Gone, In Twelve Years

[Meem]

Now,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_saving_tigers
To get this going, I did not read this article. I stubbed my thought on a thumbnail. That almost sounds as if it doesn't make any sense. But, I find often, that's a very useful place to be in someone's perception. Anyhoo' I opened the article and didn't make it past a date. 2022, in twelve years this animal in the wild could be extinct. Really, all I did was look at the picture (because that's what people like me might do in your perception, I don't read books, I look at the pictures).


And, I kept looking at the picture, and I kept looking at the picture. I can't really express what I was feeling, but I can say I was feeling a lot. While I was, looking at the picture, best described as feeling like ... I wanted to emit a field that would cause change another field, which would help the two particles of being in those tigers, and their extended earth family. There have been many going, and gone since I have been born ... no doubt more are sure to follow.

But this particular animal, we know this one. A mythic creature here and there, a deadly "pest" in parts, and times poached for snake oil. I've never seen monkey skin sheets, underwear, nor shower curtains. Twelve years is nothing. I think Nobody, Mel, Llyod, and even Greg would all agree on this Along with Mikal. Steve and Austin, not to be confused with the man but The Six Million Dollar ToE, would totally understand where the other was coming from. Austino wouldn't have to fire calculated shots from his pearch, off the hip.

The conversation would be so swinging, and agreeable, that Fredrick would drop a line inspiring the Prof to stop watching. That's what smart old men do you know, wisdom and such. Zeta might even wave her tail to slaute her friends in stripes.

Then Meem would ruin everything by mentioning how it made him feel, something he immediately says he cannot describe accurately enough, and the thought it left him with. That even though he knows, surely there are people working diligently to champion these borther and sister earthlings ... of ours that the majority of the population ... of those like us, will see nothing here. Who cares anyway, they might tell you or me. Some of them perhaps Now here ... just a few ... even though they might fasade us the same, somewhere deep within, they see nothing here.

Then ... Meem says, "I want to believe that this will not happen. That humanity would somehow become earth-ity. That we would prevent this from happening because a large part of this is due us. But I don't believe that we will. So that's why I am sending out a field, from this little particle, into the bigger one I like to call God of everything, sumthing, nothing, nowhere, now here, and for no body .... that this sumhow will not come to pass. Because I genuinely believe, whatever we do that better helps them, in the long run, will be far far more benefical to us on a level where dreams are born. Honestly, I do. But my faith is not in us to do it."

The funny thing I guess one could say, is that this picture was sending me a field much like in a way I try to ....

you.

This seemed like the best place for it.

[labelwench]

Another song by the same artist, entitled 'We Love The Animals'.

Unfortunately, it seems like caring for our fellow living beings on this planet, is not one of our highest collective priorities, in my observation.

My empathy is greater for those creatures who have no choices left, when confronted by the species that is supposedly gifted with free will.

[SteveA]

There should be an ability to protect these tigers but it's likely not very easy in the wild. There are many desires to not see tigers extinct. These agencies and policies need to work with people and their desires and not against them.

As usual, you can't really trust a single fox to watch the chickens either and granting close to sole ownership and control of tiger populations in the hands of a single highly centralized agency will likely have the same problems as many other government agencies ... the assumption on reading such an article is that the well being of tigers is the motive behind the article and I don't seriously doubt that, but this seems yet again, another issue where it's better to use more natural, voluntary "free market" solutions than to hand the well being of the tiger population into the hands of some rather singular entity for which few people know the motives and would likely have little ability to hold them accountable for abuses of that power.

What is it that most people desire to see for tigers? How can you help empower people to have an ability to see those desires realized and how can you place the care of those tigers into the hands of those most desiring and motivated to see them survive and even grow in population?

It's easy to jump on the bandwagon of the first piped piper that claims they want to have rather sole ownership over tigers (and will likely expect to get paid for this priviledge to boot). Now what people could be trusted most and what circumstances would have more of a motive and ability to actually see tigers thriving?

