Jump to content
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT LOGGING IN ×
  • WELCOME GUEST

    It looks as if you are viewing PalmTalk as an unregistered Guest.

    Please consider registering so as to take better advantage of our vast knowledge base and friendly community.  By registering you will gain access to many features - among them are our powerful Search feature, the ability to Private Message other Users, and be able to post and/or answer questions from all over the world. It is completely free, no “catches,” and you will have complete control over how you wish to use this site.

    PalmTalk is sponsored by the International Palm Society. - an organization dedicated to learning everything about and enjoying palm trees (and their companion plants) while conserving endangered palm species and habitat worldwide. Please take the time to know us all better and register.

    guest Renda04.jpg

The ethics of restricting species migration


Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Recommended Posts

Is it ethical for humans to restrict plant and animal species migration, whether the migration was caused or aided by humans or not? As humans continue to destroy more and more habitat around the globe, the available land that wild plants and animals have to survive as a species is rapidly disappearing. Plants and animals are becoming refugees, and in many cases their only chance for surviving as a species is by migrating with or without the aid of humans.

Yet as humans, we have in our midst a new type of fundamentalism that is really no different than the people geographical eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Just as many people back then claimed that people belonged to certain lands, a whole new set of people now claim that plants and animals somehow belong to specific geographical regions or countries.

Many palm species introduced into cultivation and naturalizing elsewhere may already be extinct in their native ranges. Others are gravely endangered. There are many examples of real misguided plant conservation extremism that is threatening and forcing many species into extinction. I can think of a perfect example: pritchardia viscosa, the last remaining few specimens locked up behind a cage on the island of Kauai with no access to seed, and making it illegal to propagate. Researchers are falsely blaming Hilo grass and strawberry guavas as threats. Yet the real threat comes from rats brought in by the polynesians. Rather than trying to get this species into cultivation, the plan of action has been to prevent collection and put the plants behind bars. Apparently it was unacceptable that some folks collected seeds to save them from rats.

Many of the palms of Madagascar are in danger of going extinct. meanwhile more and more places are slowly getting locked down to prevent the migration and addition of new species. New Zealand and Australia are cases in point where the invasive species activists rule. Hawaii is still open but plant nazis there make repeated attempts at shutting down the islands.

The coqui frog is yet another example. While many find its presence unpleasant in Hawaii, the coqui frog is a refugee. It's threatened in Puerto Rico, yet it's thriving in Hawaii, but probably not for long as this frog is under persecution of the invasive species activists as well.

Loss of "native" species due to other species migration is far smaller than biodiversity degradation due to loss of habitat. Do we have the rights to impose species migration? It seems no more ethical than restricting certain races of humans to stay in specific areas of the globe. Furthermore, restricting species from being propagated except by elite scientific staff seems counter productive as well.

So is it ethical to restrict the migration of species? What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.

A response might be another question, and the basis for another thread: is it ethical for us humans to facilitate migration of palm species? Do we have a right to turn Hawaii say, into a Noah's ark for species that might be near extinct in say, Madagascar which turn out to be rabid invasives? Hmmm.

Let's keep our forum fun and friendly.

Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or lost profits or revenue, claims by third parties or for other similar costs, or any special, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of my opinion or the use of this data. The accuracy or reliability of the data is not guaranteed or warranted in any way and I disclaim liability of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, liability for quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising out of the use, or inability to use my data. Other terms may apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry! I'm in a mood. I've been in Ohio for too long.

The Flying Sausage calls . . .

Ahem.

Let's keep our forum fun and friendly.

Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or lost profits or revenue, claims by third parties or for other similar costs, or any special, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of my opinion or the use of this data. The accuracy or reliability of the data is not guaranteed or warranted in any way and I disclaim liability of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, liability for quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising out of the use, or inability to use my data. Other terms may apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. The nativist Nazis again. Sorry, the underline goes a bit whack.

One possible argument against the NNs might be that we humans should all head back to Africa immediately. All of us. Eskimos, Tahitians, Swedes, etc.

The fact is that species move under their own power, or the power of the wind, or by hitchhiking, on people, or animals or floating plants across the oceans.

Hmm. Need to chew my cud on this some more . . . .

Let's keep our forum fun and friendly.

Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or lost profits or revenue, claims by third parties or for other similar costs, or any special, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of my opinion or the use of this data. The accuracy or reliability of the data is not guaranteed or warranted in any way and I disclaim liability of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, liability for quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising out of the use, or inability to use my data. Other terms may apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever read "The Botany of Desire?" A semi-humorous very interesting take on your question. Fun book to read as well.

200px-BotanyofDesire_full.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/The-Botany-Desire-Plants-Eye-World/dp/0375760393

In my post I sometimes express "my" opinion. Warning, it may differ from "your" opinion. If so, please do not feel insulted, just state your own if you wish. Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or any other damages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave's right on. If a plant gains a new range by a bird pooping it out on another side of a mountain or on a new island it's called "natural" but if a human plants it on an island it's called "invasive". Wouldn't it be a great evolutionary trait to gain new ground because a human thinks you look cool? As much as some don't want to admit it we ARE nature. Evolution has no compassion. That's a human emotion. It's simply die or thrive.

"it's not dead it's sleeping"

Santee ca, zone10a/9b

18 miles from the ocean

avg. winter 68/40.avg summer 88/64.records 113/25

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave's right on. If a plant gains a new range by a bird pooping it out on another side of a mountain or on a new island it's called "natural" but if a human plants it on an island it's called "invasive". Wouldn't it be a great evolutionary trait to gain new ground because a human thinks you look cool? As much as some don't want to admit it we ARE nature. Evolution has no compassion. That's a human emotion. It's simply die or thrive.

Simple solution. Eat the seed, find the right spot where you want it, wait till dark, and poop, its a miracle.

  • Upvote 2

In my post I sometimes express "my" opinion. Warning, it may differ from "your" opinion. If so, please do not feel insulted, just state your own if you wish. Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or any other damages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave's right on. If a plant gains a new range by a bird pooping it out on another side of a mountain or on a new island it's called "natural" but if a human plants it on an island it's called "invasive". Wouldn't it be a great evolutionary trait to gain new ground because a human thinks you look cool? As much as some don't want to admit it we ARE nature. Evolution has no compassion. That's a human emotion. It's simply die or thrive.

Simple solution. Eat the seed, find the right spot where you want it, wait till dark, and poop, its a miracle.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave's right on. If a plant gains a new range by a bird pooping it out on another side of a mountain or on a new island it's called "natural" but if a human plants it on an island it's called "invasive". Wouldn't it be a great evolutionary trait to gain new ground because a human thinks you look cool? As much as some don't want to admit it we ARE nature. Evolution has no compassion. That's a human emotion. It's simply die or thrive.

Simple solution. Eat the seed, find the right spot where you want it, wait till dark, and poop, its a miracle.

:floor2::floor2::floor2::floor2::floor2::floor2::floor2::floor2::floor2::floor2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may sound ridiculous, but let me take your topic title exactly how it is put.

Is it ethical to restrict the migration of parasites, vermin, fire ants, poisonous snakes, piranha, etc? They are just animal species.

Of course the answer is yes. But it comes down to who determines what is restricted. And you will never please everyone. One man's pest can be another man's dinner. I hear some Asians are smuggling in some pretty nasty snails, slugs, and grubs because they think they are delicious. And they object to the restrictions on importation. But we think it is ethical and proper to restrict them because they kill the things we like to grow.

animated-volcano-image-0010.gif.71ccc48bfc1ec622a0adca187eabaaa4.gif

Kona, on The Big Island
Hawaii - Land of Volcanoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Wonder what the Nativist Nazis would think about the logical end of their argument.

We humans are arguably the worst plague and pestilence of them all.

If that's true, then, their argument, carried to its logical conclusion would be: The ethical thing for us to do for the planet would be to inoculate ourselves with the Black Death, or commit some other form of mass suicide. :hmm:

  • Upvote 1

Let's keep our forum fun and friendly.

Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or lost profits or revenue, claims by third parties or for other similar costs, or any special, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of my opinion or the use of this data. The accuracy or reliability of the data is not guaranteed or warranted in any way and I disclaim liability of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, liability for quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising out of the use, or inability to use my data. Other terms may apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean, the question comes down to both who and what and how harmful it is. But I will take the argument of the botany of desire: being delicious and useful and therefore hitching a ride and survival strategy with humans is just as natural and organic as a coconut floating from one island to the next. We are not separate from the natural ecosystem we are a part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as we are altering the planet, the least we can do is try to maintain the integrity of our disparate environments.

