definitely. My special issues are to push to preserve the last remaining bits of Old Growth Forest solely for their beauty, and the magnificent Redwood Forests of California that have touched me so spiritually. I see these forests as God's masterpieces of art, but they will no longer be available for our grandchildren to enjoy 100 years from now, without stopping the logging of them now. They may only be able to see a few pictures of them in old books.
These forests are already shockingly diminished in size from how I personally saw them back in the 70's.

Also, the rainforest deforestation is another devastation of the earth by man. The lost habitats go without saying.

I compost and recycle as much waste as I can. I pay for curb-side recycling, even though my city has repeatedly voted down any attempts at curb-side recycling to be part of the city-trash pick up. (Too many peole still stuck in me-me-me mode and won't succumb to doing something just for the greater good.)

P.S. The needs of Animals and of Nature ARE the needs of humans. The cycles and eco-balances of Nature ARE our habitat and raised us in it's cradle. We human's, from selfishness, arrogance, and hubris, seem to be the stupidest of God's creatures to be wasting, destroying and defiling our own nest.

[faila]

Im all for makng sure no animals plants or even fungi become extinct.................. Oh wait a second for most animals plants and fungi I could careless. Especially the fungi. Obviously I dont think you should carelessly kill animals for no reason, thats a bad use of resouces, but if their is something a human needs and he has to killanimals, plants or fungi for it than he should.

[Ciryaher]

I am for using resources, but not in excess. I am for maintaining forests and habitats, but I am for selective forest-cutting. I believe that we should conserve...that meaning that we should use things that we need after careful consideration.

I am against subdivisional develpment, as well as the clear-cutting of forest to build large numbers of homes.

[gilgalad]

I agree with Cir there. Selective cutting of forests could have prevented the forest fires that ravaged the US recently. Enviromental protests to selective felling of trees in this instance only caused widespread devastation and so conservation, while a noble cause, needs to be kept to a level that is reasonable. As has been said, human needs must ALWAYS come above those of animals.

[Niniel]

Why do you think humans are better or more important than animals? They are not. Humans are important, yes, but so are all others animals and plants. At least THEY have the insight not to destroy their own environment as humans do. The whole earth and is a carefully balanced ecosystem in which every living (and dead) thing has its function. We can not go on living the way we do, or in a few hundred years all earth's natural resources will be spent, and there is only one earth, so we must be very careful in how we live.

[Ciryaher]

I don't think humans are more important than animals. But unfortunately most people think so, and therefore there is waste, wanton destruction, and senselessness in the way we manipulate our environments.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Hear, Hear! Niniel. I wanted to say exactly that, but you said it to a tee.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Niniel
At least THEY have the insight not to destroy their own environment as humans do.
Did life suddenly become a Disney movie while I was sleeping? Please, let's be careful what level of cognitive ability we ascribe to animals. This is hardly a concious choice based on "insight'.

And what about Beavers who cut down trees and dam rivers all in the name of making a nice spread for their own enjoyment? Dam-n industrious Beavers!

[Hadhafang]

I personally feel that industrialists are much closer to nature than conservationists (here me out). I believe that conservationists actually transcend nature. Every species is selfish. Humans are no different. The arrogant idea that humans have some moral and just right to do what they will with the wild is in fact a 'natural' and primitive phenomenon. It is very unnatural to show compassion towards rival species. Our genetics are programmed to survive and excel at all costs. Nature does not follow morality. The transcendant mind does. It represents the next step in the evolution of intelligence. That is why I find it funny when industrialists think of conservationists as anti-progressive. I personally think the idea of 'progress' used in the context of surviving and 'excelling' at all costs is actually PRIMITIVE!

[Niniel]

Thta's very interesting what you say Hadhafang. Sometimes I do wonder whether it isn't just normal for humans to dominate all other species and to want to get everything they need no matter what the cost. But, even if it were natural to humans it is not possible, because it would destroy the earth. I do believe that the human mind is capable of great things, and I hope and believe that one day people will be able to create ways to at once raise the standard of living to a much greater level than is possible nowadays, and at the same time do this by means which are not harmful to the environment. For me this is the goal of progress; so, even if I'm a naturalist, I do not oppose progress or change; the contary I would say. But I am afraid this progress will not go quickly enough, and before we reach a stable way of living the earth will have been destroyed, or at least gerat parts of it will have become uninhabitable. tehrefore It is still necessary for people to live as careful as possible and not destroy the environment, so that we have enough time to let progress find a better way of life.

