Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Galapagos Islands Environment "In Danger"

Posted by kdawson on Sat Jun 30, 2007 08:19 PM
from the bye-finches-bye-iguanas dept.
Education Science
cagrin writes "On Tuesday the UN's World Heritage Committee added the Galapagos Islands to the list of sites in danger from environmental threats or overuse. From the article: 'The Galapagos Islands, an Ecuadorian territory situated in the Pacific Ocean some 1,000 kilometers (625 miles) from South America, helped shape Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and in 1978 was the first site placed on UNESCO's World Heritage List.' Here is some background from Sea Shepherd on the insults facing the Galapagos."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Galapagos Islands Environment "In Danger" 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Great. Darwin's islands in danger...... what more could the anti-global-warming-no-separation-of-church-and-st ate-neocons want?
    • According to TFA, the fisherman want less quotas and more free-fishing.

      • Re:Great. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Original Replica (908688) on Saturday June 30 2007, @08:57PM (#19702823) Journal
        Why the fuck are fishermen and roads and a cruiseship dock there in the first place? Here's a real easy way to save it. GO AWAY. Not just the tourists and fishermen either, everyone including the scientists. Just leave it alone. Maybe shoot all the stray dogs first. Put a patrol boat a mile out and sink anyone that gets close to the island. And don't whine about the displaced fishermen, build some fish farms. There isn't anywhere on earth with an ocean fishing industry where overfishing doesn't happen and the fishermen all wonder why there are so fewer fish. It's the clear cutting of the sea.

        • Re:Great. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by The One and Only (691315) <phil@philwelch.net> on Saturday June 30 2007, @09:25PM (#19702989) Homepage
          What good are the Galapagos islands if no one can study or appreciate them? Perhaps you would like to generalize your solution to the entire earth?

            • Re:Great. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by tcolberg (998885) on Saturday June 30 2007, @10:18PM (#19703241)
              What an arrogant view of the world, to think that your "enjoyment" is more valuable than the preservation of an ecosystem. I don't think you're worth more than a lizard or a bird, how's that? We need to preserve these islands for their scientific and historical value. Preservation means limiting human impact. If you want to "enjoy" the islands, do so via low-impact guided tours or by watching Discovery HD.

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by Fred_A (10934)
                  Actually I'm afraid you got it backwards. It's indeed for those "dumb lizards" (which btw are much less dumb than you appear to think) sake that those islands are being preserved. And also for the various seals, birds and rich marine life. The Galapagos archipelago is a completely astounding place. And if you viewed other life forms as something other than "stuff that can be eaten" or "people I can get money from" your life could have changed for the better with a visit there when it was still possible.

                  When

            • Could you be more selfish? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Saturday June 30 2007, @11:01PM (#19703517) Journal
              It never ceases to amazes me that people as narrow-minded as you exist.

              That bird that "merely views [the Galapagos Islands] as a place to land, eat,shit and fuck" is part of the natural ecosystem of this islands.

              In its small way, it's a vital part of the food chain and the environment of that area, yet your personal right to a pleasure cruise is more important than the survival of the local ecological community?

              I'm sorry, but you have an inflated sense of your own worth, or a lack of appreciation of the order of things, or both. How would you like it if I destroyed your home and your way of life for personal pleasure? Would that be OK with you? After all, that's no different to what you're proposing, right?

              The eradication of a species just for the convenience of fishermen, or the destruction of a unique and irreplaceable wildlife habitat for the convenience of tourists are selfish and short-sighted acts. But I suppose that those are moral and ethical arguments that are wasted on you.

              • That bird that "merely views [the Galapagos Islands] as a place to land, eat,shit and fuck" is part of the natural ecosystem of this islands. In its small way, it's a vital part of the food chain and the environment of that area...

                Aren't you glad that we know all about this? Guess what--we wouldn't if this stupid "ban all humans, even scientists and ecologically careful visitors, from the Galapagos" policy was in place. I think many places should be preserved in a natural state--but only because our appre

                • Without a human observer, beauty doesn't exist, just eating, shitting, and fucking.
                  Not so, or nature wouldn't select for it.
                  • Not so, because beauty is a human perception. Nature doesn't select for beauty, per se--although the human propensity to preserve cute, furry species is a selective pressure in itself. Other than that recent development, nature selects for appearances that cause a certain behavioral reaction within life. But we are the ones who find these things beautiful. And many of these beautiful things (like monarch butterflies, for instance), were selected to have that appearance to scare the shit out of predators.
                    • I won't argue with you, as it's as pointless as arguing with the "language is reality" crowd.

                      However, for other readers, I will point out that whatever we call a quality, is it is selected for, that is evidence of external existance. Perhaps you can find cunning counter-examples, but existance is sufficient. That a flower makes itself symmetrical for the bee can be seen in terms of simple recognition, but then beauty in our species is also connected to such factors. That there is an underlying neurolog

                    • I said "Arguing was like...", rather than that "language is reality" was your belief.