The anthropogenic expansion of invasive species (plant, animal, bacteria, fungi, etc.) into new ecosystems that cannot accommodate them ranks right up with deforestation, industrialization, and agriculture in the destruction of environments and the extinction of native species.

We are part of nature, but we are also self aware. The argument that the anthropogenic spread of species is "natural" is no different than a 13 year old boy arguing that he doesn't need to keep his room clean because it defies his interpretation of natural entropy.

By being "lazy" in this we are wiping out species that would otherwise thrive in their niche. Therefore, as a part of nature we should protect our own environment by preventing these transgressions between ecologies.

Unless, of course, you believe Homo Sapiens is the manifestation of the 6th great extinction event, and you're proud of that...

Edited by Funkthulhu
  • Upvote 1

"Ph'nglui mglw'napalma Funkthulhu R'Lincolnea wgah'palm fhtagn"
"In his house at Lincoln, dread Funkthulhu plants palm trees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as we are altering the planet, the least we can do is try to maintain the integrity of our disparate environments.

The anthropogenic expansion of invasive species (plant, animal, bacteria, fungi, etc.) into new ecosystems that cannot accommodate them ranks right up with deforestation, industrialization, and agriculture in the destruction of environments and the extinction of native species.

We are part of nature, but we are also self aware. The argument that the anthropogenic spread of species is "natural" is no different than a 13 year old boy arguing that he doesn't need to keep his room clean because it defies his interpretation of natural entropy.

By being "lazy" in this we are wiping out species that would otherwise thrive in their niche. Therefore, as a part of nature we should protect our own environment by preventing these transgressions between ecologies.

Unless, of course, you believe Homo Sapiens is the manifestation of the 6th great extinction event, and you're proud of that...

Nonsense! biological invasions are a fundamental and integral aspect of nature and have always been present in the history of life on Earth. I can equally accuse your argument to be about as black and white as that of a 13 year old. While invasions are happening at an accelerated rate due to the accelerated means by which humans can travel the globe, so is the loss of habitat. hence the basis of the discussion, and the need to find the shades of gray in the whole argument. Invasive species are a far lesser evil than loss of habitat, and plant and animals are indeed becoming refugees.

As Dean points out, there are issues, and as you point out, we need to be aware of what we're doing, but both statements are pretty presumptuous and assume we could be smart enough to really predict the impact a particular species would have. Humans have serious delusions of grandeur as to their knowledge. The truth is, we don't have the ability to predict much, especially when considering complex biological ecosystems. In many cases, there are serious benefits that no one ever foresees. For example, the introduction of the eucalyptus in California had created habitat for the endangered Monarch butterfly and provides colonization of otherwise arid, barren terrain.

I would argue for the middle ground: allow invasive species, but manage them properly by monitoring and managing introductions of control species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as we are altering the planet, the least we can do is try to maintain the integrity of our disparate environments.

The anthropogenic expansion of invasive species (plant, animal, bacteria, fungi, etc.) into new ecosystems that cannot accommodate them ranks right up with deforestation, industrialization, and agriculture in the destruction of environments and the extinction of native species.

We are part of nature, but we are also self aware. The argument that the anthropogenic spread of species is "natural" is no different than a 13 year old boy arguing that he doesn't need to keep his room clean because it defies his interpretation of natural entropy.

By being "lazy" in this we are wiping out species that would otherwise thrive in their niche. Therefore, as a part of nature we should protect our own environment by preventing these transgressions between ecologies.

Unless, of course, you believe Homo Sapiens is the manifestation of the 6th great extinction event, and you're proud of that...

Nonsense! biological invasions are a fundamental and integral aspect of nature and have always been present in the history of life on Earth. I can equally accuse your argument to be about as black and white as that of a 13 year old. While invasions are happening at an accelerated rate due to the accelerated means by which humans can travel the globe, so is the loss of habitat. hence the basis of the discussion, and the need to find the shades of gray in the whole argument. Invasive species are a far lesser evil than loss of habitat, and plant and animals are indeed becoming refugees.

