Slashdot Mirror


Galapagos Islands Environment "In Danger"

cagrin writes "On Tuesday the UN's World Heritage Committee added the Galapagos Islands to the list of sites in danger from environmental threats or overuse. From the article: 'The Galapagos Islands, an Ecuadorian territory situated in the Pacific Ocean some 1,000 kilometers (625 miles) from South America, helped shape Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and in 1978 was the first site placed on UNESCO's World Heritage List.' Here is some background from Sea Shepherd on the insults facing the Galapagos."

162 comments

  1. Great. by overcaffein8d · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    1. Re:Great. by CriminalNerd · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Great. by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

      i guess my "humor" is someone else's "flamebait." then again, maybe it was humourous flamebait.

      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    3. Re:Great. by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:Great. by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "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.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:Great. by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Insightful
      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.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    7. Re:Great. by tcolberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Great. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      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.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    9. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      land, eat, shit and fuck

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

    10. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 0

      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.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    11. Re:Great. by canuck57 · · Score: 1

      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. Then it will mean something. Otherwise it will be destroyed.

      There is a city in a national heritage park nearby, always asking for more land. Sooner or later they will win, re-applying each and every other year. Lets put a bounty on those that try so there is no chance. Lets make the predator, man extinct in these area. As at some point, man has to put an absolute limit on the damage caused. And so far, we can't even control our population count...which is a real severe issue. More humans is more methane and carbon -- the rest is BS, Kyoto is a perfect example of this. We all agree there is a problem but we will tax everyone and not address the real issue.

    12. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      So like...

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

      And you're the superior one?

    14. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, 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 race.

      Not allowing scientists or (careful) observers to even visit or observe the Galapagos is stupid and wasteful. Of course it should be preserved from damage, but if we kill people for coming within one mile of them by boat, then they might as well not even be there.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    15. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

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

    16. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems more like survival of the fittest island to me...

    17. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    19. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're making a lot of assumptions, and still haven't answered my question.

      If you can't tell me what good you are, why should I let you continue to exist? Isn't that the premise you started with?

    20. Re:Great. by HNS-I · · Score: 1

      Fish farms are profitable businesses but they aren't really well developed at this point in time and not all types of fish can be farmed. Wild fish is tastier. I somehow can't help myself getting back to my early opinion from when I was a kid that the world's overpopulation can best be solved by exterminating a lot of people(yes I was evil). How about all dumb people. Can you imagine? That would be so great. I for one would have no problem doing low-level work as long as when I call like a customer care I'm like : "Hey man I have this problem and I think it's because of this." And in stead of getting some moron I get someone that is like: "Yo dude I am totally understanding what you are saying and I shall help you out." And then when I go and put on the television and watch the parliament debating issues they would be like: "Yo we have to do this because otherwise we are fucking up this earth." And the other parties go like: "Totally agree with you on that but we also need to stop doing this because it is not cost effective and actually stopping our species from evolving the right direction because it supports mainly those kinds of people and they are hopping each other like bunnies." Oops this wasn't the right article.

    21. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      No, that's not the premise I started with. The premise I started with is that the standard of right and wrong is based upon the well-being of people in general. Allowing no scientific study or other close observation of the Galapagos would thus be wrong, because the human race would be denied the scientific knowledge we can gain from the Galapagos, as well as their beauty. Similarly, allowing me to continue existing serves my well-being, along with the well-being of other people who rather like having me around, while killing me would serve the well-being of no one. Also, if you try to kill me, I just might have to defend myself. That wouldn't be very good for your well-being. And even if you survived and successfully murdered me, you would likely be traumatized by the experience, and possibly held to justice by the legal system. Any more stupid questions?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    22. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1
      "No, that's not the premise I started with."

      Oh, really?

      What good are the Galapagos islands if no one can study or appreciate them?


      You know, I can answer that. The answer is that the Galapagos islands don't need to justify themselves to you. What good they are is that they exist.

      "The premise I started with is that the standard of right and wrong is based upon the well-being of people in general."