                      Then we simply disagree. On two grounds:

                      Instances of consistent selection for a trait demonstrates external existance of said trait, albeit not universality.

                      Beauty is primarily neurological, which is closer to physics than society. More to the point, beauty can be perceived by many animals other than humans, which addresses your original intent when making your (IMO faulty) observation.

                    • Certain traits are selected for, which we find beautiful. That is not to say that "beauty" itself is the selected trait--in some cases, such as mimicry and camoflauge, it's just a trait that, almost by coincidence, happened to be beautiful to human eyes. I would also say that, while our experience of beauty is neurologically similar to that of animals, our experience of beauty is (as far as we can determine) rather distinct from an animal's experience of beauty. This is true even in cases where the trait wa
                    • The big difference isn't our perception of beauty, but our interpretation of it. Who knows, the monarch butterfly could be awesome in its beauty, much as we find the white tiger [google.com] to be. In any case, there are clearly cases where not only perception of beauty, but intention is closely aligned; flowers attract both humans and bees, so that even if the monarch butterfly isn't perceived as beautiful, there is still the existance of beauty of a similar kind. That their might also be misalignment doesn't dispr
                • The ecosystem is an amazing system, but only because we're here to be amazed by it. Without a human observer, beauty doesn't exist, just eating, shitting, and fucking.

                  By that logic, anything that isn't amazing and beautiful is a waste of space. You may want to consider how amazing and beautiful you are as compared to most of the rest of nature. Hmm, not stacking up so well are you? Add to that just how far from unique you are. Yeah, it's time to get over your sense of entitlement. This may come as a bit
                  • If it isn't a question of utility, then why say ecosystems are "vital to our very existence and future as a species"? That's a very utilitarian answer.

              • How would you like it if I destroyed your home and your way of life for personal pleasure? Would that be OK with you?
                As humans we do this to eachother all the time, maybe we should focus on stopping that first? Certainly if we solve our problems we can then focus on some strange looking animals... right?
                • I'm gonna make 2 guesses... one is, you're white and number two is, you're american. and you have the balls to call anyone else narrow-minded. can you say "asshole"?

                  If my signature wasn't a big enough clue then a quick view at my last dozen or so posts would have told you for sure that you're completely wrong. Thanks for playing, though.
            • yes i am better then both

              Let's apply the law of supply and demand, and see just how valuable a person is vs a rare bird. Supply of people 6,602,224,175 , demand for people (this is a tough one. How many people's lives do effect positively, let's say 10,000 people through out your life are significantly, positively effected by your existence) 10,000. That gives most of us a value of 0.0000015151. Number of Galapagos Hawks 1000. Number of people who want to save the Galapagos Hawk: at least 2,500,000 (the

            • I'm a person. My sense of right and wrong is based (simply put) on the wellbeing of people--not on the preservation of "natural" systems for their own sake. I place "natural" in quotes because human beings, and everything human beings do and build, are a part of nature--indeed, human beings are the only part of nature that is even capable of making determinations of right and wrong. If we should let "nature" exist, unperturbed by human hands, then by that reasoning it's our duty to extinct the entire human

                • If your sense of right and wrong are based only on your personal well-being instead of the well-being of all people, then we're working from fundamentally different assumptions, just as much as if you were some environmentalist whose sense of right and wrong is based on the preservation of the way things are absent human involvement.
                    • No, that's not the premise I started with. The premise I started with is that the standard of right and wrong is based upon the well-being of people in general. Allowing no scientific study or other close observation of the Galapagos would thus be wrong, because the human race would be denied the scientific knowledge we can gain from the Galapagos, as well as their beauty. Similarly, allowing me to continue existing serves my well-being, along with the well-being of other people who rather like having me ar

                    • When did I ever say the Galapagos should be destroyed? Now you're the one making assumptions. All I said was that it was stupid to, point-blank, prevent ANYONE (even scientists) from setting foot there. I've been rather clear in pointing out that the Galapagos should be preserved because it's more valuable to us as the unique and beautiful ecosystem that it is.

                      What did you have to eat today? I hope it wasn't anything grown on a farm--vast amounts of land are radically transformed for our use, and according

                    • Ignoring the fact that some of this is asinine and rhetorical

                      It's not at all asinine and rhetorical. What makes the Galapagos so special, as opposed to the virgin plains that's converted to farmland, or the untouched oil reserves that are converted to plastic for the case of your computer?

                      Oh, the Galapagos are unique? Beautiful? Historically significant? Scientifically interesting? My point exactly--those are all ways in which the Galapagos are useful to human well-being, and reasons they are more useful

        • Why the fuck are fishermen and roads and a cruiseship dock there in the first place? Here's a real easy way to save it. GO AWAY.