[Eriol]

Even though I am an Environmental Scientist too, (I like those caps Hadhafang!), I differ from most of the views explained so far in the thread. As I see it, there are two main ways to consider the problem: Moral and Economic. Most conservationists unfortunately tend to emphasize the moral aspects of the problem, to the detriment of the economic. On morality, I think that humans are worth more (infintely more) than animals, and I would gladly see a species extinguished to save one human soul. That sounds bad, doesn't it? I'm lucky it never gets to that. Anyway, since this is my scale of values I could never agree with Conservationists who believe it is immoral to exploit resources in order to make human life more bearable.

Even so, I consider myself a Conservationist. But I see the problem from a completely different point of view. Economically, conservation is the way to go. If you factor into the economy the value of the services ecosystems and species provide us you will see that preserving them is not a disintered act, it is good business. The problem is that these services are not considered when entrepreneurs are making economic calculations. This is harmful both to the economy and to the environment. The long term solution lies in solving the extremely complex calculations of value involved. How much is the Redwood Forest mentioned by Mindy-O-Lluin worth? I can tell you that is worth more (MUCH more) preserved than destroyed, but not how much more. This is the question we must answer, so that people can see how harmful environmentally unfriendly actions are.

Of course, the next step would be charging the people (companies + governments, mostly) responsible for environmental destruction. If it hurt in their pockets they would stop quickly.

This point of view sidesteps completely the moral issue. What do you all think of it?

[Hadhafang]

Economically, conservation is the way to go.
The wild certainly has value. Whether that value can outweigh greedy, short term economic growth is the question. Unfortunately, I don't think it can. I personally don't think the value of the wild can be measured by money. The riches it provides are spiritual. Don't get me wrong. That has value. I know I am more at ease walking amongst the hush of the trees than when I am downtown. Some criticize conservationists as being aesthetic snobs. This may be partially true. We prefer the 'look' of trees, rock, and fauna over stripmalls, ofice buildings, and car dealerships. The opposition always claims industry creates jobs and is more practical. However, this philosophy is much more greedy, selfish, and primitive than that of conservationists.

[Eriol]

Hey, you're a loremaster now Hadhafang! Congratulations...

I am a lake ecologist. I know what you are talking about. Some of the greatest moments in my life were in the middle of a lake, just taking a while to be dazzled by beauty in the midst of work... The problem is the subjectivity of this view. I know people who would be terrified to spend a day like this, and much prefer to stay in an air conditioned office. How do we convince them?

We MUST give monetary value to the environmental assets to achieve this. The wild is appealing to much more people than we think. Ecotourism, managed exploration of wild plants and animals, and things like these can mean that keeping an area inviolate is more profitable than destroying it... As well as charging for the unseen, essential services such as pollination (sp?), uptake and treatment of polluted effluents, clean water... I have no doubt that the TOTAL value, all things considered, of an inviolate area is much greater than what can be gained by its destruction. But while we do not absorb this value in our economic calculation, this calculation becomes biased in favor of unchecked development. This is harmful to the environment and to the economy. This is OBVIOUS, and does not concern moral judgments and subjective values.

[Hadhafang]

I am a lake ecologist.
Good to see some of my Environmental Scientist friends on TTF. I personally have my degrees in geology. A few of my close colleagues are wetlands specialists.....something like your area of expertise.
We MUST give monetary value to the environmental assets to achieve this.
I understand what you're saying....but don't you think that is stooping to the industrialist level a little bit. I think instead the end goal should be to educate them about the true value of conservation. Appreciation of the wild has similar value as the arts, religion, and academic sciences. There is much to be leared about the world in which we live. If we destroy what is out there, that knowledge will be lost forever. However the industrialist mind often scoffs at academic sciences like these. The whole idea for them is to make as much money as possible at any cost. "Why bother studying paleontology, geology, zoology, etc. if isn't going to do anyone any good," is a classic industrial attitude. My response is usuually, "because a society is only as good as the people in it. If your society is filled with people ignorant of the world around them...what does that say about that society.
The industrialist mind is not a stupid one. They are very crafty at figuring out ways to earn money. If there was an enormous wealth of money to be made in conservation, they probably would have been pushing for it a long time ago.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Hey! I am a geologist, too, by education, but not by occupation.