      What the hell well-being of people in general is derived from destroying the Galapagos (the general effect of the traffic there to study and appreciate them)?

      "Allowing no scientific study or other close observation of the Galapagos would thus be wrong, because the human race would be denied the scientific knowledge we can gain from the Galapagos, as well as their beauty."

      And we won't be denied those anyway?

      "Similarly, allowing me to continue existing serves my well-being, along with the well-being of other people who rather like having me around, while killing me would serve the well-being of no one. Also, if you try to kill me, I just might have to defend myself. That wouldn't be very good for your well-being. And even if you survived and successfully murdered me, you would likely be traumatized by the experience, and possibly held to justice by the legal system."

      Way to miss the point, yet again.

      The Galapagos don't need to justify their existence to you, nor serve any purpose to you nor anyone else.

      The earth doesn't exist for our use. It exists to exist.
    23. Re:Great. by HNS-I · · Score: 1

      Why is this post modded as troll? Both sides are very childish and short sighted zealots. This annoys me. To mod this post as troll shows that you have a lack of braincells. I guess it is the American way.

    24. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      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 to you, the earth doesn't exist for that. Where do you live? The earth doesn't exist for your house or apartment building to be put there, it's not for our use! And the computer you're using--did it come from outer space, or did someone dig up and process parts of the earth's crust to make it for you?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    25. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      "When did I ever say the Galapagos should be destroyed?"

      What you said was that the Galapagos Islands are not good for anything if not for studying and "appreciating" them. In order to do so, there must be traffic to them, and that traffic is destroying them.

      "Now you're the one making assumptions."

      No, I'm using inference to draw conclusions based on what you've said you prefer, and the current effects in the practice thereof.

      "All I said was that it was stupid to, point-blank, prevent ANYONE (even scientists) from setting foot there."

      But it's not stupid to say they're no good for anything if not serving some purpose to us?

      "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."

      I'll accept that. But the preservation can't be half-assed.

      "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 to you, the earth doesn't exist for that. Where do you live? The earth doesn't exist for your house or apartment building to be put there, it's not for our use! And the computer you're using--did it come from outer space, or did someone dig up and process parts of the earth's crust to make it for you?"

      Ignoring the fact that some of this is asinine and rhetorical, I'll be the first to admit that my lifestyle and that of those around me is harmful, devastatingly so. You aren't going to trick me into defending that and back-pedaling though. It's a trade-off I make, one that destroys my heart, but one that I think might ultimately be worth it as I can affect more by not totally withdrawing from a destructive culture than I can by withdrawing.

      I don't think we have a major disagreement. I just think that the premise, that islands need to be "worth" something in order to preserve them--that they need to serve some purpose to us to not be worthy of protection from destruction--is harmful and unnecessary. We should not destroy--in other words, "preserve"-- the Galapagos because there's no good reason to destroy them. The same goes for bloody everywhere.

    26. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the fact that some of this is asinine and rhetorical

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

      Oh, the Galapagos are unique? Beautiful? Historically significant? Scientifically interesting? My point exactly--those are all ways in which the Galapagos are useful to human well-being, and reasons they are more useful to human well-being the way they are than (for instance) converted to farmland. On the other hand, whatever land was used to grow your food--are you glad it was there, instead of the Galapagos? Or are you just as upset that the vast wheat and corn fields have displaced whatever ecosystems were there before to grow your food, as you would be about destroying the Galapagos?

      We can be fairly sure that if one scientist per 10 years sets foot on the Galapagos for a 12 hour survey, the ecosystem will survive. We can also be fairly sure that if we drop atom bombs on the Galapagos to test the bombs, the ecosystem will not survive. It's up to science to answer the question of what the acceptable medium between those two is that balances our continued ability to enjoy the unique beauty and scientific wonder of the Galapagos with the preservation of that beauty--but killing people for coming within one mile of the Galapagos is definitely an overreaction. It's that absurdity I was replying to. And, simply put, the only reason we want the Galapagos to remain the way it is (instead of, for instance, becoming an airbase) is that we like it better the way it is.

