What if an endangered bird eats an endangered fish

I read that same story the other day and thought it a interesting dilema.

I suppose in a way you are right. It would just be a large zoo if we controlled every aspect.

Hi Fishin'

How come you're always the first to post in my threads?



And yet (assuming we want to survive) we must exert at least some control over our own populations or we will undermine the beauty and functionality of a world which supports us.

Knowing that we have the power to affect outcomes, do we have the strength and wisdom to step back sometimes and let nature be natural. And *should we* step back, or is our path inevitible.

Best Regards,

I suppose that's becaus ei'm on a lot and science interests me! lol



It's an interesting paradox with no real answre though isn't it? How do we know we aren't exerting our power by stepping back and letting nature be natural? (The wildfires out west over the last few years come to mind here..). Personally, I'm a bit of a fatalist and I don't think we'd be right no matter what we do. We're all gonna end up dead. I see that as our inevitable path and I don't really see much point in us going to far out of our way to try to protect generations that we can't even imagine at this point.

Excellent points. The exact same thing came to my mind when I was watching those fires as well.

I remembered hearing that Redwood pine cones (and life cycle) are linked to periodic burn events which allow the seeds to germinate and the trees to gain a foothold. Without the burns, we unintentionally limit the success of new generations of Redwoods.

(I was also wondering just how much difference we make during a wildfire event like the last one. It seems to me that no matter how much effort we expend, it's pretty much futile (but this is a topic for another discussion perhaps))



It's interesting that you say that, since my perspective is that we can't help being right, no matter what we do

lmao Either way, it's ends up in the same place!

Its a natural lab experiment, if we could only learn to keep our damn hands off and fight our own natural proclivity to try to keep all species going.
We have a certain responsibility , sort of like the PRIME DIRECTIVE of Star Trek.

I think the best solution in a scientific point of view is to artificially culture the fish in a controlled and protected pond. As the fish are harvested, they can be restocked in the pond where these rare birds are feeding. As a result, I think that there are going to be more of these rare birds and at the same time there is going to be more of these rare fish.

I used to fish in ponds restocked with trouts and bass by the Department of Games in California. Both predators (Me and the other fishing enthusiast) and the fishes seems to be doing well.

Funny you should mention the Prime Directive of Star Trek, Farmerman. ...

I've often thought that the prime directive seemed a bit naive in some ways. The implication of the directive is that "Humans" are somehow "above" the evolution of the Galaxy/Universe, and that while we have the right to Trek around places, we do not choose to interact with anything. And I wonder just how worldly such an idea really is.

When thinking about the Calif. wildfires we must bear in mind that the greatest reason for their supression is political.

Fire fighting in the western U.S. is actually a cottage industry which pumps literally billions of federal dollars into the economies of the area.

The government must appear to be doing something so we have a conjunction of off budget monies and a visible threat. There seems to be nothing that governments like to do better than throw my money in your fire, and they do it well. Keeping only a small commission for themselves of course in the guise of overpaid bureaucrats and petty kingdoms on the Potomac.

The houses are insured and the trees will grow back! What Me Worry

rosborne979,

This seems merely a perceived problem. It might be instructive to imagine how it would have been handled, say, a couple hundred thousand years ago. Seems Charles Darwin came up with a concept that explained ancient natural problem resolution that we all seem to take for granted now. Strangely, we now see a lot of the intelligentsia actively working against nature's processes because the results seem untoward.

The California (and other) fires are tragic but merely demonstrate what sometimes happens when narural processes are prohibited from taking place. After all, there are many plant species that rely directly and indirectly from the actions of forest fires to reproduce. However, we see home owners, understandably, concerned about the natural process of fire. Zero tolerance for brush/forest fires leads to a build up of fuel so that when a fire does get out of control it becomes a diaster.

I, like everyone else, am not a big fan of bowel movements. But what are the alternatives? Pre and post production preventative measures lend no resolution.

JM

JM,
A little dose of personal responsibility would help. If one builds a house in the woods he should be prepared to protect it or rebuild it. Me helping him recover from his stupidity does not help the gene pool much. Whats worse is that we ( the body politic) usually do.

Altruism is a real human phenomenon. It's rather shameful that so many persons depend on it

akaMechsmith,

I agree, but unfortunately a lot of the help these people receive is not based on altruism but what has been termed "legalized plunder": all our tax dollars used to subsidize individuals choice to live in areas prone to natural disaters such as forests and flood plains.

JM

Whatever choice that we make towards the fish and the birds will be the right one because we are as much a part of nature as they are.

Hello Indi,

Humans are completely natural, no doubt about it in my mind. But as the only animal that has the ability to foresee (hopefully) the results of a course of action the results of an action would not necessarily be aptly described as natural.

Hope you enjoy A2K.

What exactly is natural then?

It should choose a white wine, a riesling or even a White Zinfandel. And avoid cream sauces or heavy potato dishes.

Humans aren't un-natural, but they are over populated. Like beavers, we alter our environments to be more habitable - in ways that dramatically alter the existing environment, especially as our technology improves.

Extinction is natural, but extinction is happening at an alarmingly rapid rate as we take the earth's habitat and alter it to meet our own needs. This also aids some species - like our friends the pidgeon, house mouse, cockroach, dairy cow, chicken, and so on. It is in our interest to preserve a certain amount of habitat - I think preserving habitat at the cost of some human expense is more important than preserving a species, because without a habitat that species would be forever dependent on scientists and the affluence of humans (country becomes poor; zoo goes down the drain - and most things don't do as well in captivity anyway.) It is to our benefit to prevent some species from becoming extinct- for a variety of scientific reasons. However, I don't feel that it is our responsibility to save every animal - we are not doing this because of the motherly protective nature inside us, we are doing this for the preservation of the ecosystem and earth on which we are dependent.

(note: yes I am angy that we managed to preserve part of Alaska and Bush, who has oil ready to go in his homestate of Texas, decided drilling on a nature reserve would be a better idea - and denies that this will have negative impact on the environment. Guess the little ice creatures don't vote.)

I agree, and even in ways beyond fish and birds. But knowing this doesn't change the fact that we can still choose (any given action over another). So it still begs the question, doesn't it?



Yes, I have asked this question before, and it's trickier to answer than it seems.

The dictionary would say that artificial is anything "man made", or produced. But if we are natural (which I believe we are), then how can anything we do be anything other than natural. But perhaps more interestingly, the connotation of the word artificial carries with it an implication that we are somehow "un-natural". And it's an implication which pervades our self identity so subtly that not many ever think to question the validity of the concept of "artificial".

Yes the phrase "un-natural" seems to imply that those responsible for the manufacturing of that so described have somehow "cheated" or manipulated "nature" to do their bidding. Nothing could be further from the truth. The extreme example of synthetic might be man's "invention" of thermonuclear devices but the design principle and physical laws regarding such things as the Hydrogen bomb preceded the development of life itself.

The adjective "synthetic" has its uses and like that of "pornographic" conjures up a general definition that, if not too specific, everyone can agree upon. But upon closer inspection it loses its usefulness when we try to pin down its exact meaning. No matter how closely we examine a molecule of methyl testosterone, can we really tell whether its production is the result of chemical combinations in a test tube or that of human cells?

rosborne makes a valid point when stating that the product of something considered "natural" also deserves similar descriptive efforts.

But I guess the big question here is: How responsible should we as humans feel for the destiny of others species, and exactly how far should our anthropic sympathies go? Sure, everybody feels we should protect the whales, but what about rats, snakes, spiders and bacteria? These decisions ultimately seem to involve the well being of humans when so considered. What speaks so favorably towards a specific species while discounting others?

JM