Our environment and responsible stewardship - the great and small

[Briz Vegas]

Native Animals that is ( he says as a Siamese cat makes himself comfortable on his shoulders...does that mean I am part of the problem?)

Interesting that cats have hit the headlines again. I've read elsewhere that they are second only to the fox as a problem for our native wildlife. I don't think so. We rant and rave about cats and foxes while forgetting that we are a thousand times worse.

This topic is great fodder for the confrontation loving haters. "I hate cats, I hate foxes, I hate you. I hate myself basically", yet all this does is spin the wheels without meaningful forward progress.

From a land management perspective we should be happy to put up with a degree of inconvenience when it comes to bats and possums. We live in Australia. We are killing Australia as a unique ecosystem at break neck speed. It's not the cats, or the foxes, or the cattle, they are a symptom, the problem is us.

Looking after our country is something that "indigenous" Australians ( well they weren't to start with were they) have done with varying success over the years. Some species copped it, some prospered. The dog was introduced ( dingo). We non-indigenous folk have ramped it up, and f&$ked it up at break neck speed. The LNP in Queensland are a great example of the destructive " pioneering" mindset that's possibly ok if you are a few hundred, but mindless if you are many million.

People have to live with native animals if we want to manage our environment. Possums and fruit bats are part of living in Australia. In some ways they are lucky they look cute, snakes are also native and have fewer friends.

Yes, we do need to manage the feral cat and fox symptom. The problem is not domestic cats, it's domestic cat owners education.

It will be interesting to see how the debate progresses, but I can see it will be the haters vs the fanboys, with little in the way of proper practical debate about:

- what sort of a country/ environment do we want

- how does our behaviour overall impact on that environment, and that includes development

- how do we achieve the balance we are seeking and take the majority with us.

.....and one thing is for sure, like anything worthwhile it will probably be expensive, will take time and effort, and will not manage itself. There will also be errors of judgement along the way and the trash media (that we have created) and the haters will do all they can to distract us from the real issues and solutions.

[Super Mustud]

Native Animals that is ( he says as a Siamese cat makes himself comfortable on his shoulders...does that mean I am part of the problem?)

Interesting that cats have hit the headlines again. I've read elsewhere that they are second only to the fox as a problem for our native wildlife. I don't think so. We rant and rave about cats and foxes while forgetting that we are a thousand times worse.

This topic is great fodder for the confrontation loving haters. "I hate cats, I hate foxes, I hate you. I hate myself basically", yet all this does is spin the wheels without meaningful forward progress.

From a land management perspective we should be happy to put up with a degree of inconvenience when it comes to bats and possums. We live in Australia. We are killing Australia as a unique ecosystem at break neck speed. It's not the cats, or the foxes, or the cattle, they are a symptom, the problem is us.

Looking after our country is something that "indigenous" Australians ( well they weren't to start with were they) have done with varying success over the years. Some species copped it, some prospered. The dog was introduced ( dingo). We non-indigenous folk have ramped it up, and f&$ked it up at break neck speed. The LNP in Queensland are a great example of the destructive " pioneering" mindset that's possibly ok if you are a few hundred, but mindless if you are many million.

People have to live with native animals if we want to manage our environment. Possums and fruit bats are part of living in Australia. In some ways they are lucky they look cute, snakes are also native and have fewer friends.

Yes, we do need to manage the feral cat and fox symptom. The problem is not domestic cats, it's domestic cat owners education.

It will be interesting to see how the debate progresses, but I can see it will be the haters vs the fanboys, with little in the way of proper practical debate about:

- what sort of a country/ environment do we want

- how does our behaviour overall impact on that environment, and that includes development

- how do we achieve the balance we are seeking and take the majority with us.

.....and one thing is for sure, like anything worthwhile it will probably be expensive, will take time and effort, and will not manage itself. There will also be errors of judgement along the way and the trash media (that we have created) and the haters will do all they can to distract us from the real issues and solutions.

 

I have taken the view for some time that the most sensible starting point in these discussions is to see if we can agree that the only purpose of the World from a human perspective is to give us as much pleasure as possible. Once that point is agreed, and this takes time for people to think through after the initial wtf reaction, we can then move sensibly to discussing the material and emotional benefits of responsible stewardship, ie how best to ensure we obtain long term pleasure.

 

If this first step is not taken then then discussion bogs down immediately on the word "responsible" and gets nowhere.

