“When we humans have unleashed a new species on an unsuspecting fauna, when we have transformed ecosystems so that previous balances become undone, how do we fix the problem?” Warwick asks. “Should we fix the problem? Should we play god, or should nature be left to take its own course?”
This must have been a tough one to find an excerpt for. The ethical ponderings in the interview are complicated and nuanced, and no snippet from the whole is really going to do it justice. I think...
This must have been a tough one to find an excerpt for. The ethical ponderings in the interview are complicated and nuanced, and no snippet from the whole is really going to do it justice.
I think this bit from near the end is really more on the mark for the tenor and substance of the piece:
[Interviewer:] But the cost is never borne by us, right? This is what I keep coming back to. We talk about how we’ve done something terrible and need to take responsibility for it now—but ultimately the cost is being heaped entirely on the poor animals being killed. That just seems wrong.
[Hugh Warwick:] It does. But if you don’t have any killing at all, you cannot then avoid your responsibility for the death that occurs because you decided not to kill. That’s what it comes down to, time and time again: the potential for life that’s gone because we wouldn’t step up to remove the principal cause for a population’s destruction.
The subject goes to some lengths to assert that ethically, morally we need to go to great lengths to determine if killing in the name of conservation is actually effective, and whether there aren't other means by which to conserve that are less destructive.
One method that tends to be very effective is predator reintroduction. Many developed countries have plenty of herbivores and small carnivores, but few or no medium or large carnivores to control...
One method that tends to be very effective is predator reintroduction. Many developed countries have plenty of herbivores and small carnivores, but few or no medium or large carnivores to control the formers’ populations. However, reintroducing predators (such as wolves) is controversial. Livestock farmers hate it, some hunters hate it, and many suburbanites hate it (gee, maybe you’ll stop letting your cats outside if there are wolves in the neighborhood…).
The interview goes into that a bit. He calls those objections "aesthetic considerations," especially in regards to other invasive species acting as a check on introduced species. The example he...
The interview goes into that a bit. He calls those objections "aesthetic considerations," especially in regards to other invasive species acting as a check on introduced species. The example he cites mentions is research on the reintroduction of dingoes to help curb rat and fox populations in Australia.
I think grief is the appropriate response. We try to vote a certain way, we support what we can, make better choices about food etc, and hope for the best. But after it's all said and done, the...
I think grief is the appropriate response. We try to vote a certain way, we support what we can, make better choices about food etc, and hope for the best. But after it's all said and done, the people in the article are right. The appropriate response is to look at the anima, those who have gone, those soon to be killed, and those left on our planet, and weep.
From the article,
This must have been a tough one to find an excerpt for. The ethical ponderings in the interview are complicated and nuanced, and no snippet from the whole is really going to do it justice.
I think this bit from near the end is really more on the mark for the tenor and substance of the piece:
The subject goes to some lengths to assert that ethically, morally we need to go to great lengths to determine if killing in the name of conservation is actually effective, and whether there aren't other means by which to conserve that are less destructive.
One method that tends to be very effective is predator reintroduction. Many developed countries have plenty of herbivores and small carnivores, but few or no medium or large carnivores to control the formers’ populations. However, reintroducing predators (such as wolves) is controversial. Livestock farmers hate it, some hunters hate it, and many suburbanites hate it (gee, maybe you’ll stop letting your cats outside if there are wolves in the neighborhood…).
The interview goes into that a bit. He calls those objections "aesthetic considerations," especially in regards to other invasive species acting as a check on introduced species. The example he
citesmentions is research on the reintroduction of dingoes to help curb rat and fox populations in Australia.I think grief is the appropriate response. We try to vote a certain way, we support what we can, make better choices about food etc, and hope for the best. But after it's all said and done, the people in the article are right. The appropriate response is to look at the anima, those who have gone, those soon to be killed, and those left on our planet, and weep.