Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News We have to kill them to save them.

  1. Jul 24, 2013 #1

    nsaspook

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    http://www.kgw.com/news/national/216682931.html [Broken]

    http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/07/killing_barred_owls_will_aid_r.html

    http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/map-barred-owl-migration-into-spotted-owl-range-11.jpg

    I hope they have owl tags this fall, why let the government do all the killing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 24, 2013 #2
    What right do humans have to govern nature? Long gone are the days when humans didn't get involved. What gives us the right to kill over 3,000 owls to save another species? If the course of nature is that these other owls go extinct then so be it... It's the same with pandas, their course of nature is to go extinct but we are forcing them to remain apart of the world when nature doesn't want them to.
     
  4. Jul 24, 2013 #3
    Those days never existed. Mankind is a part of nature and we have interacted with it and places pressures on others species since we evolved. Humans have just as much right to interact with and place pressure on other species as every species on the planet does - its not only a natural right, its nature's way.
     
  5. Jul 24, 2013 #4

    reenmachine

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It's not rights , it's power.Humans do as they please on earth because they have all the power.
     
  6. Jul 24, 2013 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Jakob, Great way of putting it. I find the more common sentiment that humans simultaneously hold an inferior position in the natural order yet carry a responsibility for regulating/maintaining it (in what state?) to make no sense. I suspect it is a product of erroneous anthropomorphism.
     
  7. Jul 24, 2013 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Power to do what? Many people believe that our power demands a responsibility to maintain a certain (self contradictory) "natural order". That's what is being discussed here.
     
  8. Jul 24, 2013 #7

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You're sick, really.
     
  9. Jul 24, 2013 #8
    And we do that, with cows, pigs, chickens ect... who are we to decide which species should survive or not? It is not our place to slaughter 3,000 owls to save another species. If you go to a safari and you see a lion about to jump on a antilope you can not then beep your horn to make the antilope run away.

    We should not be getting involved in wild life. Build fense to protect us ect but who the hell do we think we are to decide what lives and what dies? I strongly believe that in the wild it's nature that dictates what happens and not humans.

    If an animal is going extinct because it's being hunted by another wild animal then that is natures way.
     
  10. Jul 24, 2013 #9

    nsaspook

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    We use regular hunters to cull deer herds when they become a problem in the environment so why not use them for this job. The 'specialist' are just a few select hunters who have a Forest Service license after passing a bird ID test. Anyone with a full-choke 'goose' gun could handle the job. If it's 'sick' to call it what it is then so be it. The birds will be killed.
     
  11. Jul 24, 2013 #10

    reenmachine

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My post wasn't about what to do with our power or which responsabilities comes with our power.I also didn't take a stand about whether I thought it was good or bad to have that power or to use it.I was simply responding to the very specific question: "What right do humans have to govern nature?".Humans don't need right to govern , they just need the power.That's what I meant.
     
  12. Jul 24, 2013 #11
    The spotted owl is threatened with extinction because we (humans) have been logging their habitat for years. It's one thing to say that we shouldn't get involved, but it's another thing if we've already been involved and caused all sorts of damage through our own careless actions. We can't just drive them to near extinction and watch another species finish the job and then say "well that's just nature's way, we didn't have anything to do with that."
     
  13. Jul 24, 2013 #12

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is the hypotheses, that the Spotted Owl is in decline because of the logging. According to this mornings paper logging was cut back by 90% in the 90's hence the terrible economics times the PNW has been having. In spite of the cut back in logging the Spotted owl has not recovered. So now the Barred Owl is the problem.

    Maybe they are missing something? Perhaps they (the wild life biologists) are just guessing? It has always amazed me that on one hand they say how elusive and hard to find the Spotted Owl is yet on the other they know exactly how many there are? Whats wrong with this pic?
     
  14. Jul 24, 2013 #13
    I can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you are just inconsiderate. Mass killing like this should never be taken lightly. It's a serious choice, and I'm sure more than one researcher is pretty upset by this.
     
  15. Jul 24, 2013 #14

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Does anyone else think that 3603 is a remarkably precise number?
     
  16. Jul 24, 2013 #15

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Lol! I certainly hope this doesn't backfire. What if the barred owls contract some sort of disease and because of the mass killing, they become extinct?
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2013
  17. Jul 24, 2013 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Er, no, that's not what's being said. What's being said is "that's just nature's way". Period. The fact that we're doing it does not mean it isn't nature's way - humans are part of nature!
     
  18. Jul 24, 2013 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think we basically agree but are talking about it from different directions.
     
  19. Jul 24, 2013 #18
    If that's you're perspective, than there is no issue of what our right/responsibility is because anything we do is part of nature's way. So if we want to killed barred owls to preserve the spotted owl, then that's okay because that's nature's way.

    Also I just want to point out that sometimes when someone says "that's just nature's way" what they mean is that that's how things would naturally play out if humans were not involved. It may not be technically correct because humans are natural organisms, but it's enough of a colloquialism that it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if that is what is meant.
     
  20. Jul 24, 2013 #19
    You're completely misunderstanding the point about humans and nature. Yes we are part of nature but we're also intelligent which means that at some point the actions we take to enchance our species may affect the existence of another species...

    This is part of nature, it is not part of nature for humans to decide which one of two species gets to live.

    If I were in the wild and I saw a cheetah cub getting attacked by a gorilla, every fibre of my being would want to do something to intervene and stop the gorilla but you simply cannot get involved. It is not our place... and so it isn't our place to kill 3500 of one species to allow the weaker species to exist. It's just plane wrong, everything that happens in the universe from a star exploding to a lion eating a calf is nature. It is not our place to (please forgive me for saying this) play god.
     
  21. Jul 24, 2013 #20
    Yeah you're right I'm missing the point. And I'm still not getting it so help me out here. So here's what I'm understanding of what you're saying, and you can correct me where I'm wrong.

    You're saying that as humans, we have a moral obligation to not interfere with natural* events.
    Specifically, we have a moral obligation to not save the spotted owl from extinction.

    Now here's my question:
    A major factor in the decline of the spotted owl has been excessive logging.
    That logging was as human action.
    According to your moral theory of noninteraction, we had a moral duty to not destroy the spotted owl's habitat in the first place.
    But we did it anyway.
    Now do we have a moral obligation to repair the damage we shouldn't have done? Or do we just say well that's too bad for them, but now when it's not so convenient for us we suddenly implement a noninteraction policy.


    * In this context, I'm using "natural" to refer to things which happen without human involvement.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: We have to kill them to save them.
Loading...