[kdoot]

Wow Mustud, that's a huge call you've made there. I do like getting to the heart of things quickly, though, so I kind of like that you've done that.

 

If pleasure is what you value most, would it make the most sense to be focusing on opiates or such? Pleasure, after all, is a function of the brain and can be stimulated pretty easily if you're willing to pay the price (which usually boils down to a much shortened lifespan).

 

Oh, bang, that notion probably causes a lot of people to stop short. Because as far as I can figure out, the thing we all really want is a long, fulfilling existence. Most of us don't choose to throw ourselves into the most intense available pleasure if we think it's going to cost us our lives in the short term. We mostly go for pleasures that have deferred payment plans. We want to keep living more than we want pleasure. Ideally we want to live pleasurable lives for as long as possible - even indefinitely.

 

In response to Briz's initial prompt I think that "life" is the thing to focus on. We are culturally ignorant about our true origins and our connections to all other living things. We see ourselves as separate and superior. And though we are a uniquely talented species, that doesn't make us independent of the global ecosystem. We are enjoying all sorts of human pleasures now, but we're starting to realise that there'll be hell to pay if we don't clean up our act in a hurry.

 

If you see yourself as part of Life on Earth, not just an individual experiencer of pleasure, your greater motivation can be to seek the health of all living things knowing that you have the opportunity to experience profound pleasure as a consequence of doing it right.

[Super Mustud]

There is no "greater" motivation. There is just motivation. Get rid of the moral superiority language and recognise that use of same is just giving you emotional pleasure. You are seeking to make yourself feel good by using the World as a pawn in developing your sense of worth. See? You are just using the World for your pleasure like everyone else.

 

That is why I said that the pleasure is a combination of emotional and physical pleasure. Critics of my view always try to be superior by ignoring the power and truth of my argument. Well, that is as I would have it, anyway.

[kdoot]

OK, so you're using a much broader sense of the term "pleasure"? Perhaps so broad as to become meaningless, I fear, but I think I see where you're coming from.

Do you have any alternative phrasings for your viewpoint? I wonder whether this is fair:

"There's no external morality to guide us: we should just do whatever we think is best for us."

[Super Mustud]

OK, so you're using a much broader sense of the term "pleasure"? Perhaps so broad as to become meaningless, I fear, but I think I see where you're coming from.

Do you have any alternative phrasings for your viewpoint? I wonder whether this is fair:

"There's no external morality to guide us: we should just do whatever we think is best for us."

 

If you like. Your words provide a phraseology that is more business plan in its approach. I guess I find that a bit sterile and avoids confronting the reality that we will always have to put our desires first. That is almost an axiomatic requirement, as we have no way of knowing if there is any other way of using the World. We are not Gods. We are not all knowing. We only know how we interpret things. So all our decisions are always human centric.

 

I am glad that you see that my description of emotional and material pleasure is all encompassing. I disagree that it risks becoming meaningless. On the contrary, I see it as requiring us to accept that decisions that we may view as our most moral are merely emotional reactions to what we find disagreeable. That does not make disagreeable actions immoral in an absolute sense, they are just actions that have made us unhappy. 

 

This is always on the proviso that one does not believe in a God. If that is the case then absolute values may exist. But in that case we need God to tell us what those values are.

[mickj1]

Dunno Mustud, (and my guess is that these debates always get to some level where the answers are unknowable), but BV any cat with more than one paw out the door is feral.

 

Cheers

mick

[Soundscape]

Feral species can be destructive, yes. But many are so well established to become "naturalised". It is a question of management for the outcomes that suit us, and our wishes for a healthy biodiversity. This is, as Mustud alludes to, "our resposibility". That which suit us, or our current perspectives.

 

What do people think would happen if all foxes in Australia were eradicated overnight?

[Super Mustud]

I dunno, but I think that any species that has done what this chart shows has little credibility when talking about responsibility. Which is why I regard the Greens as largely irrelevant or even downright dishonest.

 

 

 

 

 

[THOMO]

Yes many other species might be feral but we are a plague.

[qwerter]

Yes many other species might be feral but we are a plague.

Let's kill humans!!! Possums should live!!! And bats too!!!!!!

[Super Mustud]

Yes many other species might be feral but we are a plague.

 

Indeed, although it is really only in the last 50 or so years that we have become a plague.

 

Having said that, as BV has asked, what should we do in the period of time left to us before something happens to us?

 

Plagues never last long.