As Dean points out, there are issues, and as you point out, we need to be aware of what we're doing, but both statements are pretty presumptuous and assume we could be smart enough to really predict the impact a particular species would have. Humans have serious delusions of grandeur as to their knowledge. The truth is, we don't have the ability to predict much, especially when considering complex biological ecosystems. In many cases, there are serious benefits that no one ever foresees. For example, the introduction of the eucalyptus in California had created habitat for the endangered Monarch butterfly and provides colonization of otherwise arid, barren terrain.

I would argue for the middle ground: allow invasive species, but manage them properly by monitoring and managing introductions of control species.

Could I put a further restriction on that?

Could we manage plants and animals introduced for agricultural purposes while eliminating damaging ones like, say, rats/cats/snakes on islands? I'm keen to introduce species like the eucalyptus if it doesn't damage the environment and can be shown to enhance or even support native life.

The problem is who will decide what's cute/edible/useful? It comes back to the Coqui. . . they are cute, but screw those frogs, man. Keep a captive breeding population in a zoo or something if you're afraid they're threatened in their home territory, but they don't belong in Hawaii.

  • Upvote 1

"Ph'nglui mglw'napalma Funkthulhu R'Lincolnea wgah'palm fhtagn"
"In his house at Lincoln, dread Funkthulhu plants palm trees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as we are altering the planet, the least we can do is try to maintain the integrity of our disparate environments.

The anthropogenic expansion of invasive species (plant, animal, bacteria, fungi, etc.) into new ecosystems that cannot accommodate them ranks right up with deforestation, industrialization, and agriculture in the destruction of environments and the extinction of native species.

We are part of nature, but we are also self aware. The argument that the anthropogenic spread of species is "natural" is no different than a 13 year old boy arguing that he doesn't need to keep his room clean because it defies his interpretation of natural entropy.

By being "lazy" in this we are wiping out species that would otherwise thrive in their niche. Therefore, as a part of nature we should protect our own environment by preventing these transgressions between ecologies.

Unless, of course, you believe Homo Sapiens is the manifestation of the 6th great extinction event, and you're proud of that...

Nonsense! biological invasions are a fundamental and integral aspect of nature and have always been present in the history of life on Earth. I can equally accuse your argument to be about as black and white as that of a 13 year old. While invasions are happening at an accelerated rate due to the accelerated means by which humans can travel the globe, so is the loss of habitat. hence the basis of the discussion, and the need to find the shades of gray in the whole argument. Invasive species are a far lesser evil than loss of habitat, and plant and animals are indeed becoming refugees.

As Dean points out, there are issues, and as you point out, we need to be aware of what we're doing, but both statements are pretty presumptuous and assume we could be smart enough to really predict the impact a particular species would have. Humans have serious delusions of grandeur as to their knowledge. The truth is, we don't have the ability to predict much, especially when considering complex biological ecosystems. In many cases, there are serious benefits that no one ever foresees. For example, the introduction of the eucalyptus in California had created habitat for the endangered Monarch butterfly and provides colonization of otherwise arid, barren terrain.

I would argue for the middle ground: allow invasive species, but manage them properly by monitoring and managing introductions of control species.

Could I put a further restriction on that?

Could we manage plants and animals introduced for agricultural purposes while eliminating damaging ones like, say, rats/cats/snakes on islands? I'm keen to introduce species like the eucalyptus if it doesn't damage the environment and can be shown to enhance or even support native life.

The problem is who will decide what's cute/edible/useful? It comes back to the Coqui. . . they are cute, but screw those frogs, man. Keep a captive breeding population in a zoo or something if you're afraid they're threatened in their home territory, but they don't belong in Hawaii.

OK, the coqui frog is certainly gonna lead us down a rat hole, no pun intended. But yes, eliminating rats on the island IMHO is a far bigger priority than eliminating coqui, it would bring back all the native pritchardia populations. Then there are the pigs, much beloved by the Hawaiians. Frankly, ecologically speaking the coqui is far better for the ecosystem than the pig even if it's a sound nuisance to some. (It isn't to me, I love the coqui song.) And a snake free Hawaii is definitely a plus. If they showed up on the island they'd have a feast on the coqui.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave's right on. If a plant gains a new range by a bird pooping it out on another side of a mountain or on a new island it's called "natural" but if a human plants it on an island it's called "invasive". Wouldn't it be a great evolutionary trait to gain new ground because a human thinks you look cool? As much as some don't want to admit it we ARE nature. Evolution has no compassion. That's a human emotion. It's simply die or thrive.