      You said the Galapagos should be preserved "because there's no good reason to destroy them". Believe it or not, I consider this essentially equivalent to "because we like it better the way it is"--if the Galapagos would be more useful to us in some other form, that would provide a very good reason to transform it! I would certainly believe that the well-being of my fellow humans is "good reason" to mine uranium for power plants, to plant farmland, and to build housing. We've thought of lots of ways to use land, but none of them provide "good reason" to change the Galapagos precisely because the Galapagos is better for us the way it is. (If you meant something different, spell it out for me--"good reason" is a very vague way to put it.)

      On the other hand, it's possible to make batshit overreactions, like "no human being is allowed to set foot on the Galapagos ever again". Come on. The Galapagos are a source of beauty and knowledge, and by disallowing human observation of them entirely, you've robbed something of value from the human race, just like destroying the Galapagos would rob something of value from the human race.

      And, again, everything I've said here is predicated on, and consistent with, my use of human well-being as a standard of value. Such a standard of value is easily consistent with a type of environmentalism, simply because environmental preservation is in many cases beneficial to human well-being. The Galapagos is one of those cases. Another example--global warming is very much damaging to human well-being. It's possible to have the exact opposite standard of value, and a lot of naive environmentalist arguments seem to be predicated on it--something like the preservation of nature as if untouched by human hands. While I support that in some cases as a means to an end, as an end in itself that would require the extinction of the human race, which I find absurd.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    27. Re:Great. by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 I was there on a tiny boat, our small group was very tightly controlled by the park guide which is required to accompany any boat or anyone who sets foot on any of the islands. We were restricted to paths in well delimited areas which left 99% of the island to the animals. Since there was a large rotation in the visits of the islands, most animals didn't mind our presence too much and we regularly had to walk around a seal sunbathing in the middle of the path.

      The situation there was already bad. All of the islands were still ridden with rats (a major problem for turtle and bird eggs and for hatchlings), stray dogs and goats. All of those were trapped/caught/shot during large campaigns that were regularly mounted but at the time they despaired of ever getting rid of the invading beasts (especially the rats).
      A number of boats were dropping anchor outside of the tightly designed areas damaging the sea bottom.
      And of course the problem with the explosion of the local population was already ongoing.

      It's sad but IMO the archipelago is a goner. I've seen it happen in lots of places throughout the world. There's just too many of us and we'll never be organized enough to use the resources intelligently.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    28. Re:Great. by joseph449008 · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a good plan, and Ecuadorians in general do understand about the environmental impact of tourism and human activity, but those activities bring in some cash.

    29. Re:Great. by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      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....

    30. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much enjoyment from a trip to those islands would you gain if the endemic species there were wiped out? They are, after all, what make the Galapagos unique among other islands.

    31. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I was going to respond in full to your post, but then I came to this:

      'You said the Galapagos should be preserved "because there's no good reason to destroy them". Believe it or not, I consider this essentially equivalent to "because we like it better the way it is"--if the Galapagos would be more useful to us in some other form, that would provide a very good reason to transform it! I would certainly believe that the well-being of my fellow humans is "good reason" to mine uranium for power plants, to plant farmland, and to build housing. We've thought of lots of ways to use land, but none of them provide "good reason" to change the Galapagos precisely because the Galapagos is better for us the way it is.'

      Frankly, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye, and I don't think anything productive is going to come out of this.

    32. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Then you probably didn't get to the part where I said "good reason" was a pretty vague criterion that you should have spelled out more if you honestly see things differently.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    33. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1
      I don't think any of the things you listed constitute a good reason. My point in posting my last comment is that I think you and I have fundamentally different ideas of what is acceptable in terms of environmental compromise, and what values should shape our decisions to make those compromises. The "people first" attitude is one I'd accept if it weren't so short-sighted; most of what people advocate (and here I'm including the things you listed as "good reasons") as beneficial to people, really aren't in the long run. There is no human benefit in doing things which harm or threaten other species.

