Galapagos Islands Environment "In Danger"

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."

Great.

[overcaffein8d (1101951)]

Great. Darwin's islands in danger...... what more could the anti-global-warming-no-separation-of-church-and-st ate-neocons want?

Re:

[CriminalNerd (882826)]

According to TFA, the fisherman want less quotas and more free-fishing.

Re:Great.

[Original Replica (908688)]

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.

[The One and Only (691315)]

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.

[tcolberg (998885)]

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:

[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?

[WIAKywbfatw (307557)]

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.

Re:

[The One and Only (691315)]

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

Re:

[azuretek (708981)]

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?

Re:

[The One and Only (691315)]

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

Re:

[canuck57 (662392)]

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

Re:

[bendodge (998616)]

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.

insults?

[Paktu (1103861)]

Here is some background from Sea Shepherd on the insults facing the Galapagos.

Did someone fart in the islands' general direction?

Danger is bad

[Kohath (38547)]

Those huge turtles should email their congressman.

Hallelujah!

[jollyreaper (513215)]

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.

[Leontes (653331)]

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:

[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 (

Well then...

[crumbz (41803)]

...I guess the inhabitants of the islands will have to, umm, adapt?

This isn't science, it's politics

[ZWithaPGGB (608529)]

And fundraising to boot. Agree or not, this doesn't belong in science, and probably doesn't belong on /.

Re:

[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:

[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:

[Shetan (20885)]

Your god does not exist, but mine does. Now we shall all go to war to settle the matter.

Re:

[Dunbal (464142)]

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

[SuperKendall (25149)]

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.

Re:*sigh*

[calcapt (975466)]

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.