I think it would be difficult to protect tigers in the wild, though reserves where there's a greater ability to protect them as well as manners in which people can be compensated for that protection and have more direct involvement regarding the well being of those tigers seems something that's less prone to instability than trying to create a rather singular agency with that responsibility and expecting tigers to be protectable in rather wild and uncontrolled areas.

The article appears to be about more than tigers and appears targetted at constructing a global agency determining aspects of land development for many countries. The theme is one of pitting nature and tigers against human areas of development and that seems the wrong approach. In a sense, it seems like the article is using the "do it for the children" tactic, though maybe I'm just overly cynical and skeptical but I think I've seen enough of how many media campaigns operate to think it could just another power grab.

I'm certain there's enough desire and motive that many people have to protect tigers - the issue is mostly one of how to empowering those interested in this to be capable of being involved more directly. Having some distant global agency with additional influences over land development (with a theme that appears to imply it will be working against many interests as well appears to be likely another power ploy and tigers are the 'poster child' for it - at a minimum, some concern over that aspect of things should be considered).

My suggestion would be to see countries enable tigers being part of private reserves instead and trying to get stable and growing populations in more controlled and protected environments. I'm certain many people have an interest in seeing tigers relatively free to roam as well and some assistance in constructing such wildlife reserves on a large enough scale to support this could be a better target to work toward. I know many might prefer they be rather isolated from human contact but I'm certain additional assistance in terms of funding to protect them could come from visitors to such reserves as well (the truth is that it's not really the isolation of tigers from human contact that's value to people - if tigers were never seen or known about, there would be no interest in protecting them . I'm certain most people simply want their lives left relatively undisturbed by human interactions, but that people still desire to see tigers and study them etc. It's those aspects that need to be recognized - if someone said tigers should be entirely isolated from human involvement and then placed tigers as impediments to human developments as well ... that's simply creating a problem as it turns tigers into an invisible enemy instead. The focus should be on creating long term manners of assuring the tiger population isn't depleted and on how to best satisfy everyone's interests)

Have peoples motives and the markets work toward the goal and not against it. Realistically, the people desiring a specific state of affairs need to be willing to help support achieving that and also, relying upon the claims of benevolence of a third party can potentially lead to let downs. You're more likely to see some result accomplished when those most directly interested, involved or with something at stake in the circumstances are the ones doing it.

Yes, it could be nice if tigers had more free run of the place, but that's a bit unrealistic. Instead the focus should become one of looking at the direction things are heading and figuring how tigers fit into the picture in the future. Wildlife preserves seems the most likely solution and the best way to organize the resources for these is to match up customers. Who's interested in seeing tigers protected. How can they assist or initiate something in this respect and how can people be assured there's some accountability involved?

Notice that in the case of some rather centralized global agency, the economic pressures could easily be against abusing this priviledge (assuming things began with good intentions, what would it take to corrupt a few people in key positions?) - there could also easily be little accountability and private individuals with interests in the tiger population would likely have little more say than simply being able to make recommendations - it's better when people have a choice in what efforts to support so they can withdraw it from organizations that fall through on claims or aren't responsive etc.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth. Yes, it would be a sad thing if tigers became extinct. It could be enjoyable to have more faith in the media and claims made by various interest groups, but many things appear too important to simply have faith in their truthfulness, benevolence and intelligence.

As another suggestion, what laws might currently exist regarding tigers that actually oppose private interests in protecting them? If you can remove laws and costs of enforcement in areas that oppose private interests in protecting tiger populations, then that's a win/win/win and frees up enforcement resources for more valuable and useful services. Alternately, creating greater private accountability for these agencies performance can help reduce apathy and corruption and allows for some measure of competition to exist in government as well.

[SteveA]

Something else to consider - the main thing that's protected tigers has been the inability of poachers to locate them. All the radio tagging is in many ways more destabilizing as it gives ways of tracking them down.

Laws against poaching don't do anything without enforcement and simply placing someone in a position to defend some tigers doesn't necessarily give that person a motive or desire to protect them ... I think the best long term solution is to actually make sure some tigers figuratively have good homes. The wild has too many human predators and they need more human protectors, which means matching them up with people who have the most interest and aspects at stake in their livelyhood and ability to protect them and help them survive.

