PETA is on crack... - TTLG Forums

denisv on 19/1/2009 at 13:15

Quote Posted by Vivian

Doesn't make em more important. Liking more 'advanced' lifeforms is just another form of anthro-bias, every part of an ecosystem is invaluable in some way (Even us, at the moment - I read an interesting article on what species would actually go extinct if we left the planet as it is, there were a few surprises. Cheetahs, frinstance). I suspect PETA's point (in a really bent way) is that if we are to end up with a functioning planet that's still got pretty landscapes to hang around in, we need to get beyond assuming different 'levels' of species.

Do you cry for smallpox?

Vivian on 19/1/2009 at 13:45

Fuck off, dickwipe. This is a grown-ups conversation.

Besides, keeping humans in check is arguably an extremely valid part of the global ecosystem, given what we've managed to do so far.

DDL on 19/1/2009 at 15:33

To be honest, the whole term "ecosystem" is poorly used. The world isn't some closed-bubble steady-state mishmash of food/resource/whatever-network balances that needs to be 'maintained'.

The entire world changes constantly, species go extinct all the damn time with or without human involvement. Likewise, new species arise constantly. Some species enjoy incredible, rampant success (wiping out many other species in the process) before some random fluke hits them with the 'fuck-you' bat (often, for example, because they've wiped out some species they depend on).

Happens all the damn time, nothing to do with people. There are many species that wouldn't be here today if not for human intervention: species that would have been wiped out by causes entirely unrelated to human activity. Species that are, for want of a better word, crap.

Sometimes things just change, and sometimes those changes just fuck over some poor bunch of furry creatures in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It could happen to humans one day (in all likelihood it WILL happen to humans, let's be honest), but such is life.

What conservationists are really doing, whether they think about it like this or not, is not so much 'protect the ecosystem, and more 'attempting to maintain the world in a state we know is suitable for humans'. There may be a ton of species out there we could happily ditch and have no effect on our ability to survive here...but we don't know that for sure, and we know the current situation is compatible with our continued success, so they're trying to maintain that steady state. Which is actually an entirely unnatural situation to bring about, when you think about it.

Vivian on 19/1/2009 at 15:54

However, what you are doing is assuming you know more about ecology than most conservationists. Which might be true of the man-at-a-rally with a placard about vivisection, but is certainly not true of the people in charge, unless you have a PhD in conservation biology.

You are right about things changing, but theres a very real difference between 'turnover' and 'collapse'. The former is, like you say, inevitable. What we are doing is changing things so fast that we could be looking at the latter, which is what the sensible conservationists are trying to prevent. The extinction rate at the moment is ludicrously high (some scaremongers would say (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5665/1879) apocalyptically high), so I think the idea is to at least stabilise what is currently there long enough for us to understand the biosphere well enough to maintain a healthy, diverse system and not have to eat rats and fungus for the forseeable.

Starrfall on 19/1/2009 at 17:26

Can we stop referring to PETA as conservationists? As far as I can tell the species they make a big deal over are not endangered or threatened in any way. See their "ACTION CENTER" page, which has articles about pigeons, rats, cats, pigs, Beyonce's dog, and how cheese is gross because it's got BACTERIA in it. Even with their stupid seakitten thing their focus is on how awful and mean fishing is to the poor little fishies and how smart and affectionate the poor little fishies are so don't eat them ok? and environmental concerns are barely tagging for the ride.

If you guys are talking about conservationists in general and not PETA any more then never mind!

denisv on 19/1/2009 at 17:31

Quote Posted by Vivian

and not have to eat rats.

Indeed, that would make you a cannibal.

DDL on 19/1/2009 at 17:42

Quote Posted by Vivian

You are right about things changing, but theres a very real difference between 'turnover' and 'collapse'. The former is, like you say, inevitable. What we are doing is changing things so fast that we could be looking at the latter, which is what the sensible conservationists are trying to prevent. The extinction rate at the moment is ludicrously high (some scaremongers would say (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5665/1879) apocalyptically high), so I think the idea is to at least stabilise what is currently there long enough for us to understand the biosphere well enough to maintain a healthy, diverse system and not have to eat rats and fungus for the forseeable.

Point taken.

I'm not sure they're tackling the most important issues, though (and I admit, such issues would largely fall outside of the remit of a conservationist). Most importantly, that there are simply too damn many humans, and the numbers are growing.
I think we're going to need some sort of "mass human population collapse" sometime in the near future, or we'll be looking at a "total human population collapse" in the slightly more distant future.

Interestingly (if you like microbiological analogies, that is), bacteria growing on a petri dish will be reaching their fastest, most successful "wheee! Life is awesome, dude" growth rates at round about the point where 90% of the resources are exhausted. Shortly after that, around 90-95% of them will die of starvation (Start hoarding canned goods, folks!).

Also, densiv: what?

Matthew on 19/1/2009 at 18:09

denisv is butthurt from the epic stomping he got last page.

Chimpy Chompy on 19/1/2009 at 19:22

Quote Posted by Starrfall

how cheese is gross because it's got BACTERIA in it.

What! I love cheese. And reading around their website apparently cows live lives of terrible misery to provide us with it... (stand around, look bored, chew, repeat... horror)

Rug Burn Junky on 19/1/2009 at 20:28

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

Just out of interest, how are you defining "worthiness" here? I take it fish are equal to mammals? But is, say, a prawn no equally worthy? Or a jellyfish? Is the dividing line at the vertebrate status? Or something else? (i hear octopuses are quite intelligent, more so than a fish?)

I've said this before, but smart animals taste just as good as the dumb ones.

If Stephen Hawking tasted like Grade A Prime, you'd best believe I'd be all over that bitch making wheelchair kebabs.