[Eriol]

First of all, I won't be here for a while, so forgive me if I seem absent... it is because I am ;).

Appreciation of the wild has similar value as the arts, religion, and academic sciences.

The industrialist mind is not a stupid one. They are very crafty at figuring out ways to earn money. If there was an enormous wealth of money to be made in conservation, they probably would have been pushing for it a long time ago.

Exactly. For instance, I am what you may call a "plastic idiot". I have no interest whatsoever for paintings. I nod in awe as well as the next guy when someone is praising a famous painting, but I don't see the reason for all the excitement. And some of these things are sold for thousands (or millions) of dollars.

On the other hand, I am a soccer fan. I know people who are very upset at the salaries of the players, but I understand them quite well... if the clubs are willing to pay as much, and since clubs are not philantropical entities, they must be getting more than they give, through publicity, fees, etc.

The common ground between these and environmentalism is that value is a function of subjective taste. If many people enjoy something and are willing to give money for it, it is valuable. A painting by Van Gogh was considered awful when he painted it. It is worth millions of dollars now. Were the industrialists of Van Gogh's time stupid? No, it simply was not valuable back then.

The same thing may happen with the aesthetic value of the environment. What you call the industrialist mind is first and foremost attuned to the preferences of the people. It may scoff at nature, but it will not scoff if people are willing to pay. And they are! People would gladly pay for the preservation of forests (in fact many do this right now) and other ecosystems. The trick is in making the industrialist see that the ecosystem is worth more intact than destroyed. Not only because of its services and products, I grant you that, (not that I denied it :) ), aesthetic values are important too. Art is a prime example of how people pay for aesthetic pleasure.

We agree on ends my friends. The means are the big question... as I see it, it is either voluntary adjustment or coercion (taxation by government to preserve the environment). I prefer the voluntary adjustment, mainly on ethical grounds but also because I think coercion will not work as well.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I do not wish to see the Natural wonders of the world to be preserved only to have a 'price' on them based on market profitability.

Thank goodness for those foresighted individuals in government who started the preservation of our beautiful lands with the National Parks System. If not for that, the industrialist/commercial privateers would have already made these prophetic words true:

"They took all the trees,
put 'em in a tree museum.
And they charged all the people,
a dollar and a half just to see 'em.

Don't it alway seem to go,
that ya don't know whatcha got 'till it's gone...."

Another thought: If the privateers eventually buy up access to, and start charging us for pleasure for profit, shouldn't we call them the pimps of nature?

[faila]

Originally posted by Niniel
Why do you think humans are better or more important than animals? They are not. Humans are important, yes, but so are all others animals and plants. At least THEY have the insight not to destroy their own environment as humans do. The whole earth and is a carefully balanced ecosystem in which every living (and dead) thing has its function. We can not go on living the way we do, or in a few hundred years all earth's natural resources will be spent, and there is only one earth, so we must be very careful in how we live. This statement bother me.
Humans are obviusly better than animals and more important. We can think logically and we are not based on instict but thought and emotion. We are better than animals if you do any scientific research you will find this out. (note: I do not think we should waste animals, I think we should use them as a rescource, but make sure not to waste those that we can use.)

[Niniel]

What I meant was that animals are not 'better' or 'more important' than other beings because of any rights that they are suoppsed to have. They are of course more intelligent than other beings and have therefore more possibilities of dominating other species. But this is a part of nature; their intelligence is caused by slow evolution, just as the qualities of othet beings. Every being has its place and function in the world, and the whole of nature is carefully balanced to make sure that species can coexist. Most species are happy just to take what they need to survive, and leave everything alone that does not harm them, that is what their instinct commands. There is no immorality or wickedness or will to destroy among most species (there are some exceptions, but not many). Humans on the other hand take more than they need, and so destroy their natural environment. They are more intelligent, but not so intelligent as to see that they can not go on like this. Because they are led by emotions and thoughts and have the intelligence to achieve their purposes, they behave in a sense worse than other species, and certainly not better.

