GRANTS PASS, Oregon (AP) — Federal wildlife officials plan to dispatch armed bird specialists into forests of the Pacific Northwest starting this fall to shoot one species of owl to protect another that is threatened with extinction.
...
The agency's preferred course of action calls for killing 3,603 barred owls in four study areas in Oregon, Washington and Northern California over the next four years.
MathJakob said:What right do humans have to govern nature? Long gone are the days when humans didn't get involved.
MathJakob said:What right do humans have to govern nature? Long gone are the days when humans didn't get involved. What gives us the right to kill over 3,000 owls to save another species? If the course of nature is that these other owls go extinct then so be it... It's the same with pandas, their course of nature is to go extinct but we are forcing them to remain apart of the world when nature doesn't want them to.
Power to do what? Many people believe that our power demands a responsibility to maintain a certain (self contradictory) "natural order". That's what is being discussed here.reenmachine said:It's not rights , it's power.Humans do as they please on Earth because they have all the power.
You're sick, really.nsaspook said:I hope they have owl tags this fall, why let the government do all the killing.
ModusPwnd said:Those days never existed. Mankind is a part of nature and we have interacted with it and places pressures on others species since we evolved. Humans have just as much right to interact with and place pressure on other species as every species on the planet does - its not only a natural right, its nature's way.
WannabeNewton said:You're sick, really.
russ_watters said:Power to do what? Many people believe that our power demands a responsibility to maintain a certain (self contradictory) "natural order". That's what is being discussed here.
daveyrocket said:The spotted owl is threatened with extinction because we (humans) have been logging their habitat for years. It's one thing to say that we shouldn't get involved, but it's another thing if we've already been involved and caused all sorts of damage through our own careless actions. We can't just drive them to near extinction and watch another species finish the job and then say "well that's just nature's way, we didn't have anything to do with that."
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you are just inconsiderate. Mass killing like this should never be taken lightly. It's a serious choice, and I'm sure more than one researcher is pretty upset by this.nsaspook said:I hope they have owl tags this fall, why let the government do all the killing.
Lol! I certainly hope this doesn't backfire. What if the barred owls contract some sort of disease and because of the mass killing, they become extinct?Vanadium 50 said:Does anyone else think that 3603 is a remarkably precise number?
Er, no, that's not what's being said. What's being said is "that's just nature's way". Period. The fact that we're doing it does not mean it isn't nature's way - humans are part of nature!daveyrocket said:We can't just drive them to near extinction and watch another species finish the job and then say "well that's just nature's way, we didn't have anything to do with that."
I think we basically agree but are talking about it from different directions.reenmachine said:My post wasn't about what to do with our power or which responsabilities comes with our power.I also didn't take a stand about whether I thought it was good or bad to have that power or to use it.I was simply responding to the very specific question: "What right do humans have to govern nature?".Humans don't need right to govern , they just need the power.That's what I meant.
russ_watters said:Er, no, that's not what's being said. What's being said is "that's just nature's way". Period. The fact that we're doing it does not mean it isn't nature's way - humans are part of nature!
daveyrocket said:If that's you're perspective, than there is no issue of what our right/responsibility is because anything we do is part of nature's way. So if we want to killed barred owls to preserve the spotted owl, then that's okay because that's nature's way.
Also I just want to point out that sometimes when someone says "that's just nature's way" what they mean is that that's how things would naturally play out if humans were not involved. It may not be technically correct because humans are natural organisms, but it's enough of a colloquialism that it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if that is what is meant.
Integral said:This is the hypotheses, that the Spotted Owl is in decline because of the logging. According to this mornings paper logging was cut back by 90% in the 90's hence the terrible economics times the PNW has been having. In spite of the cut back in logging the Spotted owl has not recovered. So now the Barred Owl is the problem.
Maybe they are missing something? Perhaps they (the wild life biologists) are just guessing? It has always amazed me that on one hand they say how elusive and hard to find the Spotted Owl is yet on the other they know exactly how many there are? Whats wrong with this pic?
Mandelbroth said:I can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you are just inconsiderate. Mass killing like this should never be taken lightly. It's a serious choice, and I'm sure more than one researcher is pretty upset by this.
daveyrocket said:Yeah you're right I'm missing the point. And I'm still not getting it so help me out here. .
nsaspook said:I'm a hunter that lives in the PNW and the likely places for the hunting zones would be deep in old growth forest. I would would love to spend a few days scouting those areas for a controlled owl hunt while looking for other game in the fall. If killing these birds saves the spotted owl after all the pain people in this state have suffered because of them then I and others will be glad to help.
We can do whatever we want, yes. What I'm trying to disabuse people of is the notion that we have a responsibility to do it a certain way.daveyrocket said:If that's you're perspective, than there is no issue of what our right/responsibility is because anything we do is part of nature's way. So if we want to killed barred owls to preserve the spotted owl, then that's okay because that's nature's way.
I'm aware. My point is that that doesn't make it a logical argument. A lion doesn't care that the zebra would live if he didn't eat it. He doesn't try to preserve an ecosystem that would be different if he weren't involved. Why should we? Heck, environmentalists are basically saying the lion is too dumb to be moral, so we'll let it go. So:Also I just want to point out that sometimes when someone says "that's just nature's way" what they mean is that that's how things would naturally play out if humans were not involved. It may not be technically correct because humans are natural organisms, but it's enough of a colloquialism that it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if that is what is meant.
Being intelligent is irrelevant there. Every species takes actions that affects the existence of other species.MathJakob said:You're completely misunderstanding the point about humans and nature. Yes we are part of nature but we're also intelligent which means that at some point the actions we take to enchance our species may affect the existence of another species...
Why is it part of nature for the lion to decide who lives but not part of nature for us? You're saying the fact that humans are intelligent creates a burden on us that does not exist for other species.This is part of nature, it is not part of nature for humans to decide which one of two species gets to live.
That's exactly the self-contradictory logic I'm referring to, yes. And with the motivation laid-bare: emotion. People react emotionally to seeing death, so they think they should stop it. That's all this is. It isn't logical at all.If I were in the wild and I saw a cheetah cub getting attacked by a gorilla, every fibre of my being would want to do something to intervene and stop the gorilla but you simply cannot get involved. It is not our place... and so it isn't our place to kill 3500 of one species to allow the weaker species to exist. It's just plane wrong, everything that happens in the universe from a star exploding to a lion eating a calf is nature. It is not our place to (please forgive me for saying this) play god.
lisab said:Can you differentiate between a Barred Owl and a Spotted Owl, in low light (which is when owls are active)?
russ_watters said:Being intelligent is irrelevant there. Every species takes actions that affects the existence of other species. Why is it part of nature for the lion to decide who lives but not part of nature for us? You're saying the fact that humans are intelligent creates a burden on us that does not exist for other species.
russ_watters said:That's exactly the self-contradictory logic I'm referring to, yes. And with the motivation laid-bare: emotion. People react emotionally to seeing death, so they think they should stop it. That's all this is. It isn't logical at all.
What's the difference? In western society, "rights" have historically been an individual concept. Indeed, applying rights to groups has often been used as an excuse for restricting the rights of individuals.daveyrocket said:Russ, you're taking the logic too far. The barred owl is pushing the spotted owl out, but no one is suggesting that we hunt the barred owl to extinction. This isn't about preventing individual organisms from being killed it's about preventing a species from going extinct.
I do. What I do not accept is that our intelligence makes us inferior to other animals while simultaneously requiring more responsibility.You have to accept that humans are different from other animals, because other animals do not have enough intelligence to consider morals.
Your intelligence does not require you to pay bills. You can go live in a New York subway station if you want.Intelligence creates lots of burdens. I have to find a way to pay my bills, I have to wash my clothes and clean my kitchen. My dog doesn't have to do any of these things. She has enough intelligence to be able to learn to poop outside. Intelligence is a major game changer when it comes to discussing behavior.
That's not logic, that's "begging the question." You're assuming the conclusion in the axiom.Actually, it's perfectly logical. If you start from an axiom that one should prevent death to the best of one's ability. Then it's quite logical to stop one thing from killing another thing when seeing it about to happen.
For a surprising number of cases, ethics/morality works out well when you apply practical standards to it, such as reciprocity (the Golden Rule) and quantitative measurements that can be determined to be good or bad (ie, living longer = good).You have to first start by discussing what axioms are going to be acceptable. The way we do that in physics is to observe some phenomenon, think up some axioms, work out the logic, and see if the logical prediction of the axioms matches the observation. That approach doesn't work well with ethics because a lot of times there isn't some standard to judge against. You have to look at whether the resulting behavior is acceptable or not, which is really difficult except in very extreme cases.
That is indeed what I'm suggesting.In this approach we're looking at is if humans act one way (do nothing) then the spotted owl will likely die out. If we act another way they might not. Is their extinction an acceptable consequence of our behavior? I don't know if it is or not, but if you're going to tell me their extinction it is acceptable because we have the same moral obligations as a lion, well I don't find that to be very convincing.
That is not what I'm suggesting.And if you're going to tell me it's because it's logical, then you'd better be prepared to make a convincing case for the axioms you're arguing for. If your argument is that you want a system of morals so simple that it could apply to any living organism regardless of intelligence, then sorry, I reject your axioms.
And that's my point: trying to apply our morals across species leads to contradictions. Our morals were not designed to apply to other species and they do not work well when misapplied.
Further, the fact that we (and other animals) have developed species-specific morality is likely a natural consequence of evolution. Species evolve to survive and reproduce and do so even at the expense of other species.
russ_watters said:What's the difference? In western society, "rights" have historically been an individual concept. Indeed, applying rights to groups has often been used as an excuse for restricting the rights of individuals.
I do. What I do not accept is that our intelligence makes us inferior to other animals while simultaneously requiring more responsibility. Your intelligence does not require you to pay bills. You can go live in a New York subway station if you want.
For a surprising number of cases, ethics/morality works out well when you apply practical standards to it, such as reciprocity (the Golden Rule) and quantitative measurements that can be determined to be good or bad (ie, living longer = good).
And that's my point: trying to apply our morals across species leads to contradictions.
That's not logic, that's "begging the question." You're assuming the conclusion in the axiom.
Our morals were not designed to apply to other species and they do not work well when misapplied.
Further, the fact that we (and other animals) have developed species-specific morality is likely a natural consequence of evolution. Species evolve to survive and reproduce and do so even at the expense of other species.
256bits said:So far we have had the following argument which all have yay and nay
- its nature way - we either let them be or we can interfer since we are part of nature
- humans are the powerful species on the planet - we can do what we want regardless of consequences or we can choose to attemt to have minimal impact
- we alter habitat - alter away and leave it be or or should we attempt to restore back to "nature"
daveyrocket said:Yeah you're right I'm missing the point. And I'm still not getting it so help me out here. So here's what I'm understanding of what you're saying, and you can correct me where I'm wrong.
You're saying that as humans, we have a moral obligation to not interfere with natural* events.
Specifically, we have a moral obligation to not save the spotted owl from extinction.
Now here's my question:
A major factor in the decline of the spotted owl has been excessive logging.
That logging was as human action.
According to your moral theory of noninteraction, we had a moral duty to not destroy the spotted owl's habitat in the first place.
But we did it anyway.
Now do we have a moral obligation to repair the damage we shouldn't have done? Or do we just say well that's too bad for them, but now when it's not so convenient for us we suddenly implement a noninteraction policy.
* In this context, I'm using "natural" to refer to things which happen without human involvement.