Simple solution. Eat the seed, find the right spot where you want it, wait till dark, and poop, its a miracle.

are you using the baggie technique, or is this a community pot youre pooping in? haha

Grant
Long Beach, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave's right on. If a plant gains a new range by a bird pooping it out on another side of a mountain or on a new island it's called "natural" but if a human plants it on an island it's called "invasive". Wouldn't it be a great evolutionary trait to gain new ground because a human thinks you look cool? As much as some don't want to admit it we ARE nature. Evolution has no compassion. That's a human emotion. It's simply die or thrive.

Simple solution. Eat the seed, find the right spot where you want it, wait till dark, and poop, its a miracle.

Keith ma man, you are a treasure! :floor:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me it would be up to the residents of various places to determine their own rules. It's not up to me to decide what can be imported to Australia, for example. Australia and New Zealand have some of the most rigorous restrictions on imports on the planet -- your shoes had better be really clean coming into the country, or they will be confiscated. It's their home, they have the right to protect it. Do all Australians and New Zealanders agree on this? No, but the majority prefer to keep their unique flora and fauna as it is. That is their business and what outsiders think is not going to be given much value.

  • Upvote 1

Kim Cyr

Between the beach and the bays, Point Loma, San Diego, California USA
and on a 300 year-old lava flow, Pahoa, Hawaii, 1/4 mile from the 2018 flow
All characters  in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings up a good point.

Are Axel and Trioderob evolved from the same parents?

:winkie:

Zone 10a at best after 2007 AND 2013, on SW facing hill, 1 1/2 miles from coast in Oceanside, CA. 30-98 degrees, and 45-80deg. about 95% of the time.

"The great workman of nature is time."   ,  "Genius is nothing but a great aptitude for patience."

-George-Louis Leclerc de Buffon-

I do some experiments and learning in my garden with palms so you don't have to experience the pain! Look at my old threads to find various observations and tips!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me it would be up to the residents of various places to determine their own rules. It's not up to me to decide what can be imported to Australia, for example. Australia and New Zealand have some of the most rigorous restrictions on imports on the planet -- your shoes had better be really clean coming into the country, or they will be confiscated. It's their home, they have the right to protect it. Do all Australians and New Zealanders agree on this? No, but the majority prefer to keep their unique flora and fauna as it is. That is their business and what outsiders think is not going to be given much value.

You know you're opening up a whole can of worms here. My impression is that residents don't have any say in the matter. Are you ok with Washington determining what you can or cannot do in Hawaii?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Majority is two foxes and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.

Also, I think In Kim's defense she said residents, that does not mean Washington. However, that isn't all that different than majority.

I kind of like saying "do on to others as you would have them do onto you ". And even that is messed up, when you really think about it.

So, Alex, why do you always bring up these debates that have no answer, post count? If so, relax, you're on track for a world record. We all concede defeat right now, LOL.

Oh, and when all else fails, take a good poop. Won't make anyone else feel better, but after you'll feel just fine.

In my post I sometimes express "my" opinion. Warning, it may differ from "your" opinion. If so, please do not feel insulted, just state your own if you wish. Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or any other damages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Majority is two foxes and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.

Also, I think In Kim's defense she said residents, that does not mean Washington. However, that isn't all that different than majority.

I kind of like saying "do on to others as you would have them do onto you ". And even that is messed up, when you really think about it.

So, Alex, why do you always bring up these debates that have no answer, post count? If so, relax, you're on track for a world record. We all concede defeat right now, LOL.

Oh, and when all else fails, take a good poop. Won't make anyone else feel better, but after you'll feel just fine.

Keith, these are interesting and provocative topics because they don't have a neat packaged answer. To crack these issues you have to be able to to hold multiple points of view at the same time.

And who is Alex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex is Axel's id. Hmmm, do I even remember that right from too many years ago. All in good fun, which is the only way I would ever approach this topic for it has no answer, yet at the same time has a million answers. I had sooner ask people about their philosophy in raising their kids, to which I would surely be told you raise your kids your way and I'll raise mine my way. In the end we all do what we do.