      You keep talking about crazy environmentalists wanting to reduce human impact to zero, leading to human extinction. That couldn't be further from what I want. But human impact as it is has a great chance of leading to human extinction. And that also couldn't be further from what I want. I want humans to be an integral part of their ecosystem, rather than separate from and above it. What happens to the ecosystem affects humans, and it's time we acknowledge and accept that.

      I do want to comment on one other thing from your post which I dismissed:

      "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?"

      I never said the Galapagos are special as opposed to those things, in fact I said exactly the opposite:

      I'll be the first to admit that my lifestyle and that of those around me is harmful, devastatingly so. You aren't going to trick me into defending that and back-pedaling though.


      In other words, the industrial processes upon which I depend are destructive, and I won't try to defend that. Period.

      In yet other words,

      Or are you just as upset that the vast wheat and corn fields have displaced whatever ecosystems were there before to grow your food, as you would be about destroying the Galapagos?
      Yes. Absolutely, yes.

      And another thing: 'On the other hand, it's possible to make batshit overreactions, like "no human being is allowed to set foot on the Galapagos ever again".'

      I never, not once, said that. Why do you hate straw men so much that you must tear them down?
    34. Re:Great. by BiggerBoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    35. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      It's not a straw man--this entire thread started when I replied to this guy.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    36. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      The "people first" attitude is one I'd accept if it weren't so short-sighted; most of what people advocate (and here I'm including the things you listed as "good reasons") as beneficial to people, really aren't in the long run.

      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 post-industrial society combined with preservation of ecosystems, especially the more unique or beautiful ones, that don't need to be altered for human needs. One might argue that reverting to a pre-industrial society would serve human well-being because industrial societies either fail to serve human well-being, or because no industrial society is ecologically sustainable. I just don't see how you can be absolutist about not destroying any "natural" (i.e. non-human) ecosystem or species while actually accepting the principle of human well-being. "There is no human benefit in doing things which harm or threaten other species."? Really? Even the species of bacteria that causes tuberculosis?

      Do you honestly think it's "beneficial to people" to abandon industry? Agriculture? Medicine? If so, that's our point of disagreement--an important point of disagreement, but one that I'm not interested in pursuing. On the other hand, if you're interested in ways to build a technological society that's ecologically sustainable and beneficial to humans even in the long run, we have no disagreement at all.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    37. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Which has exactly what to do with me?

    38. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      "Those issues are rather less important--it's partly a scientific and economic question what really serves human well-being."

      I think it's a social question, since it's a social phenomenon.

      "I happen to believe human beings are better off with a sustainable, bright green post-industrial society"

      It sounds like a nice fantasy.

      "One might argue that reverting to a pre-industrial society would serve human well-being because industrial societies either fail to serve human well-being, or because no industrial society is ecologically sustainable."

      I'd agree with that.

      'I just don't see how you can be absolutist about not destroying any "natural" (i.e. non-human) ecosystem or species while actually accepting the principle of human well-being.'

      Humans benefit from biological diversity. That's how.

      "Really? Even the species of bacteria that causes tuberculosis?"

      Yes.

      'Do you honestly think it's "beneficial to people" to abandon industry?'

      Yes.

      "Agriculture?"

      No, but it needs to be radically altered. But agriculture exists outside of industry and in many different forms, so this is a bit of a straw man.

      "Medicine?"

      Absolutely not. But medicine has existed for as long as human societies have existed, so this is kind of another straw man isn't it?

      "On the other hand, if you're interested in ways to build a technological society that's ecologically sustainable and beneficial to humans even in the long run, we have no disagreement at all."

      Well, it depends on what you mean by "technology". All it really means is applied knowledge. I'm not opposed to that (in fact, I'm arguing for a highly technological society, in that sense). Industrial technology is demonstrably harmful beyond its benefits.

    39. Re:Great. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Nothing, except you're the one who jumped into a conversation without knowing the context of what was said.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    40. Re:Great. by omfgnosis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I read the context. If I wanted to talk to the other guy, I would have responded to the other guy. I wanted to respond to what *you* said, so I did. My sentiments about what you said are the same regardless of context.