[Hadhafang]

We are better than animals if you do any scientific research you will find this out.
Actually Faila you are arguing against a bunch of scientists. The term 'better than animals' has its roots in religious teachings, not scientific. If you really want to talk scientifically, all humans are more than 95% genetically similar to Chimpanzees. We are made out of the same biogenic apatite, kerotin, and amino acids as almost every othe vertebrate on the face of the planet. I am not trying to argue. I just wanted to correct you. There are other attributes than intelligence to consider. We personally wouldn't match up to the strength of a Kodiac Bear, the speed of a Cheetah, or the dexterity of a monkey. I think that human intelligence is one of the most facinating products of evolution. Yet it is only one part. It is a shame some can't use it more wisely and realize that "in wilderness is the preservation of the world."

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

In my religion, we consider what Ninel was saying to mean that all life has an equal inherent worth, or value, just because it IS Life. It wasn't a comparison based on whether one can run faster or think better, or look cuter than another. In fact, we see those who are better at certain things as having a responsibility to care for the others according to their ability. As she implied, we are all part of the same life system and governed by the same scientific and natural laws.

[faila]

Originally posted by Hadhafang
Actually Faila you are arguing against a bunch of scientists. The term 'better than animals' has its roots in religious teachings, not scientific. If you really want to talk scientifically, all humans are more than 95% genetically similar to Chimpanzees. We are made out of the same biogenic apatite, kerotin, and amino acids as almost every othe vertebrate on the face of the planet. I am not trying to argue. I just wanted to correct you. There are other attributes than intelligence to consider. We personally wouldn't match up to the strength of a Kodiac Bear, the speed of a Cheetah, or the dexterity of a monkey. I think that human intelligence is one of the most facinating products of evolution. Yet it is only one part. It is a shame some can't use it more wisely and realize that "in wilderness is the preservation of the world." Evolve- to get better, to improve.

THe sceintific theory of evolution is on the basis that things get better. Humans are their fore sceintifically better than animals.

note: I do not persnally believe in evolution. I believe its obvious that we are better.

[Niniel]

Of course it depends on your definition of 'better'. Do you mean that humans are morally better than animals? I don't agree with you, since crime, senseless violence and war only exist with humans. There is also 'better' in the sense of better adapted to their environment; but humans are not better adapted than animals, so that's not true either. The there is 'better' in 'more powerful, better equipped to dominate other species.' In that case humans are better than animals, but I don't think that's what you mean. So what is you definition of better, and how do you think humans are better than animals?

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Niniel
I don't agree with you, since crime, senseless violence and war only exist with humans.
Really? Never seen two dogs fight just because?

[faila]

Originally posted by Niniel
Of course it depends on your definition of 'better'. Do you mean that humans are morally better than animals? I don't agree with you, since crime, senseless violence and war only exist with humans. There is also 'better' in the sense of better adapted to their environment; but humans are not better adapted than animals, so that's not true either. The there is 'better' in 'more powerful, better equipped to dominate other species.' In that case humans are better than animals, but I don't think that's what you mean. So what is you definition of better, and how do you think humans are better than animals? WE are in all ways better. Scientificall we are animals, theirfore it is part of the food chain that we eat them.

All of those, we have a way to be moral or immoral I do not feel that animals do.

[Hadhafang]

THe sceintific theory of evolution is on the basis that things get better. Humans are their fore sceintifically better than animals.
Not true. What may be better today may have been a curse in the past. Species evolve as a result of changes in their ecosystem. That 'humans are better than animals' is a purely religious idea.
An "OVER SIMPLIFIED" example:
As the polar ice caps recede due to global warming, the arctic snow hare which evolved a white coat over the past 100,000 years will most likely go exctinct. During glaciation the white hair phenotype provided camoflouge protection from predators. As the glaciers recede that white hair will stick out against the gray tundra. Predators will prey on them easier. The point: What once was better is now worse.
Also whales are the most evolved mammals on the planet. They are the most disparate genetically from all other mammal species. If you are convinced that humans are indeed better than other animals, may I interest you in a competition. We will have a wrestling match between you (or any other human) and a grizzly bear. We will see who 'betters' who. While we have our incredible intelligence....it is all we have. When our intelligence fails us we are the biggest weenies, dweebs, and losers in the history of evolution.

