Jacobo’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  WaTi

  I was going to ask after rolling over the link, "Since when was the Washington Times considered a legitimate publication?"  And then I read the story...how did this wacko, Mr. Fred Reed, make it past WaTi security?On Many goodies herein posted 2 years, 11 months ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  a brief

  Here's a sufficient recap of the most pertinent text.  Crichton's a real winner.On Critic turns up in book as kiddie rapist posted 2 years, 11 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  We just disagree about...

  ...the basic unit of concern.  Your basic unit of concern is the individual; mine is the species (defined as you feel appropriate).  My argument to the individualistic view would be that a species is a unique group to which (basically) identical individuals belong; at best, an individual may have a life of days to a couple of centuries (e.g., tortoises), while species have histories of tens of thousands to millions of years.  To bring to an end a lineage that has witnessed the passing of epochs is a far greater loss than an individual whose short life will be quickly forgotten, but whose legacy is carried across time within genes.  Yes, it is a moral argument, but perhaps without the fuzzi-cuddliness associated with animal rights.  

  That said, I don't think that either of our arguments should be cast aside: we should fight to win (that is, to conserve and protect) by whatever means necessary.  Speaking to people who adore their pets and have a connection to individualist mindset--but no real appreciation for conservation--will be best reached by your arguments.  Another group--those who David refers to as pragmatists--may be better swayed by my argument.  Another group, the utilitarians, may be persuaded only if you can highlight the fact that we don't know the "function" of each and every species, and as such, we had better conserve them.

  Let's also recognize that the vast majority of species facing the threat of extinction in the short- to medium-term are not threatened by hunting; habitat destruction, invasive species, chemical pollution (especially with regard to amphibians) are far-and-away the big winners there.  Those charismatic species that dominate calls for protection often face hunting pressures that threaten their existence, but how many species are actually employed to that end?  Not many.  I would wager that more species of Neotropical beetles face imminent threats from habitat destruction, than there are individuals of the whale species at greatest risk to whaling.  There is the argument that protecting large, and typically charismatic, species benefits many other species (the umbrella species hypothesis), and that has its place...but that place is not everywhere, nor at all times.

  Lastly, I agree that there has to be a basic philosophical change at large human scales before we can truly begin to protect and conserve species.  But that is a fight to be waged over generations, and taking what many will consider radical stands--such as the extremes of animal rights--only helps to the extent that those a little closer to the center are able to slap those further to the "left" (and I use that term with great trepidation).  So let's keep it a minority, but active, view.On If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Yes,

  I'll go on the record as supporting the sustainable harvest of both "higher mammals" and "lowly invertebrates" if quotas with a very long horizon are established by our best available knowledge, and if the plans support other necessary protection measures.  As an arthropod biologist once aruged in Conservation Biology (I don't have the cite handy), you cannot conserve individuals--all individuals die--you can only conserve species.

  While I appreciate the role of employing hyperbole to argue a point, as you appear to be doing in this series of postings, the all-or-nothing approach doesn't work very well unless you plan on having a bottom-line negotiating point to which you're willing to back down.  Do you have any intention of backing down to recognize that yes, it is possible for me to hunt doves and quail every now-and-again while working the majority of waking hours on protecting habitat from development?

  Jason, you're an economist who has written effectively (I think, at least) about how market theory can be applied to solve, or at least mitigate, certain conservation problems.  Why are you moving from logical arguments of economy to emotional arguments that seem extreme?On If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A dangerous idea

  After brief consideration, my mind spends considerable--perhaps too much--time on the question, "Do problems have technical solutions, and what problems require something deeper?"  One might surmise that a dangerous idea is that there is a technological fix for any problem that we might face.  As the Edge question posits, it's not scary because we assume it to be false, but because it might be true: there might be technical solutions to each problem (or problem set).  If it's true, are we prepared to cope with the unintended consequences of each technical fix?On Aargh! My brain! posted 3 years, 10 months ago 7 Responses