    41. Re:Great. by lessthan · · Score: 1

      The animals need to be dead before we can eat them. (Trust me, it is waaaaaay impractical to eat them while they're alive. They squirm too much!) How do you suggest we do that? In correctly run facilities, because of animal rights organizations, the animals are executed quickly and painlessly. What more can we do?

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    42. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all sound like a bunch of Green Imperialist: and arrogant 'I have mine, but now that there is a THEORY of human impact, no one else can have theirs!' AKA, from the "Tough-shit-Ecuador,-You'll-never-be-more-than-a-t hird-world-country!" dept.

    43. Re:Great. by lisawilkins · · Score: 1

      ah, don't want to appear cowardly, 'Green Imperialists' was my post..ya Green Imperialists!

    44. Re:Great. by Hugopig · · Score: 1

      The Galapagos islands do not exist for the benefit of "civilized" humanity. Nor do the Amazon rainforest or the Serengeti. Wherever Western civilization goes, it provides no beneift to those places in which is plants its oversized feet. Tourism is WRONG. Plain and simple. It is inherently exploitive and destructive. If you as an American want to help the rest of the world, STAY HOME. The best thing we can do for the rest of the world is to leave it alone; we've already done more than enough.

    45. Re:Great. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      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 population growth within the indigenous population, which raise different issues to just bulldozing the population into the sea and letting them drown.]

      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.
      Doesn't work - humans are destructive fuckers at the best of times, and this ain't the best of times. This particular genie is out of the bottle, and isn't going to go back into the bottle.

      Maybe shoot all the stray dogs first. Put a patrol boat a mile out and sink anyone that gets close to the island.
      The Galapagos are an archipelago ("a group of many islands in a large body of water" - around a hundred islands in all, depending on how long a cat you want to swing. But yes, shooting all the dogs would perobably be a good idea. Please feel free to try getting elected on a "I'm going to shoot harmless ol' Rover" platform. You might add selling the children of the islanders into Moroccan paedophile brothels as a second campaign promise, which would probably improve your electoral chances and kill a second bird with the one stone. That's democracy for you - people have the right to vote for what they want, not necessarily for what you want.

      Killing the rats would probably help more. But that'd be much more difficult.

      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.
      Fish farming is no panacea - we've been doing it for decades in the Highland sea and land lochs here. It provides some jobs (but not a large number), at non-trivial environmental cost (the pesticides used to control parasites are non-nice ; the fish shit and bypassed food screws up the local ecology); it kills not a few people (there's a lot of scuba diving to maintain the nets, plus lots of solo boat travel); and it looks like shit to the tourists. It's useful, and not the worst thing in the world to do, but it's no panacea. [I did look at the costs about setting up shellfish farming with a colleague as a part-time enterprise a good few years ago. We could probably have turned a profit, but not as good an income as we could have earned elsewhere ; we'll maybe look at the idea as retirement hobby-work. Not sufficiently worth the hassle for a main living.]

      Sorry to dump on you, but the easy-sounding solutions may be appealing to rant about, but there are often very good reasons that they're not being done.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. insults? by Paktu · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Did someone fart in the islands' general direction?

    1. Re:insults? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more of insult to the educated community that one would even try to link Sea Shepard as worthy of slashdot linkage. Fanatical vandals like Sea Shepard would rather destroy all boats and humanity around the area than actually care and educate locals for the islands preservation. Slashdot, you have shamed yourself.

    2. Re:insults? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If this is the 'vandals' you are referring to, then i'm all for it.

  3. Bad correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we can't save a place so profoundly unique and so beautiful, if we cannot protect such rare and exotic species as those that inhabit the Enchanted Isles, then we will not be able to save any ecosystem anywhere on this planet.

    Somebody needs to learn how to make better correlations. I'm pretty sure the cockroach and annoying biting insect ecosystems will be safe regardless of what happens to the "Enchanted Isles."

  4. Danger is bad by Kohath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those huge turtles should email their congressman.

  5. 1978? by schweinhund · · Score: 1

    Charles Darwin's research took place in 1978?

    1. Re:1978? by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

      Charles Darwin's research took place in 1978? i think you missed the word "and."