          I am not a green-gecho. But I do see your point. But what are we going to do? Give then a $5000 fine? That isn't even $2 per passenger!!!

          If your serious about parks, and special ecological places, you would put a bounty on the human heads that show up there unofficially and not prepared to be correct about it. Yes, let someone shot, sink kill the people who destroy it. The

          • Uhm, fishing requires a boat right? Capital investment, sorta like what would be required to build a fish farm.

            Seems to me like "fish farms cost money" is only a good argument if boats fall out of the sky fully fueled or something....
      • Exactly right - death and destruction are part of evolution, just like Rev. Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. People shouldn't have to spend all this brainpower on preserving life; nature fixes itself.
      • If you would like your posts appreciated, it would help not to insult people in the subject line.

        It also helps to point to evidence, such as the Kenyan museum that creationists are campaining to have exhibits removed [mg.co.za]. A more moderate tone will gain you mod points, cause you to be read, and generate intelligent replies.

        Just my 2 cents.

  • insults? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Paktu (1103861) on Saturday June 30 2007, @08:24PM (#19702653)
    Here is some background from Sea Shepherd on the insults facing the Galapagos.

    Did someone fart in the islands' general direction?

  • Danger is bad (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kohath (38547) on Saturday June 30 2007, @08:27PM (#19702673)
    Those huge turtles should email their congressman.

  • Hallelujah! (Score:4, Funny)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Saturday June 30 2007, @09:21PM (#19702971)
    Finally, this disproves the false science of evolution! God is punishing the islands for having led so many of the faithful astray. I bet Jesus personally came down and kicked a turtle in the ass for good measure.

  • It's beautiful there. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Leontes (653331) on Saturday June 30 2007, @09:33PM (#19703035) Homepage
    Taking a cruise around the islands changed the way that I think of biology. The sheer diversity of unusual life-forms is astounding: flightless cormorants to marine iguanas to sea lions that don't flinch as you walk by them to the vast fields of blue footed boobies to the elegant but absurd courting dances of the albatrosses: it truly is a land of wonders.

    But you get a sense of fragility walking around: from the bees infestation of an island to the sad lack of giant tortoises: the entire island is a tribute to an environmental sense, an acknowledgment that by changing the environment slightly, entrenched endemic species alter, die, dissipate.

    Stricter controls are needed in order to help prevent this slide into desolation, but I hope even more that those that wish to take in the marvels of the land can, I have their minds changed and their appreciation of the world expanded.

    In some ways it's like the Heisenberg principal: we change it by viewing it. I just hope we have the sense to remember that we should be careful at how much we kill as we gaze.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bit01 (644603)

      it truly is a land of wonders.

      It's a nice place but hardly the pristine wonder that many people think it is.

      The rats, cats, dogs, goats, donkeys and many other animals and plants left there for hundreds of years by passing seamen have made sure of that. Not to mention the food hunting they've done. The animals are a bit less wary of people than in other places but not by much. It's managed better than before by the Ecuadoran government but the shear quantity of tourists (100,000+/year) and residents (

        • I spent a couple of weeks on a boat there and visited several islands. I've also been fortunate enough to visit wildlife areas all over the world.

          Glad you like it (I did) but I think you're seriously underestimating just how much the vegetation and animal populations have changed - see wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and this [galapagosislands.com] for a summary. I stand by my point that the animals are wary; not surprising considering how much they've been hunted by seamen and feral animals. Sounds like your experience was different.

          The populatio

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by rockout (1039072)
        I was there on a 75-foot catamaran. It only used diesel when necessary and sparingly, like to get in and out of the Puerto Ayora harbor. From what I could see, they're pretty careful about preserving the ecosystems there while still allowing people an up-close look at those same ecosystems. As another poster mentioned, we were in a tightly controlled group led by a very professional guide who actually lives in Puerto Ayora. And guess what, for those of you that think it would be easy to just close off t

  • Well then... (Score:4, Funny)

    by crumbz (41803) <<remove_spam>jus ... spam>gmail...com> on Saturday June 30 2007, @10:34PM (#19703333) Homepage
    ...I guess the inhabitants of the islands will have to, umm, adapt?
    • I think it's odd that people who rabidly rebel against anyone who says anything contradicting the idea of evolution are also the people who constantly are trying to preserve "nature" in some pristine ideallic state.

      It's counterintuitive as hell. Why are environmentalists constantly trying to stop evolution?

  • This isn't science, it's politics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZWithaPGGB (608529) on Saturday June 30 2007, @10:51PM (#19703463)
    And fundraising to boot. Agree or not, this doesn't belong in science, and probably doesn't belong on /.
    • Yeah, true. And I don't want to see any patent-related or censorship-related issues on /. either.

      Ok, maybe not really a tech news, but they patrol on a ship with a Jolly Roger flag ! That IS news for nerds !

