Killing all the lions and tigers....

[jobyts]

Why don't we kill all the animals that
1. can have humans as food
2. top of the food chain
3. eats other animals that can be food for humans
4. no apparent use to humans.

Lions and tigers come in this category. They do not seem to have any particular use to the humans. We could keep a few in order not to get them extinct; other than that, we don't need them. Lions and tigers come in the top of the food chain, so it should not have much impact on the eco system. Humans can eat pretty much all types of food a lion or tiger eats (other than humans). This can help solving a part of food scarcity for humans. What is incorrect in this logic, in an eco system point of view (not the morality part)

 

[Enigman]

Kill lions> Gazelle populations explode> savannas are over grazed> loss of habitat for multitude of insects, reptiles and smaller mammals> severe decline in their population and disruption of ecosystem.

BTW I personally don't understand the logic of saving a species from extinction while simultaneously killing it. If you are going to kill a species, what good is saving a handful of individuals of the same?

 

[ShayanJ]

What is incorrect in this logic, in an eco system point of view

The fact that you're destroying part of ecosystem! Wasn't that obvious?

 

[Borek]

Lions and tigers come in the top of the food chain, so it should not have much impact on the eco system.

That's where you are wrong.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

Why don't we genetically engineer some to grow less and smaller teeth then mate them with the rest of wild tigers or lions? Having tiny teeth may change their eating habit.

 

[Monsterboy]

I don't think lions and tigers are taking over the world , what is all this fuss about ?

 

[Czcibor]

Kill lions> Gazelle populations explode> savannas are over grazed> loss of habitat for multitude of insects, reptiles and smaller mammals> severe decline in their population and disruption of ecosystem.

Playing devil's adovocate - we could hunt gazelles too...

BTW I personally don't understand the logic of saving a species from extinction while simultaneously killing it. If you are going to kill a species, what good is saving a handful of individuals of the same?

Anthropocentrism? Which seems for me quite reasonable approach for a member of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Food scarcity is nowadays a financial / political problem, not a problem with being able produce enough food, thus getting rid of a few apex predators would not help, if you take into account that some societies earn their living by showing rich Westerners wild animals, then it may actually counter-productive.

 

[Borek]

BTW I personally don't understand the logic of saving a species from extinction while simultaneously killing it. If you are going to kill a species, what good is saving a handful of individuals of the same?

Those killing and those preserving are typically not the same people. And what is surprising in the fact different people have different agendas?

 

[Enigman]

Playing devil's adovocate - we could hunt gazelles too...

Too much grass. Not sure if there are negative effects of that.

Anthropocentrism? Which seems for me quite reasonable approach for a member of Homo sapiens sapiens.

I was questioning the sentimentality of not killing them all and saving a handful, since OP asked to ignore the morality part while suggesting saving a few of the animals to prevent extinction.

 

[Enigman]

Those killing and those preserving are typically not the same people. And what is surprising in the fact different people have different agendas?

See my previous post. And as for those killing and conserving not being the same people, they just might be.

 

[dilletante]

They do not seem to have any particular use to the humans.

Van Gogh's paintings do not seem to have any particular use for humans, either. Not everything has to be useful to be appreciated for its beauty.

 

[russ_watters]

Van Gogh's paintings do not seem to have any particular use for humans, either. Not everything has to be useful to be appreciated for its beauty.

That appears to me to be the main reason for preserving species. Yeah, I know, people also talk of "preserving ecosystems", but I think that's pretty much bogus because:
1. Destroying - or, rather, altering an ecosystem to suit our needs - is done all the time and is not universally judged to be negative. Because...
2. Part of the reason we alter ecosystems is to destroy pests. No one complains about that; lions are cute, rats and mosquitos notsomuch.

Pennsylvania used to have lions. It's the mascot of the state school. Those that weren't hunted to extinction (at least in this area) are now hunted as pests.

 

[dipole]

Why don't we kill mentally and physically disabled people too - they aren't much use to anyone. And lazy undergraduates too.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

no apparent use to humans

It's only not apparent to you.

 

[jobyts]

The reasoning for preserving some of them is for, what-if-we-find-a-use-in-the-future logic? Later, some research may show that lion's specific something might be useful for say, stem cell research for curing a particular disease. Humans are capable of controlling the larger species population, in case if we find a use in the future. So maintaining the species is for academic purpose only.

Gazelle population will not explode. Humans will eat them. The laws of the land will change gradually to adjust to the eco system. South africa started preserving elephants since they were facing threat for extinction. Then elephants became overpopulated, and the government had to pass laws to controllably kill them. They figured out the elephant meat is tasty and now it is being exported worldwide.

The impact of eco system logic is different for each species, depending on where it comes in the eco system pyramid. The impact is not equal for all the species.
We make the mistake of putting all the species equally important. An analogy would be, a stack of cups arranged in a pyramid shape. You take one cup from the bottom, the whole stack collapses. You take the topmost, rest of the stack remain in tact. The impact of a change in the top of the pyramid is overrated.

Humans have evolved so much that we can control parts of the eco system so that it is more beneficial to humans (food). We do not pretend that we have control on the lower end of the eco system. A lion comes at the top of the pyramid, and food of a lion is not an animal that humans cannot control.