      Darwin's theory of evolution and in 1978
      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    2. Re:1978? by schweinhund · · Score: 1

      wooops.. :0

  6. Linus is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am with Linus on this one.

  7. Someone needs to rescue them.......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's those fucking LOST people. They've been crapping in the ocean for one to many seasons.

  8. How's it go? Survival of the fitest ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  9. Conservative hatred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Do you guys even understand how much US Conservatives HATE the Galapagos? They will always hold a grudge against it for inspiring Darwin's writings on evolution, despite the fact that proof of evolution is everywhere.

    This is just another attack by conservatives on the world for not conforming to how they believe it should be. Pretty soon this planet will no longer be fit for human habitation, and the conservatives will get their wish. Because of the world can't be how they want it, they would rather it not be.

    1. Re:Conservative hatred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Do you guys even understand how much US Conservatives HATE the Galapagos? They will always hold a grudge against it for inspiring Darwin's writings on evolution, despite the fact that proof of evolution is everywhere.

      Okay, now: YOU'RE one scary, and yet whimsically stupid, prat.

  10. Insults facing Galapagos? by pionzypher · · Score: 1

    What? Did someone call it a fat-ass or something?

    /lame attempt at humor

    --
    I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
  11. Sea Shepherd by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    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

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:Sea Shepherd by owlnation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 ships and sabotaged property. Got proof to back up your unsubstantiated claim of "any form of violence", Mr Scientist? No, thought not... (sorry, I guess that should be "Dr Scientist", I should show you more respect than you have others.)

      They do have scientists on their board of directors, and they do consult with scientists.

      They are an activist group, and as such are pushing an agenda -- usually for fundraising purposes. This alone means that their position does have to be questioned and considered before taking any action. In that though, they are no different from every other pressure group or NGO on the planet, of any type, political leaning, no matter how accepted, conventional, conservative or tame that group may appear to be.

      At the end of the day it's just about money.
    2. Re:Sea Shepherd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think this is flame bait.

      Violence should not be the solution to problems. we try to create channels so violence does not occur (political mainly) but when this breaks down violence tends to happen. for example the fact bush hasn't been impeached yet shows a break down in politics, and is the reason why he can't go into large crowds in public areas, anywhere in the world.

    3. Re:Sea Shepherd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Sea Shepherd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the Dalai Lama is a supporter maybe you should be too.

    5. Re:Sea Shepherd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the part where they differ from NGO's and activist groups when they start sinking expensive ships and endangering humans (not that we are an endangered species or anything, maybe they should advocate a human hunting season? It would cut down on the source of their percieved problems - and we are an overpopulated animal after all!)

    6. Re:Sea Shepherd by Reziac · · Score: 2, Informative


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

      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 cannons, a concrete-filled bow made for ramming, and an attachment dubbed the "can opener" that can tear open a boat's hull. In his book Earth Warrior, David Morris writes that Watson wears a long bowie knife at his side and carries AK-47s on board. He blasts Richard Wagner's rousing "Ride of the Valkyries" to herald his arrival and terrify his victims.

      SSCS's mission is to stop fishing of which it disapproves. Its preferred methods? Ramming and sinking fishing ships, throwing butyric acid on their decks, and firing machine guns. Watson argues that United Nations resolutions authorize him to commit violent acts. But he regularly interferes with fisherman and hunters who are committing no crime. He serves as judge, jury, and executioner -- while enjoying the same tax-exempt status as universities and churches.

      Some of the animal-rights movement's most notorious terrorists got their start with SSCS. One of them, convicted arsonist Rodney Coronado, had Watson's approval to plan and execute an attack on Iceland's whaling industry. He and a colleague sank two of the fleet's four ships and destroyed a processing facility.

      The Birth of Violence

      SSCS is run with an iron fist by its founder, "Captain" Paul Watson. "When this ship becomes a democracy," he likes to say to his crew, "you'll be the first to know." Watson is a dyslexic who "progressed from deckhand to able seaman without knowing how to tie a knot" with the Canadian Coast Guard and Norwegian and Swedish merchant marines.