In my post I sometimes express "my" opinion. Warning, it may differ from "your" opinion. If so, please do not feel insulted, just state your own if you wish. Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or any other damages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see this as a hard or unanswerable question at all. The question was, "Is it ethical for humans to restrict plant and animal species migration, whether the migration was caused or aided by humans...?"

And I would say the answer is "yes." Why would it be unethical?

animated-volcano-image-0010.gif.71ccc48bfc1ec622a0adca187eabaaa4.gif

Kona, on The Big Island
Hawaii - Land of Volcanoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see this as a hard or unanswerable question at all. The question was, "Is it ethical for humans to restrict plant and animal species migration, whether the migration was caused or aided by humans...?"

And I would say the answer is "yes." Why would it be unethical?

I don't think it's necessarily ethical if the most ethical answer is to maximize the number of surviving species. There's evidence pointing to the fact that our restrictions are doing more harm than good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me it would be up to the residents of various places to determine their own rules. It's not up to me to decide what can be imported to Australia, for example. Australia and New Zealand have some of the most rigorous restrictions on imports on the planet -- your shoes had better be really clean coming into the country, or they will be confiscated. It's their home, they have the right to protect it. Do all Australians and New Zealanders agree on this? No, but the majority prefer to keep their unique flora and fauna as it is. That is their business and what outsiders think is not going to be given much value.

You know you're opening up a whole can of worms here. My impression is that residents don't have any say in the matter. Are you ok with Washington determining what you can or cannot do in Hawaii?

Washington? All states have their own regulations. California restrictions are different from Florida are different from Hawaii are different from Texas. Presumably this is because different locations have different eco-systems and different agricultural concerns, thus my reference to "residents".

"...the most ethical answer is to maximize the number of surviving species" sounds noble on the surface. But putting that absolute into practice is probably a bit more complex. Moving species around may, or may not, disturb an existing eco-system and create an imbalance, sometimes to the point of causing extinction, and all with the best of intentions. Some imports are completely innocuous; others can spread disease that will devastate valuable crops. There has to be some discrimination, which is why regulations exist. Even with regulations, we've witnessed events such as the spread of the of the red palm weevil from Southeast Asia, across the continents into Europe, North Africa, and now in Southern California, just one example. Importing animals has always been hugely problematic. I hope you don't have any plans to bring exotic snakes to Hawaii in order to "maximize the number of surviving species." :):bemused::mrlooney: That would clearly be unethical, no matter how "cute" some people think they are.

  • Upvote 2

Kim Cyr

Between the beach and the bays, Point Loma, San Diego, California USA
and on a 300 year-old lava flow, Pahoa, Hawaii, 1/4 mile from the 2018 flow
All characters  in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see this as a hard or unanswerable question at all. The question was, "Is it ethical for humans to restrict plant and animal species migration, whether the migration was caused or aided by humans...?"

And I would say the answer is "yes." Why would it be unethical?

I don't think it's necessarily ethical if the most ethical answer is to maximize the number of surviving species. There's evidence pointing to the fact that our restrictions are doing more harm than good.

Wait. . . What?

What evidence do you have?

How could preventing an invasive species do more harm than good? (harm to who or what?)

  • Upvote 1

"Ph'nglui mglw'napalma Funkthulhu R'Lincolnea wgah'palm fhtagn"
"In his house at Lincoln, dread Funkthulhu plants palm trees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"People" have no say. We have lost our power to a few nuts with law degrees. One idiot delayed the cleanest Desalination plant in the US for years here in Carlsbad. One nut is stopping fireworks in La Jolla (Marco Gonzalez). The list goes on... and common sense loses out.

Yeah, yeah, one brave person standing up against tyranny right?

  • Upvote 1

Len

Vista, CA (Zone 10a)

Shadowridge Area

"Show me your garden and I shall tell you what you are."

-- Alfred Austin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me it would be up to the residents of various places to determine their own rules. It's not up to me to decide what can be imported to Australia, for example. Australia and New Zealand have some of the most rigorous restrictions on imports on the planet -- your shoes had better be really clean coming into the country, or they will be confiscated. It's their home, they have the right to protect it. Do all Australians and New Zealanders agree on this? No, but the majority prefer to keep their unique flora and fauna as it is. That is their business and what outsiders think is not going to be given much value.