  • the insults facing the Galapagos

    Surely the worst insult facing the Galapagos has to be Crea^H^H^H^H Intelligent Design?

    Just a thought.

  • If the diverse ecosystem of the Galapagos is seriously damaged, tourists won't want to go there at all. If the fishermen there don't reduce their fishing, eventually there won't be enough fish and big enough fish left there for them to sustain a living.

    Those who live there and depend on the tourists for income need to wake up and realize that if they don't minimize the damage they do while living there, and do their best to stop the damage from poachers and too much tourists, the Galapagos islands will bec

  • Galapagos Islands to the list of sites in danger from environmental threats or overuse
    I better go visit them before they're gone

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by owlnation (858981)

      are an activist organisation who think any form of violence is justified because they THINK they have the moral high ground. They are nothing other then no science agenda pushing assholes

      What a day not to have mod points...

      Nice violent post by the way...

      Ok, there are, admittedly, some grey areas over how Sea Shepherd have handled some situations. They do not, however, "think any form of violence is justified". They have been careful not to harm anyone physically, although they have rammed other ship

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Reziac (43301) *

        From http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview . cfm/oid/347 [activistcash.com]
        ============

        Overview
        Sea Shepherd Conservation Society "We're not a protest organization, we're a policing organization," Paul Watson has said of his Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS). A pirate organization is more like it. Sporting the skull and crossbones, his black or battleship-gray ships sail menacingly through the waves. They are painted with the names of the boats Watson has rammed and sunk.

        The ships are fitted with water cannon

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Shetan (20885)
          Your god does not exist, but mine does. Now we shall all go to war to settle the matter.
        • such as oxygen, for example? or such as something of which you are ignorant?

          Here we go. Your argument is flawed. Oxygen DOES exist. If I take it away, you die.

          Ignorance? You want to fill that "gap" with God go right ahead. There's a damned good chance that there's nothing there, however, because THERE IS NOTHING THERE. NOTHING is actually more likely than an undetectable being with magical powers that requires convoluted reasoning and non sequiturs to justify its

    • Re:Galapagos (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Sunday July 01 2007, @12:30AM (#19704069)
      If you do not go, it does not mean there will be one less person visiting the island.

      The tourism slots are there regardless of your going. If you do not go, someone else who may be less environmentally aware may go in your stead and litter or reward bad native behaviour otherwise alter the environment more than you would.

      I say, if you can go go, and appreciate what is there, while it is still there. What is something happens to it even totally natural in nature? The best way to preserve it in that case, is through memory.

      • I think that is absolutely the wrong advice. Tourism is the problem, not the solution. Even an `environmentally aware' tourist is not as good as no tourist at all.

        The existing tourism is obviously unsustainable (as is the fishing), so eventually it will be reduced - either by lowering quotas or, of that is not done, by destroying the place until no tourist wants to go. But putting pressure on the number of tourists wanting to go is not going to help!

    • Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by calcapt (975466) on Sunday July 01 2007, @02:00AM (#19704525)
      What? You think throwing money at the starving of Africa is going to solve their problems?

      Africa's got a shitload of problems that, in order to be solved, need more than rich fucks funneling money in their direction. Billions have already been poured into Africa, and damn near ZERO (I exaggerate, but it feels like it) progress has been made [http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,151 8,363604,00.html]. They need economic, agricultural, political, and health aid. Also, in Africa you have crazy war mongers creating extremely unstable environments in numerous African nations, committing genocide and human rights violations left and right. I don't know what sort of aid will solve this, but trust me, I don't think anyone is going to be willing to give it.

      With it's problems, Africa needs more than money. It needs help from the international community/UN. All that will probably require a gross monetary sum larger than what would be required for the restoration of the Galapagos, and if we really want to fix things in Africa, it'll probably cost lives too. Even helping 3rd world countries develop infrastructure is going to be a bitch. You can't just develop it for them; you have to teach them a whole lot of shit too. Like the saying goes, give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he'll eat every day for the rest of his life.

      Lastly, you can't just write off the loss of the Galapagos animals as non issue. You have no idea how this will impact the overall ecosystem. Time and time again, we have been shown that biological changes in a location have vast impacts, usually negative, on the surrounding ecosystem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching][htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_oak_death]. And, whatever an environmental psychopath society will spend to solve the issue, I think it will certainly be vastly less than what is needed to help the rest of the world. I'm sure that people are still donating towards causes like Africa, and on top of that there will be donations/funding for the protection of the Galapagos Islands. I realize the severity of both issues are different, but I'm certain we're not going to end up sending 50 million to the Galapagos and 1 million to Africa; rather, people will spend what is needed in the Galapagos, but whatever is going to Africa will most likely dwarf that.

      Oh Yeah. Stupidity gets people killed, sure, but it also wastes money by throwing it at a problem and hoping it will go away.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.