Again, placing the welfare of tigers in the hands of a rather singular government entity, with no manner in which tigers themselves have any direct representation nor would likely competing interests be allowed is likely even more destabilizing. Especially if tigers are also symbolically used to oppose human development in other areas, in which case it's placing them into the context of being impositions and not beneficial. That's not a good way to start a subject, unless someone's interests are actually directed at management of land development in various countries, in which case they might use tigers as a motivation to allow them to control aspects of human development in various countries ... call me skeptical but I'd say the odds are in favor that the later is a large component of this effort and in a sense, tigers are being used partly as fodder in the battle. Sorry, but that's at least partly the sense I got from reading the article and looking at the media/government track record. A radical change in the general mindset of how government involvement in many issues seems needed and a greater reliance upon self involvement and local, private, and voluntary efforts appears the general solution - ultimately the fate of tigers might depend upon a small and well protected population supported primarily by the desires of some group of individuals to keep tigers around. Placing them figuratively into in a single basket with the well being dependent upon the incorruptibility of desire of some "distant" global entity that may have little accountability seems a very precarious state for them to be in (as would be true for most people in similar circumstances, but at least people have a better ability to respond to problems and a greater potential to enforce some recognition or accountability, but tigers would be able to do almost nothing in that regard)

... yes, some tigers need good homes (and preferably with people who're highly motivated, capable and have the most at stake in the issue) and it shouldn't be a single home either (in case the caretakers 'flake out'! ).

Ok, I'll stop there as I know my posts can run on and on and on ....

Thanks for the post, Meem.

[labelwench]

I had to dash to work before I had time to finish reading the article last night.

My question would simply be, why do humans presume that we are more important than the other species of life on this planet?

The conflict with tigers, grizzly bears, polar bears, caribou, wolves and even wild horses, arises when we expand into what was previously natural habitat and begin to develop it to suit our own needs. We harvest the forests which destabilizes the soil and completely changes the habitat quite rapidly compared to natural means, which even when extreme, as in forest fire, flood or windstorm, have a pattern of succession. I guess humans have a pattern too, which is to take everything that has value to humans and then move on to greener pastures.

We are the most invasive species on the planet and I'm just waiting to see what method nature is going to utilize in reining us in, whether it comes by means of the microscopic army, or by extreme global weather change, either of which might give us cause for pause.

It's all about the habitat, and in my opinion, we have to learn to share this planet and the resources on it. Who should pay to save tigers? Only those who like them?

Tigers have as much right to life as do humans and to divide the responsibility of their care is to politicize the issue, would be my only criticism. How we go about addressing their need for space, there is certainly plenty of room for dialogue upon, and it would require input from those with great knowledge of the natural habitat best suited to each breed of tiger.

Setting aside a reserve in habitat will serve no purpose save bragging rights, unless it is 'the right habitat' as determined by the tiger.

Here in the Yukon, we have had considerable public debate in regards to habitat when it comes to the interests of mining and forestry in attempting to gain access to the parks, the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline proposition, and drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

[SteveA]

I had to dash to work before I had time to finish reading the article last night.

My question would simply be, why do humans presume that we are more important than the other species of life on this planet?

The conflict with tigers, grizzly bears, polar bears, caribou, wolves and even wild horses, arises when we expand into what was previously natural habitat and begin to develop it to suit our own needs. We harvest the forests which destabilizes the soil and completely changes the habitat quite rapidly compared to natural means, which even when extreme, as in forest fire, flood or windstorm, have a pattern of succession. I guess humans have a pattern too, which is to take everything that has value to humans and then move on to greener pastures.

We are the most invasive species on the planet and I'm just waiting to see what method nature is going to utilize in reining us in, whether it comes by means of the microscopic army, or by extreme global weather change, either of which might give us cause for pause.

...

People inevitably have their own set of values. I don't see all life as being created equal - people are higher on my list than most animals.