[faila]

Originally posted by Hadhafang
Not true. What may be better today may have been a curse in the past. Species evolve as a result of changes in their ecosystem. That 'humans are better than animals' is a purely religious idea.
An "OVER SIMPLIFIED" example:
As the polar ice caps recede due to global warming, the arctic snow hare which evolved a white coat over the past 100,000 years will most likely go exctinct. During glaciation the white hair phenotype provided camoflouge protection from predators. As the glaciers recede that white hair will stick out against the gray tundra. Predators will prey on them easier. The point: What once was better is now worse.
Also whales are the most evolved mammals on the planet. They are the most disparate genetically from all other mammal species. If you are convinced that humans are indeed better than other animals, may I interest you in a competition. We will have a wrestling match between you (or any other human) and a grizzly bear. We will see who 'betters' who. While we have our incredible intelligence....it is all we have. When our intelligence fails us we are the biggest weenies, dweebs, and losers in the history of evolution. I would take your challenge, I use tools such as shot guns, bears dont.

[Hadhafang]

Your intelligence failed.....

You are no hunter. No hunter uses a shotgun against a grizzly bear. A shotgun against a bear would spell death.

You lose.

[faila]

I named a random gun, any way, I think I could kill a bear with a shot gun whether they hunter use on or not.

[Hadhafang]

Faila your point is not wrong however. I think what you mean when you say 'better' is more suggestive of dominance. Humans are obviously the most dominant mammal on earth. Our one key asset is our intelligence. That could be argued to be the 'best' trait to evolve. However as I said before that is not foolproof. We heavily rely on other humans for support. All of our intelligence fails at some time. What would happen if our car broke down in the wild and we had to walk to find water and food? Our gun only has x-number of bullets. Once that the luxury of the human fraternity dissappears you and I are both just another hamburger to the faster, stronger, better (?) animals. I guess my one point in this tangent is that better is far to subjective a word for most academic debates.

[Hadhafang]

I think I could kill a bear with a shot gun
It would have to be a point blank shot to the neck or chest. By that time it is too late. A shotgun at 10 yards would probably ricochet off of a grizzly's skull. Shot guns are used more for small game.

[Ciryaher]

*looks at the bears that walk around in the wood here* Well, I could take one of these on with a hatchet, but a grizzly bear is a bit too big to take on. I'd have to just back away slowly and then run, like a frightened antelope.

No, humans are not the greatest carnivores, nor the greatest herbivores. We rely on our brains (well, some of us) to get by, because most humans are not as strong as many animals, physically.

If you consider construction a measure of a species' ability, then termites have us matched. Compare a 1mm termite with a 3 metre tall structure built with plant matter, soil, and rocks.

Or, agriculture? The leafcutter ant cuts leaves and arranges them in structures used to grow fungi. The ants eat the fungus, and not the leaves.

Communication? Elephants and porpoises both have intricate systems of communication that humans are as of yet unable to decipher. Yet most household pets can understand their masters. Who is the superiour species?

[Khamul]

What do you suggest? We kill the 'excess' people so that houses will not need to continue to be build? Implement a one-child limit, as already seen in China? Start a war? The human population will continue to grow, and more living facilities will be needed. I find it funny that there is more concern for animals, whose territory is being infringed upon, when there are millions of people living in a cycle that will only result in poverty and death, with no chance for going upwards in their social structure.

[Hadhafang]

there are millions of people living in a cycle that will only result in poverty and death, with no chance for going upwards in their social structure.
This is because there are too few resources to support the immense human population. The third world is catching up in lifestyle with the first world. The firstworld consumes the most resources. When the whole Earth is at the level that the industrialized nations are at today, there will be nothing of the natural world left. I certainly wouldn't suggest denying anyone's right to procreate. Nor would I ever suggest that killing people in war as a solution. Some people may not find any value in the natural world. I and many others do. There are plenty of other ways to ensure human comfort with out destroying the wild. Most people indeed do find value in nature. A pleasent day spent outside is always better than being couped up in an office building with flourescent lights. The beauty of the beach is always more transcendant than a public swimming pool. A walk in the woods is always more calming than a walk in a concrete jungle. The scientific and spiritual knowledge gained about our own life history and the natural world is the most precious gift of conservation.