      In Vancouver, Watson joined a group of anti-war activists who attempted to forcibly shut down American nuclear tests. These radicals branched out into environmental activism and became Greenpeace, of which Watson was a founder. But Watson's violent tactics became too much for Greenpeace, which kicked him out in 1977, after he assaulted seal hunters. Watson now assails his old comrades for being too wimpy, calling Greenpeace "the Avon ladies of the environmental movement."

      Soon after Watson's eviction from Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd and its ship-ramming philosophy were born. SSCS's band of pirates have disrupted the legal Canadian seal hunt, attacked whaling ships and fishing boats using driftnets, and taken credit for spiking (inserting large nails into) thousands of trees. The group has sunk at least ten ships in Iceland, Norway, Spain, Portugal, South Africa, and the Canary Islands. Watson has even sunk his own ships rather than let the authorities take them. And he has spent time in the jails of Canada and the Netherlands. "Any whaling ship on the ocean is a target for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society," he has said.

      Watson's love for marine life doesn't stop him from eating fish. "Paul, who likes hamburgers and grilled cheese sandwiches equally, interprets veganism as a form of philosophical lunacy," David Morris writes in Earth Warrior. Morris's book details often-hilarious disputes between Watson and the vegan crewmembers. One standoff ensued when Watson ordered the vegans to retrieve a driftnet left by an escaped fishing vessel. The crew took an agonizingly long time, trying to free every squid caught in the net, about which Watson couldn't care less. He didn't even mind profiting from the work of the ship he threatened -- Morris reports that he later sent his chef over to the net to "requisition a few squid for dinner."

      On the Fringe

      Paul Watson has used his aggres

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Sea Shepherd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nice info, here's some more...
      EARTH WARRIOR -- The Captain Paul Watson Interview

      "We are at the present time living in an age of mass extinction. Each year, more than 20,000 unique species disappear from this planet forever. This represents more than two species per hour. Species extinction is the fuel that supports the ever increasing progress of the machinery of civilisation.

      Individual humans are for the most part insulated from the reality of species loss. Alienated from the natural world, guided by anthropocentric attitudes, the average human being is unaware and non-caring about the biological holocaust that is transpiring each and every day.

      The facts are clear. More plant and animal species will go through extinction within our generation than have been lost through natural causes over the past two hundred million years. Our single human generation, this is, all people born between 1930 and 2010 will witness the complete obliteration of one third to one half of all the Earth's life forms, each and every one of them the product of more than two billion years of evolution. This is biological meltdown, and what this really means is the end to vertebrate evolution on planet Earth."
      . . .

      The Politics of Extinction Remain a parasite OR become an Earth Warrior.

      "Like a run-a-way train, civilization is speeding along tracks of our own manufacture towards the stone wall of extinction. The human passengers sitting comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the window. Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass, watching the hurling bodies of plants and animals go screaming by. Environmental activists are those even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing out anchors in an attempt to slow the monster down while all the while, the authorities, blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would save us all.

      SHORT MEMORIES

      Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints. Because we have such short memories, we forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make it fit into our present perceptions.

      For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years ago, the coast of North Africa was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of timber to Europe. The temple of Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a man of the forest. The Sumerians were renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for agriculture."
      . . .

    8. Re:Sea Shepherd by aqk · · Score: 1

      Just a small point-

        What is this "Iceland's Whaling Industry"?
        I thought that, except for Japan's "Scientific Research" (yum yum), Whaling was illegal.

        Who is paying you?

    9. Re:Sea Shepherd by chaoticzen · · Score: 1

      Yup! They sound exactly like a terrorist group. They need to be put on the terror list and have appropriate action taken against them. They are terrorizing, hurting, killing, and ruining innocent people trying to make a living. I am glad the world is waking up to these whackos and their corrupt agendas and taking action....like the the glorious day the USA categorized ALF and ELF as ecoterrorist! It's about time these people get reeled in and stop the madness!

