Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Science

Galapagos Islands Environment "In Danger" 162

Posted by kdawson from the bye-finches-bye-iguanas dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Galapagos Islands Environment "In Danger" More

Galapagos Islands Environment "In Danger"

Comments Filter:

  • Great. (Score:3, Funny)

    by overcaffein8d ( 1101951 ) <d.cohen09@nospAm.gmail.com> on Saturday June 30, 2007 @09:23PM (#19702649) Homepage Journal
    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 @09:57PM (#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: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by timmarhy ( 659436 )
          "build some fish farms"

          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)

            by jafiwam ( 310805 )
            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....

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

          by The One and Only ( 691315 ) <[ten.hclewlihp] [ta] [lihp]> on Saturday June 30, 2007 @10:25PM (#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: (Score:1, Insightful)

            by timmarhy ( 659436 )
            that's part of the issue - these kinds of people think that lizards and birds have the same rights and worth as you or I.

            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)

              by tcolberg ( 998885 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @11:18PM (#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.
              • You're a bit confused there. The islands only have scientific and historical value to us--the reason for preserving them is to meet human needs, not to save some dumb little lizard for its own sake.

                • 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

            • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

              by WilliamSChips ( 793741 )
              Yeah, well, a ruined environment is bad for humans as well, and torture is bad no matter who the victim is. Death is an inevitability and I'm not telling you to stop eating meat but I still think we should stop torturing animals the way we do with our current meatmaking methods. ThereHasToBeABetterWay.

            • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward

              land, eat, shit and fuck

              Hey, that's my July 4th vacation plan, you insensitive clod!

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

              by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @12:01AM (#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.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by 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

                • 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
                    • That's an interesting direction to take that argument, which goes back to the root of this issue. Separating humans from the rest of nature is exactly what certain environmentalists do when they argue that humans should try to minimize their impact on "nature". If we're choosing not to separate humans from the rest of nature, than environmentalists don't have a leg to stand on when they tell us not to screw around with nature--if we're a part of nature, surely our behavior in changing the environment is par

                    • On the other hand, we're the only species that has arguments about this sort of thing, and since we're the only ones capable of applying planning and moral judgment to these issues, that alone separates us.

                      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

                    • I think it's very much within human interests to preserve much of nature, but also to change certain things to our benefit. But our central choice of guiding values is pretty fundamental, and if you choose something other than the wellbeing of human beings, I'm not quite sure how to fundamentally argue against that. "Minimizing human impact on the environment" as an end in itself is something I can dismiss as absurd, but if someone else puts forth a different value system I would be interested to compare.
                • 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
                  • No, by my logic, anything that doesn't serve the purpose of human well-being is a waste of space. My continued existence certainly serves my well-being, and there are people who would miss me if I wasn't around. You should try reading this entire discussion to get more context.

              • 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

              • 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 sorry, but you have an inflated sense of your own worth, or a lack of appreciation of the order of things, or both.

                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

            • So like...

              You want "great employment"--a job. A bird wants to eat and fuck.

              And you're the superior one?
            • 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
          • What good are you? I didn't realize beings, places and things need to justify their existence in terms of how you can use them in order for you to allow them to continue to exist.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by 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

              • No, really. What good are you if you can't so much as justify your existence in some way I can use?
                • 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.

        • 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)

          by BiggerBoat ( 690886 )

          Put a patrol boat a mile out and sink anyone that gets close to the island.
          Yeah, but which island? There are 13 main islands, 6 smaller islands, and 107 rocks and islets (thanks, Wikipedia). That's a lot of patrol boats.

        • Why the fuck are fishermen and roads and a cruiseship dock there in the first place?

          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

    • i guess my "humor" is someone else's "flamebait." then again, maybe it was humourous flamebait.
    • "Save the planet" is all I seem to hear lately. The Earth will heal itself, and is not in jeopardy. Our ability to exist on this planet may be in question, but something tells me that even if we all die off the planet will remain.

      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)

        by cagrin ( 146191 )
        I am saddened by your post. Perhaps the Earth(or big rock in space) is not endangered, but the life that is currently on the planet more increasingly is. Examples: desertification [bbc.co.uk], fish extinction seen by 2048 [cbsnews.com].
      • 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.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by calcapt ( 975466 )

          nature fixes itself.
          I always figured that would involve nature taking us out of the picture. Or rather, nature lets us take ourselves out of the picture, and the world heals.
      • Environmental movements are not about ensuring that the moon has something to spin around it is about preserving nature on the planet (I hope).
        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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You to let "evolution" and "survival of the fittest" continue?

      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.

  • insults? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Paktu ( 1103861 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @09:24PM (#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 @09:27PM (#19702673)
    Those huge turtles should email their congressman.
  • Charles Darwin's research took place in 1978?

  • How's it go? Survival of the fitest ? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If the island dies, that's the way god, by his intelligent design, wants it. Who has a problem with god? Do you?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      why would I have a problem with something that doesn't exist?
  • What? Did someone call it a fat-ass or something?

    /lame attempt at humor

  • Sea Shepherd (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 )
    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

    • 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:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'd have to agree...

      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)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @10:21PM (#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.

    • I bet Jesus personally came down and kicked a turtle in the ass for good measure.


      He tried. Luckily turtles evolved a hard shell after the last such incident.

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

    by Leontes ( 653331 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @10:33PM (#19703035)
    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:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      So it was you in your diesel chugging boat that destroyed them. Way to go man. No more evolution!

      • 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

    • 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 (

  • My step son just landed there about a week ago. He and some classmates from UofO are there to do some studies for the summer.

    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

  • Well then... (Score:4, Funny)

    by crumbz ( 41803 ) <[<remove_spam>ju ... spam>gmail.com]> on Saturday June 30, 2007 @11:34PM (#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 @11:51PM (#19703463)
    And fundraising to boot. Agree or not, this doesn't belong in science, and probably doesn't belong on /.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
      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 !
      • Patents and censorship (especially Google etc.) are technology related, and they usually wind up where they belong, in YRO. If you aren't interested in them, you can not have those topics on your home page. Where's the science or tech in this?

        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,
    • You must be new here...
  • One place I would love to see ... but tourism is killing the place, better to admire it from a distance than be part of the problem.

    • Re:Galapagos (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday July 01, 2007 @01:30AM (#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!

        • I think that is absolutely the wrong advice. Tourism is the problem, not the solution.

          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

    •   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!

  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close