That doesn't mean that animals and natural habitats don't have their value as well, but notice that it's rather unavoidable that any discussion here will be in regards to human values. Nature and animals etc. inherit whatever value they're perceived to be of. If these are placed in terms of being things that conflict with others values then that makes it out to be competitive.

For example, if someone says that human life and the presence of some woodpecker in a forest are incompatible and people are asked which of these incompatible elements has to be removed ... well in the end, who's making the value judgements and decisions? It would seem better for everyone involved to find ways in which these elements are not incompatible and can compliment each other. Nature shouldn't be defined as something opposed to human interests if we desire people to protect nature.

What motivates people? It's the values and benefits that people perceive of things and those don't exist in some external/objective form that exists independent of them. At least, I can't tell you what value nature or tigers have outside of why I know of these and what values I perceive them to possess and I assume that's true of others as well.

Notice that you say here:

Here in the Yukon, we have had considerable public debate in regards to habitat when it comes to the interests of mining and forestry in attempting to gain access to the parks, the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline proposition, and drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

Notice that despite an ideal that might be present for many, what is specifically representative of nature is still up to oneself to determine and how valueable that is is similarly an individual judgement. Is humanity natural?

It seems best to skip to the heart of the matter and look at what people desire and how they can best interact to achieve those ideals. In terms of "nature" it's a concept that individuals define for themselves and the value inherent in that concept is similar determined by those same individuals etc.

I don't think humanity can be excluded from being a product of nature either. The real issue apepars to be over what people desire to see with regard to their environment and how they can best interact in achieving those ideals and I also think realistic considerations should be present as well as how efficient various actions are toward those desires.

In the same way that the body and mind influence physical observations in physics - what nature is and how it exists as well as its value etc. are also affected by ones own experiences, beliefs, perceptions etc. and I don't see nature as something that exists external to human influences and value judgements.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Well, let's take away worms or bacteria, and then see what happens to the 'superior' human mammal animals—that came from you know where.

[SteveA]

Well, let's take away worms or bacteria, and then see what happens to the 'superior' human mammal animals—that came from you know where.

Notice that you place value on worms and bacteria ... because ...?

Because they support your life. If you weren't alive there would be no value to you for these.

As I said, it appears counter productive in many areas to try to imagine the existence of physical laws that need not be observable or of a value to nature that exists outside ones own determination of it etc.

So just as you see value in bacteria and worms for life, similarly Lorrina sees value in the environment she lives in which has lots of natural features and animals she can interact with and Meem similarly values tigers because of their beauty and I value others values because I enjoy interaction with people and exploring the world of ideas others present, and yes, I enjoy environments not so highly tailored by human interactions as well.

Notice that the common denominator here is that everyone has their own agenda. Trying to use some form of appeal to some objective sense of value isn't particularly useful and people could likely get a lot better results by communicating better over what their own individual desires are and how people can best work together to see those best supported in a diverse world with others.

[labelwench]

In the same way that the body and mind influence physical observations in physics - what nature is and how it exists as well as its value etc. are also affected by ones own experiences, beliefs, perceptions etc. and I don't see nature as something that exists external to human influences and value judgements.

Originally posted by SteveA

Nature existed long before humans, based on our best evidence.

My concerns would be that our human tendency to value one thing over another is what places us in conflict with nature and with each other.

Certainly nature has caused countless species to become extinct while others have evolved, ourselves among them. At the present moment, I'm rather wondering whether it will be nature or our own doing that eventually takes us down.

I used to have a far higher regard for all human life, until I came to observe that many humans are not deserving of respect by the manner in which they treat other forms of life, including their own kind.

All humans are not created equal, in my observation, though at some point in time, perhaps all were possessed of the same potential.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Notice that you place value on worms and bacteria ... because ...?

Not only because they are better and longer lasting than human mammals, but that they also aerate 400 tons of soil a day, making everything better for everything.

Human pride falls left and right, for man is neither special nor the measure of all things.

Note that you place value more on man.