Rethinking the Endangered Species Act

[Damocles]

There is one thing about man ,he can manipulate his enviroment in such a way as to completely make it uninhabitable for generations.

No other living thing can do this.

There is one other than can and does it regularly to their own environment. The virus. As well as overhunting and other actions of nature that can extinct a species.

I believe that because we can understand what we are doing we hold a responsibility against doing it, not because we are "unnatural" but because we can understand.

Now if you call that natural then fine but it still does nto change the fact that it will also every likely be the undoing of man (along with other species) if he does not refrain from doing it.

When we make exstinct with out actions other species we can never be sure of the empact on the entire ecosystem. Until we know everything that there is to know it is extremely stupid to do it out of spite or greed when we can stop it.

I agree.

My questions were philosophical in nature. Like any conversation, offshoot conversations can exist, in this case I was interested in why he thought humans were unnatural, and if he didn't how a natural being creates the unnatural. He didn't want to take part in the conversation. That is fine, then don't answer. Don't put up some ridiculous strawman implying assertions where none were made.

 

[Onceler]

Well, I've actually seen that sort of stuff too...

When you're driving the speed limit, and someone passes you, do you say "speed limits are completely ineffective, and should be repealed?

 

[Damocles]

Instead of repealing the Act itself would it be objectionable to simply overhaul it to make it more effective?

The arguments here seem to be either

A. It must be left as it is.

or

B. It can actually endanger species and therefore should be repealed.

I suggest that there can be another choice...

C. Find where it is ineffective and change it to be more effective, making it more efficient.

 

[Onceler]

Yes, I believe wholeheartedly that natural beings can engage in unnatural activities. I freely admit that "unnatural" is open to a wide variety of interpretations, and I make no real judgment on whether we should or should not be engaging in such activities in general (obviously, I do personally).

It is when these unnatural activities infringe on a species survival (not an organism's, but a species), that I think it's perfectly reasonable to question those activities and regulate them in some fashion.

If anyone wants to make an argument that clearing a forest to make way for a development that will eradicate a species is a "natural" activity, be my guest. We have different interpretations of the term 'natural,' and we'll just have to leave it at that.

 

[Damocles]

Yes, I believe wholeheartedly that natural beings can engage in unnatural activities. I freely admit that "unnatural" is open to a wide variety of interpretations, and I make no real judgment on whether we should or should not be engaging in such activities in general (obviously, I do personally).

It is when these unnatural activities infringe on a species survival (not an organism's, but a species), that I think it's perfectly reasonable to question those activities and regulate them in some fashion.

If anyone wants to make an argument that clearing a forest to make way for a development that will eradicate a species is a "natural" activity, be my guest. We have different interpretations of the term 'natural,' and we'll just have to leave it at that.

It seems to me that you equate natural with ethical. I would say it was an unethical decision to kill such species just for that development, not that it was "unnatural". What makes a natural act better ethically or logically?

In this case, I think it would be as natural as any other act by a natural being would be, but it is an unethical action. Humans have the capacity to understand the effect of their actions and thus the responsibility to apply that understanding.

 

[Onceler]

To me, it's unnatural & unethical.

Natural, to me, means "in harmony with nature."

I don't believe a lot of what we, and yes I, do, is "in harmony with nature." When it is so egregious that it eradicates a species, it becomes unethical.

There are ways to develop & even industrialize that are in harmony with nature, but as a species, man doesn't prioritize this or seek it. The development aspect is generally the first priority...