You know you're opening up a whole can of worms here. My impression is that residents don't have any say in the matter. Are you ok with Washington determining what you can or cannot do in Hawaii?

Washington? All states have their own regulations. California restrictions are different from Florida are different from Hawaii are different from Texas. Presumably this is because different locations have different eco-systems and different agricultural concerns, thus my reference to "residents".

"...the most ethical answer is to maximize the number of surviving species" sounds noble on the surface. But putting that absolute into practice is probably a bit more complex. Moving species around may, or may not, disturb an existing eco-system and create an imbalance, sometimes to the point of causing extinction, and all with the best of intentions. Some imports are completely innocuous; others can spread disease that will devastate valuable crops. There has to be some discrimination, which is why regulations exist. Even with regulations, we've witnessed events such as the spread of the of the red palm weevil from Southeast Asia, across the continents into Europe, North Africa, and now in Southern California, just one example. Importing animals has always been hugely problematic. I hope you don't have any plans to bring exotic snakes to Hawaii in order to "maximize the number of surviving species." :):bemused::mrlooney: That would clearly be unethical, no matter how "cute" some people think they are.

Hawaii is snake-free, if that makes you feel any better I don't have any interest in changing that, whether I ever live there or not. I also believe in the regulation of species import, I just don't believe in the sort of extremism that exists in New Zealand, Australia and to a lesser extent in Hawaii. I don't agree with how pritchardia is being handled in Hawaii, it's terrible - no, wait, it's appalling. The streets are planted with pritchardia pacifica while beautiful native specimens are caged up, how stupid is that? Some of the most idiotic arguments coming from conservationists is that they don't want the pritchardia in cultivation because God forbid they might hybridize. Better cage the last remaining species until they die.

To answer Erik's concern about proof, there are many examples. Take the eucalyptus and the monarch butterfly for example. There are many species that have adapted to adverse conditions that should get a shot at creating better ecosystems elsewhere where they might be needed. I also believe the coqui frog is a great example, an inconvenience to the few folks that don't like noise but a great asset to the ecosystem. There is no ecological reason to remove the coqui other than the fact that some people hate the noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"People" have no say. We have lost our power to a few nuts with law degrees. One idiot delayed the cleanest Desalination plant in the US for years here in Carlsbad. One nut is stopping fireworks in La Jolla (Marco Gonzalez). The list goes on... and common sense loses out.

Yeah, yeah, one brave person standing up against tyranny right?

WELL said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"People" have no say. We have lost our power to a few nuts with law degrees. One idiot delayed the cleanest Desalination plant in the US for years here in Carlsbad. One nut is stopping fireworks in La Jolla (Marco Gonzalez). The list goes on... and common sense loses out.

Yeah, yeah, one brave person standing up against tyranny right?

WELL said.

Yes, and I'd add, not just the tyranny of nuts with law degrees, but the much more damaging tyranny of power hungry bureaucrats for whom it's not the intent of the law that matters, but it's the satisfaction of exerting power of others that matters. In New Zealand they gave police powers to all the bureaucrats, and the result is disastrous. Here's a good example of that: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877420. This is why I would never even consider moving to New Zealand. This sort of crap makes me want to become a libertarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of the endangered picture-wing flies endemic only to Hawaii have those coqui eaten? . . .

"Ph'nglui mglw'napalma Funkthulhu R'Lincolnea wgah'palm fhtagn"
"In his house at Lincoln, dread Funkthulhu plants palm trees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's necessarily ethical if the most ethical answer is to maximize the number of surviving species.

Throw in an "if" and a "most" and it now becomes a completely different question, and a hypothetical one at that.

Is it ethical to kill another human? The answer is also "yes."

The question you should be asking is, "When is it ethical to restrict species migration?"

animated-volcano-image-0010.gif.71ccc48bfc1ec622a0adca187eabaaa4.gif

Kona, on The Big Island
Hawaii - Land of Volcanoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also believe the coqui frog is a great example, an inconvenience to the few folks that don't like noise but a great asset to the ecosystem. There is no ecological reason to remove the coqui other than the fact that some people hate the noise.

