Galapagos Islands Environment "In Danger" 162
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. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
ok, you morgage your house and take out a personal loan to pay for it and i will. nice and easy to solve the worlds problems from an arm chair isn't it?
here's a thought, people were all over those islands before they knew any better, carefully controlled human presence on the island isn't going to make anything worse, maybe even better as research there can help give us more insight into how ecosystems like this work.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me like "fish farms cost money" is only a good argument if boats fall out of the sky fully fueled or something....
Re:Great. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No - i am worth MORE then a fucking lizard or a bird, yes i am better then both. I would gain great enjoyment by a trip to those islands, a bird merely views it as a place to land, eat,shit and fuck.
Re:Great. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
land, eat, shit and fuck
Hey, that's my July 4th vacation plan, you insensitive clod!
Could you be more selfish? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Beauty (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perception of Beauty (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree that our minds make us more capable, but there is great good, as well as evil in the general run of nature. Our sophistication in that regard doesn't put us in a different category. To use it as an excuse is, to my mind, special pleading.
Our ability to reason is what makes stewardship o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Are you implying that humans are not part of the food chain/environment/ecological community?
If we're not part of the ecological community, then we're above it and can do as we please.
If we're part of the ecological community, then any changes we make are "natural." I don't see people getting up i
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could remember who said this... (Score:2)
Yep. I wish I could remember who said this (Lin Yutang, perhaps?), but someone once said (much more eloquently) that people always have a much-overinflated sense of their own importance, when they look at the huge buildings they've constructed etc. He then went on to say how he'd like to move such people somewhere else, to adjust their sense of place in the world --- somewhere like a very
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
You want "great employment"--a job. A bird wants to eat and fuck.
And you're the superior one?
Yeah, cause we really need more people. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those issues are rather less important--it's partly a scientific and economic question what really serves human well-being. I happen to believe human beings are better off with a sustainable, bright green [wikipedia.org] post-industrial society combined with preservation of ecosystems, especially t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The islands have been inhabited for a long time - certainly centuries, probably thousands of years (I've not heard of any major archaeological work there, but only a thousand km off the Ecuadorean coast, the Galapogos are easily within range.) They've as much right to live in their homes as you have to live in yours, and quite possibly more right. [There has been significant immigration in the last few decades, as well as
Re: (Score:1)
Time to test Darwin... (Score:1, Insightful)
If there are changes in the environment, the strongest/fittest will survive, adapt, evolve to the new conditions. I am not saying that we should run out an trash the place up, whether we're talking about the islands in question, or the planet. We need to stop trying to save eve
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WE (humans) are part of nature, our strength which makes us 'fit to survive' is our intelligence, if we don't use that intelligence to ensure that we have an environment fit for us to survive on then we won't have actually been strong enough to survive. Darwin's test will have passed but no one will be around to appreciate that fact. After all our job, like everythi
Re: (Score:1)
If there is no god, and evolutions/SOTF is the way, then humans are natural, and everything we do is natural.
Stop being a hypocrite.
Observation (Score:2)
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)
Did someone fart in the islands' general direction?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Danger is bad (Score:5, Funny)
1978? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How's it go? Survival of the fitest ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Insults facing Galapagos? (Score:1)
/lame attempt at humor
Sea Shepherd (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
As someone once said about PETA (which donates money toward these ecoterrorist groups) -- "They don't love animals. They hate people."
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Green Peace destroyed some coral reefs when docking their ships, Sea Shephard almost caused oil spill in the Anarctic with TERRORISM..
They'd do more for their cause if they ceased to exist. They themselves are their no.1 source of negative publicity.
Hallelujah! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
He tried. Luckily turtles evolved a hard shell after the last such incident.
It's beautiful there. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (
Re: (Score:2)
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
My Step Son Is There Right Now (Score:1)
He was just telling us about these environmental dangers on the phone yesterday.
He's going to be writing a story about some sweet windmill technology that will soon be deployed there and supply a large portion of the area's energy needs...Or something like that
Re: (Score:2)
-Morbo
Well then... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's counterintuitive as hell. Why are environmentalists constantly trying to stop evolution?
This isn't science, it's politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, maybe not really a tech news, but they patrol on a ship with a Jolly Roger flag ! That IS news for nerds !
Re: (Score:2)
My main objection was to the classification. Sea Shepherd and their supporters have taken to spamming every forum I participate in. Since I'm an active (Technical) SCUBA diver, that's a lot. Forae that get lots of off topic posts rapidly lose value.
The fact is,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Galapagos (Score:1)
Re:Galapagos (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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!
Then stop it (Score:2)
Of course. My point is, him not going does not mean one less person going. There are already essentially a limited number of spots because you have to travel with a licensed guide. If he does not go, someone else will simply take that spot.
There was a recent article about how they want to raise park fees (currently only $100) and reduce the limit on the number of tourists that go go there. Sounds like a great idea. B
Buy the Documentary (Score:2)
For less than half the cost of going there, you can purchase a PS3 and the BluRay version of the Galapagos BBC documentary (available Oct 2). I haven't seen it yet, but I've heard from friends that it is spectacular.
The bonus is, this option has much less environmental impact. I'd say zero impact, but the juice your PS3 and HDTV sucks down has to contribute some way. Not to mention the hot air that the PS3 blows out.
Another bonus, you get a PS3!
Insults (Score:2)
Surely the worst insult facing the Galapagos has to be Crea^H^H^H^H Intelligent Design?
Just a thought.
Islanders hurting themselves (Score:2)
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
Shit.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
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/0,15
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][ht
Oh Yeah. Stupidity gets people killed, sure, but it also wastes money by throwing it at a problem and hoping it will go away.
Solution to Africa... (Score:2)