      --
      Reality is for people that can't handle drugs. So do your part, just say no to reality!
    10. Re:Sea Shepherd by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      As someone once said about PETA (which donates money toward these ecoterrorist groups) -- "They don't love animals. They hate people."

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  12. Hallelujah! by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:Hallelujah! by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      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.
  13. It's beautiful there. by Leontes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's beautiful there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. You said boobies!

    2. Re:It's beautiful there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

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

    3. Re:It's beautiful there. by bit01 · · Score: 2, 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 (30,000) make it difficult.

      The Galapagos Islands are worth a visit for the interesting plants and animals there but are vastly overrated because of the Charles Darwin connection. There are many places in the world with similarly unique flora and fauna.

      ---

      Monopolies = Industrial feudalism

    4. Re:It's beautiful there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      When you really think about it, aren't we all here because of passing seamen?

    5. Re:It's beautiful there. by joseph449008 · · Score: 1

      I was in the Galapagos when I was 16 or 17. I do not believe I've been in a trip more memorable than that. Every island is different. At times it's like being in a different planet.

    6. Re:It's beautiful there. by rockout · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 the islands to people altogether, there are over 10,000 people already living there. A majority of them were born there, and Ecuador is making it increasingly difficult to emigrate to the Galapagos. If you're not Ecuadorian, it's next to impossible.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    7. Re:It's beautiful there. by rockout · · Score: 1

      The animals are a bit less wary of people than in other places but not by much.
      I know you didn't say you were there or anything, but lest anyone get that impression, I have to say you're completely wrong about this. I've been to a lot of places, and nowhere I've been even comes close to what I experienced in the Galapagos. True, there are a couple of towns there, and the largest one was much bigger and more developed than I expected (about 10,000 people living there), but outside those few tiny areas, "a pristine wonder" is EXACTLY what the Galapagos are. It's certainly not too late to save them; even if they aren't as pristine as they were 500 years ago, they're still an amazing treasure.
      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    8. Re:It's beautiful there. by bit01 · · Score: 1

      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 and this 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 population is growing fast and your 10,000 population figure is probably a little out of date. According to these slides there is currently a total population of 30,000 with about 2/3 being legal residents.

      ---

      DRM. You don't control it means you don't own it.

    9. Re:It's beautiful there. by rockout · · Score: 1

      Actually, my point was that even though it's probably changed a lot since the islands were discovered, it's still more untouched than all but a few spots that you could easily visit on the planet, and the current administrators seem to be working to limit human contact. Also, you'll notice if you read carefully that I said the largest town had 10,000 people living in it, not the entire island group; however, the actual number wasn't the point, it was that Ecuador is now limiting how many people can move there, in order to keep the population growth under control. As for the animals being wary... I think you're misleading people with whatever limited contact you had. You're the only person I've ever heard say that, and I'll say again, it doesn't sound like you went to the same place I did, at all.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  14. Re:How's it go? Survival of the fitest ? by Dunbal · · Score: 0

    why would I have a problem with something that doesn't exist?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  15. Re:How's it go? Survival of the fitest ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God does exist, but the earth is in our hands.

  16. My Step Son Is There Right Now by davidpfarrell · · Score: 1

    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

    --
    Cube On! (http://stores.ebay.com/PuzzleProz)
    1. Re:My Step Son Is There Right Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huge windmlll farms won't disrupt the waters and ecosystem surrounding where they are built, no, sirree. I'm all for renewing energy, but I hope this windmall farm is far far away from the beautiful galapagos coral.

    2. Re:My Step Son Is There Right Now by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Probably won't be great for the bird population either.

    3. Re:My Step Son Is There Right Now by plunge · · Score: 1

      Windmills do not work that way!!!!!
      -Morbo

  17. Well then... by crumbz · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:Well then... by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  18. Time to test Darwin... by scooter.higher · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "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 every little creature on the planet. Species will come and go, ever hear of dinosaurs?

    Funny thing is, every time I hear about all of this, I think back to SimEarth, where the climax of your civilization is when cities are fitted with engines to exodus the Earth and leave it as a large zoo.

    --
    Ramen
    1. