tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post4754794326651279364..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: The last orang standing (no place to swing): why do we care?Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-55287656472706608942016-04-17T08:09:34.743-04:002016-04-17T08:09:34.743-04:00I wouldn't argue about these reasons at all, b...I wouldn't argue about these reasons at all, but I think they reflect the thoughts I was trying to express. The first 'hazy' reason is a selfish one (I don't mean that in any pejorative sense), in that preventing the haze is simply good for the here and now. Somebody must be benefitting so that should be considered if we try to be 'objective' (i.e. are not directly affected by the haze ourselves).<br /><br />As to the intelligence and personhood, I would again say that is a kind of self-referential reason, or something of that sort. I agree entirely with that reason, but it is a local, here-and-now, subjective reason, no? If every orang or other great ape will die anyway, at some time, why does it matter, again other than in a kind of self-projecting way? Why don't we feel that way about chickens or goats? Do they not have 'personhood or 'intelligence', even if it's not the same as ours? And is an ape's the same as ours?<br /><br />I'm not being argumentative here, because I personally feel the same as you do about these. But I am trying to muse on why that is, not whether it is or whether it is even a 'legitimate' way for us to feel. But a rhino-horn dealer may say that he has children to feed, and they are intelligent and have personhood, etc.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-9478098917487592942016-04-16T16:37:05.737-04:002016-04-16T16:37:05.737-04:00It's worth noting that at least in some cases,...It's worth noting that at least in some cases, it's not starving locals being oppressed by affluent westerners who care more about orangutans than people. In Malaysia, the "haze" (as they call it) which results from all the illegal burning---often by businesses, not just desperate subsistence farmers---can be nigh-suffocating. Saving the orangutans by protecting their habits will likely also help suffering Malaysians and Indonesians. <br /><br />Some more:<br /><br />http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34265922 <br />http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/10/true-cost-malaysia-haze-151023122841586.html <br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Southeast_Asian_haze<br /><br />Another reason we might choose to care more about the other great apes: if we consider intelligence and personhood to be morally relevant criteria (at least generally), then it seems like perhaps we ought to see the passing of an orangutan (or the passing of all orangutans) as something worth mourning, even preventing. Ricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-89369261910540988552016-04-14T10:46:21.086-04:002016-04-14T10:46:21.086-04:00There have been fictional books about the end of h...There have been fictional books about the end of humans and what it would be like psychologically, especially if they knew they were the last. I'm not sure how I or others would actually react to that knowledge. Becoming more religious? Throwing caution to the winds? Sinking into a permanent deep funk?<br /><br />In a strange sense we actually do not totally 'die' if we have offspring, our sperm or egg cells we shed to do that are clearly a continuation of our own lives. I think that makes many parents or grandparents feel differently about life. But do those who are childless act or think very differently? I think that would be difficult to test 'scientifically'. In any case, it is a matter of personal subjective feelings and one might say, perhaps too harshly?, because even then we know that extinction ultimately awaits--even if it were, unimaginably, only when the sun itself dies.<br /><br />Of course, illusions like some cosmologists' (Stephen Hawking and others) recent pronouncements about colonizing space seem to be variations on the same theme, that I tried to address in the post today. If we are personally going to expire, why should we care whether a species, including our own, will last 100 years or 100,000,000,000? It is to me, at least, interesting to think about.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-42090182406717540242016-04-14T10:35:18.082-04:002016-04-14T10:35:18.082-04:00I think that you might find this guy interesting. ...I think that you might find this guy interesting. Thinking that there's a future to our species changes how we feel about things; I think that this probably extends to many aspects of our environment as well. http://www.npr.org/2013/10/09/230756192/a-philosophers-afterlife-we-may-die-but-others-live-on<br /><br />carmenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10180853543742041891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-48992244011793371722016-04-14T10:13:49.388-04:002016-04-14T10:13:49.388-04:00Thanks for your thoughtful comment! It's a co...Thanks for your thoughtful comment! It's a complex thing. In a sense, conservation is, hard to say but perhaps true, a form of entertainment for those of us living in plush conditions. Grand Canyon, or 'exotic' plants,or disappearing species are a form of Disneyland and TV distraction from daily life. Of course, in many places, local devastation will mean a real change of life--even here at home, soil and forest destruction will lead to turmoil or displacement, and while it's natural for things to change, it's also natural to want stability, but hard to make adjustments that have generic long-term but less savory short-term implications for how we live. It's all worth musing about, at least.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-46148176450958227412016-04-14T09:56:46.072-04:002016-04-14T09:56:46.072-04:00Great discussion, Ken. I've gone over these th...Great discussion, Ken. I've gone over these things in my mind so often, as a lot of my work has been surveying and recommending protection for rare plants ... with lots of time to think. I could never totally accept preventing extinction as the "right" thing to do for moral and biological reasons. But in our situation here, we can "afford" to protect, avoid these fascinating plants--neo endemics, Pleistocene relics e.g.--and we should. They're evidence for one thing--for paleoecology, evolution e.g. And no one argues about protecting historical sites.<br /><br />Elsewhere in the world, it does seem bizarre that affluent people go in and demand protection for charismatic animals at the expense of locals' welfare. Yet at the same time, I would be happy with more wildlife and fewer people in this world! In other words--no clear answer. Hopefully ecotourism can occasionally help.Hollishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788942181934895493noreply@blogger.com