[Super Mustud]

Let's kill humans!!! Possums should live!!! And bats too!!!!!!

 

An eminently supportable position if that is what gives pleasure to most people.

[qwerter]

An eminently supportable position if that is what gives pleasure to most people.

This is, unfortunately,  an ultimate modern day, politically correct "green" position. Just read "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist". 

[Lloyd]

This is, unfortunately,  an ultimate modern day, politically correct "green" position. Just read "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist". 

 

Modern day?  "We have met the enemy and he is us" - Pogo, circa 1970.  For those Greens who reckon their snake oil is something new and exciting - yawn.

[captainclive]

The seeking of pleasure is not the driving force behind human existence - it is actually quite low on the hierarchy of our needs.

[THOMO]

Let's kill humans!!! Possums should live!!! And bats too!!!!!!

There are rumours that Israel has the biological agents to do just that if their country is seriously threatened.Its own citizens would have immunity.

Who could blame them given the history of the Jewish people.

Edited August 6, 2013 by THOMO

[Super Mustud]

The seeking of pleasure is not the driving force behind human existence - it is actually quite low on the hierarchy of our needs.

 

You only made that post to gain pleasure. The pleasure in believing you have a higher purpose. The only driving force behind human existence is the drive to breed. The only meaning we obtain during our existence is pleasure.

[Newman]

What a friggin thread hijack. I feel sorry for the original poster.

 

[Super Mustud]

What a friggin thread hijack. I feel sorry for the original poster.

 

Except the OP brought up the aspect of "responsible" management. What is "responsible"? That is where most of the disagreement will stem from. That is what my first post said.

[Soundscape]

What a friggin thread hijack. I feel sorry for the original poster.

 

Kind of, but not really. Musty likes to stab deep into the heart of an issue from the get go. A bit prematurely perhaps, but there it is.

I do wonder, though, if we are ever capable of transcending our selfish desires. To see things from outside of the context of our existence. I like to think we can, but by definition I don't think this is provable to anyone else, in an empirical way. Only as a belief, an instinct.

[Newman]

Well, if you see everything as being within a certain framework, this becomes your umbrella. It seems to embrace, delineate and explain everything else. You will have an answer for every question. 

 

People with religion, or who deal with religious people from the outside, will know what I mean.

 

SM's umbrella is the "pleasure purpose". It might as well have been "Christ died to save us all". It has the same effect on his thinking, and it has the same effect on this thread.

 

On the other hand, we could put all this crapola aside, the idea that one of us has found the true unifying principle of human existence, and address the thread topic on its merits.  <<wild idea>>

 

Hey, where is the OP, anyway? Time he chimed in, methinks.

[Super Mustud]

I do wonder, though, if we are ever capable of transcending our selfish desires. To see things from outside of the context of our existence. I like to think we can, but by definition I don't think this is provable to anyone else, in an empirical way. Only as a belief, an instinct.

 

 

Only as a religion. Which is scoffed at on SNA. Perhaps correctly, perhaps not. I find it interesting that often those who scoff loudly on religion have in fact, what I see as, repressed religious beliefs that come out in many other ways. 

[Lloyd]

In economics that of which is spoken is called utility.  It can take all manner of forms.  Each to their own is my dogma.  Some philosophers had things to say about it and got the ball rolling in relative recent times, like Hume and Adam Smith.

 

I would challenge the Greens why or what they think plonking ugly expensive wind farms (and in England - and maybe other places - solar farms) all over the pristine country side contributes to the impact on the environment.  

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

In economics that of which is spoken is called utility.  It can take all manner of forms.  Each to their own is my dogma.  Some philosophers had things to say about it and got the ball rolling in relative recent times, like Hume and Adam Smith.

 

I would challenge the Greens why or what they think plonking ugly expensive wind farms (and in England - and maybe other places - solar farms) all over the pristine country side contributes to the impact on the environment.  

 

How many Green organisations have plonked wind farms all over the place?

 

How many power companies have done so?

 

That said, you have, as usual, chosen to ignore the myriad of high quality power options available. Solar/thermal, for instance. Wind power is far from the optimum choice for power generation in Australia. AFAIK, however, it contributes no optical pollution and no CO2 emissions. At worst, wind power is a harmless waste of resources. Which is far more than can be said of black coal power generation, which releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (thus raising the temperature of the planet) and large amounts of noxious chemical (including mercury) into the environment.