Come on Axel.

1) Claiming the coqui is a "great asset to the ecosystem" is way more than a stretch.

2) And "no ecological reason to remove the coqui" - perhaps not yet. You would wait for a reason???

There was no ecological reason to remove the mongoose during the first few decades after it's introduction either. When the reason became obvious, it was already too late. The coquis are a new introduction - let's see what the results are in 50-100 years from now.

  • Upvote 1

animated-volcano-image-0010.gif.71ccc48bfc1ec622a0adca187eabaaa4.gif

Kona, on The Big Island
Hawaii - Land of Volcanoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex is Axel's id. Hmmm, do I even remember that right from too many years ago. All in good fun, which is the only way I would ever approach this topic for it has no answer, yet at the same time has a million answers. I had sooner ask people about their philosophy in raising their kids, to which I would surely be told you raise your kids your way and I'll raise mine my way. In the end we all do what we do.

I don't see this as a hard or unanswerable question at all. The question was, "Is it ethical for humans to restrict plant and animal species migration, whether the migration was caused or aided by humans...?"

And I would say the answer is "yes." Why would it be unethical?

You have a point here Dean, based on the key word used in the subject which is "ethical" and based on its 2nd definition listed below. In that definition if it was legally passed into law, then the creation of that law, and obeying that law would in no way be unethical. Assuming of course the Supreme Court did not think that law infringed upon our inalienable rights or was discriminatory. IMO the subject at hand would not constitute an inalienable right orbe discriminatory in its application. (although I have no doubt that any good lawyer or Axel could argue the case)

But definition number 1 throws in that murky word of "moral." Morality has no black or white definition. While there are some generally accepted moralities, it can mean many things to many people. Morals vary by individual, culture, age, sex, and in pretty much any other separating factor one could name. I certainly know what I think is moral, I know you do, and I know everyone else here does, but I would bet if went down the line of 100 actions we would not match up.

eth·i·cal [eth-i-kuhthinsp.pngthinsp.pngl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2.
being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.

In my post I sometimes express "my" opinion. Warning, it may differ from "your" opinion. If so, please do not feel insulted, just state your own if you wish. Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or any other damages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Zealand is a beafitul place and I enjoyed my trip there years ago. However, their restrictions are kind of silly. The Kauri Tree, Agathis austalis is a very valuable timber tree native to NZ but you were not allowed to plant it. Instead, they planted thousands upon thousands of acres of Pinus radiata. Huh? Now it seems you can't plant any other Agathis species. These dawn raids looking for plants and taking your computers seems a bit over the top and beaurocrats run amok.

So many species,

so little time.

Coconut Creek, Florida

Zone 10b (Zone 11 except for once evey 10 or 20 years)

Last Freeze: 2011,50 Miles North of Fairchilds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's necessarily ethical if the most ethical answer is to maximize the number of surviving species.

Throw in an "if" and a "most" and it now becomes a completely different question, and a hypothetical one at that.

Is it ethical to kill another human? The answer is also "yes."

The question you should be asking is, "When is it ethical to restrict species migration?"

Dean, I think we are at great odds over several issues, I think it's most definitely unethical to kill another human being. I had no idea you are pro-death penalty.

How many of the endangered picture-wing flies endemic only to Hawaii have those coqui eaten? . . .

I knew you'd have an intelligent argument to counter mine. Unfortunately the picture-wing fly is not threatened by coqui, but by humans. They finally set aside 9,000 acres to try to save them. Not enough IMHO, but we'll see. The anti-coqui folks have tried to use the picture-wing fly as an argument, but unfortunately, the coqui isn't even putting a dent into the mosquito population, let alone the picture-wing fly.

The fact that the coqui isn't threatening the ecosystem is the exact reason why it's there to begin with. Hawaii fish and wildlife didn't deem it a threat so didn't do anything early on. It's not until funding from the Federal Govt showed up for "invasive species" that the whole thing even started. The coqui is a poster child of the silly effects of the concept of "invasive species" getting politicized and regulated by bureaucrats. Hawaiians should be spending their efforts getting rid of pigs and rats, not frogs. The pigs and rats do real damage to the ecosystem, the frogs are just a sound nuisance. Talk about misplaced priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...