Other than the role of maintaining the eco system, does a lion have any other benefits to the world? I can't think of any.

Arguments about killing disabled children etc. are off topic here. This thread is specific to lions and tigers or similar carnivore animals that eat other bigger/controllable animals.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why don't we kill all the animals that
1. can have humans as food
2. top of the food chain
3. eats other animals that can be food for humans
4. no apparent use to humans.

Lions and tigers come in this category. They do not seem to have any particular use to the humans. We could keep a few in order not to get them extinct; other than that, we don't need them. Lions and tigers come in the top of the food chain, so it should not have much impact on the eco system. Humans can eat pretty much all types of food a lion or tiger eats (other than humans). This can help solving a part of food scarcity for humans. What is incorrect in this logic, in an eco system point of view (not the morality part)

For what it's worth, people have done things like this. There is lore where I grew up that the early settlers in the region decided to wipe out the local wolf population. They burned as much local forest as possible to drive the wolves into the open where they could be shot, and also just to destroy their habitat. This would have been in the early 1800's.

I call this "lore" because some dispute the fires were set to eradicate the wolves. This faction claims the settlers were just clearing land for farms, and the fires got out of control.

Regardless, the main effect that can still be seen today is that the local mountain, which is not a very tall mountain, is denuded of forest at the top. Without trees, the topsoil washed away, leaving the top bald. It's just a big rock cap now.

Also, there are no wolves. Deliberate or not, they wiped them out. Similar story all over the U.S.: the wolf population was nearly completely killed off by one means or another.

 

[Bandersnatch]

This is absurd. The argument appears to be: 'let's eradicate apex predators so that they won't eat the food that we're not eating anyway'.
The OP seems to believe that the meat industry in Africa consists of bands of hunters scouring the savannah for gazelles, and whenever there's famine it's because lions ate too many.

 

[russ_watters]

This is absurd. The argument appears to be: 'let's eradicate apex predators so that they won't eat the food that we're not eating anyway'.

I don't think anyone is necessarily suggesting that we must kill them (except, perhaps, in Pennsylvania), just that it isn't necessarily wrong to do so.

 

[russ_watters]

Why don't we kill mentally and physically disabled people too - they aren't much use to anyone.

Disabled people are people.

 

[Lisa!]

Why don't we kill all the animals that
1. can have humans as food
2. top of the food chain
3. eats other animals that can be food for humans
4. no apparent use to humans.

Lions and tigers come in this category. They do not seem to have any particular use to the humans. We could keep a few in order not to get them extinct; other than that, we don't need them. Lions and tigers come in the top of the food chain, so it should not have much impact on the eco system. Humans can eat pretty much all types of food a lion or tiger eats (other than humans). This can help solving a part of food scarcity for humans. What is incorrect in this logic, in an eco system point of view (not the morality part)

What's next? Why don't we kill all humans who seem to be useless or damage humanity in some way like killing other human beings?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Disabled people are people.

So? What's your point? We're excluding morality from the argument so I don't see what your statement is aiming to convey; dipole's question is a valid retort to the fourth point in the OP. This whole thread is probably the dumbest thread I've ever seen on this site.

 

[micromass]

Disabled people are people.

Then I hope you are against the death penalty too, because criminals are people too. And I hope you are against wars too where soldiers kill people. Or drone attacks, etc.

No, I am not comparing disabled people to disgusting people like war criminals. I am just saying that your specific argument of not killing somebody because he is specifically human is flawed. And you know it. There are deeper reasons for killing and not killing.

 

[russ_watters]

What's next? Why don't we kill all humans who seem to be useless or damage humanity in some way like killing other human beings?

Because people are people!

So?What's your point? We're excluding morality from the argument so I don't see what your statement is aiming to convey;

Morality was created by people, for people. People morality does not apply to animals.

Jeez, guys, this is what always bothers me about these types of discussions: there is an inherrent, underlying assumption of equality between animals and people at work in peoples' thought processes that has no connection whatsoever to reality. If you want to anthropomorphize locats, so be it, but you must recognize that that is strictly an emotional response to an aesthetic.

Animals are not people. Animals do not have human rights. As such, no comparison between treatment of animals and treatment of people can ever possibly be valid. No application of people morality to animals can be valid and no application of the fact that people morality does not apply to animals, applied to people, can be valid.

 

[russ_watters]

Then I hope you are against the death penalty too, because criminals are people too. And I hope you are against wars too where soldiers kill people. Or drone attacks, etc.

No, I am not comparing disabled people to disgusting people like war criminals. I am just saying that your specific argument of not killing somebody because he is specifically human is flawed. And you know it. There are deeper reasons for killing and not killing.

Certainly: another unspoken assumption the others are using is that those disabled people have done nothing wrong. The same assumption is being applied to the lion. There is no reason for me to restate those assumptions because I agree with them: the relevant difference here is only what I said: the people are people. The lion is not.

Perhaps someone is misunderstanding that someone else is arguing that lions SHOULD be killed BECAUSE they have no value. I am not/would not make that argument: only that they CAN be killed because they have no (insufficient) value.

In case anyone might think it matters, I ate part of a cow about an hour ago. I'm not expecting to be arrested for murder.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Personally, I think problem animals should be killed: a bear that frequents peoples garbage cans might take a swipe at a someone and hurt them, roaches that try to nest in my building have to go, skunks that nest under my building have to go, urban coyotes that kill pet dogs have to go. I have actually never understood why, in countries where tigers kill and eat villagers, they haven't tried to wipe out the tigers. I would personally understand if they did.

 

[russ_watters]

Zimbabwae has submitted an extradition request to the US government for the hunter who killed this lion. Does anyone know what crime he is accused of committing? (Not rhetorical)

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't see lions and tigers on the list of leading causes of deaths to humans.
hmmmm...

Causes of human deaths:

hmmm...
Yes. Let's kill the least lethal beast left on the planet, that will be fun.
Ok. I'm exaggerating again. I've heard of no butterfly caused deaths this year.
But, let's kill them for fun, also.

[1]: wiki. 2002 survey
[2]: some infographic from the net. actually only lists lions. my bad.

 

[jobyts]

I'm not suggesting to kill the animals right now. My first post is not well articulated, but my second one has more reasoning in it. My point is extinction of lion like animal will cause the eco-system to collapse is an absurd argument. We have fairly accurate statistics on the number of lions, we know how much meat a lion eats in its lifetime, we can calculate how much extra gazelle we have to eat to maintain the eco-system. Instead of putting a blanket statement of eco-system imbalance, why are the biologists afraid to do the math?

If I were the king of the world, as on today I wouldn't do anything to the lions and tigers (personally I haven't killed anything bigger than a fly; not even a fish), but that is due to my fuzzy morality reasons, not the eco-system rupture logic. But morality is not absolute, it is a space-time variable. I avoided the discussion of morality to specifically talk about the eco-system impact, not because morality is not an important part of the equation.

If the human population increase is unsustainable, and there is no effective/democratic way to control the human population, and our biotechnology could not meet the need of the human population, the non-humans at the top of the pyramid are the first one to go. (obviously this will not solve the whole problem, but it is part of the solution.)

Listen to the series of Harvard lectures on 'What's The Right Thing To Do?',



Regarding the disabled human logic: Imagine there are 10 people in a boat, and one of them is mentally disabled. The boat is about to capsize due to overload and you will have to throw away one person to save the rest. What would you think the outcome of the group? Morality is a space-time variable.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I've heard of no butterfly caused deaths this year.

Oh, butterflies kill:

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state. The name of the effect, coined by Edward Lorenz, is derived from the metaphorical example of the details of a hurricane (exact time of formation, exact path taken) being influenced by minor perturbations such as the flapping of the wings of a distant butterfly several weeks earlier.

 

[William White]

Animals do not have human rights. As such, no comparison between treatment of animals and treatment of people can ever possibly be valid.

Wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood

We give person hood to corporations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Your distinction between what entities deserve rights and those that do not is just as artificial as any other.
Humans are given rights by other humans with the power to do so.
Such rights can be, and often are, removed by those in power when they choose to do so.
We have the human right to life, yet we drop bombs from 12,000 feet on children.
The USA executes its own citizens, sometimes wrongly without evidence.
If humans want to extend rights to animals, then they will do so.

Human rights are no more real than animal rights. Its an abstract construct that can be conferred and removed on a whim.
Cecil the lion was an animal that was killed, possibly illegally. Poaching is a crime in many countries.
You may consider poaching NOT a crime, but in many countries it is.
The dentist has a criminal record for poaching a bear in the USA.

The dentist is alleged to have poached a lion in Zimbabwe. If Zimbabwe has enough evidence to ask the USA to extradite him, then the USA should honour its treaty with Zimbabwe and extradite him.
Its NOT okay to go to another country and break their laws. If one cannot live within the law of a land, don't go there, no matter how wrong you think their laws are.

 

[William White]

Zimbabwae has submitted an extradition request to the US government for the hunter who killed this lion. Does anyone know what crime he is accused of committing? (Not rhetorical)

Poaching
Destruction of property (Oxford University had a tracking device fitted to the lion. An attempt was made to destroy it)

 

[OmCheeto]

Oh, butterflies kill:

So, butterflies are responsible for global warming, and we should feel glad about killing them, as global warming will be the demise of us humans, and I like being alive...

Ok. Kill the butterflies!

 

[William White]

Certainly: another unspoken assumption the others are using is that those disabled people have done nothing wrong. The same assumption is being applied to the lion. There is no reason for me to restate those assumptions because I agree with them: the relevant difference here is only what I said: the people are people.

define "people"
in a scientific sense

 

[zoobyshoe]

So, butterflies are responsible for global warming, and we should feel glad about killing them, as global warming will be the demise of us humans, and I like being alive...

Ok. Kill the butterflies!

Damn straight. They look pretty, but they're pure mischief.

 

[micromass]

Morality was created by people, for people. People morality does not apply to animals.

So if I find a cat or any other animal and I torture it for weeks in the most painful way possible, that would be ok for you?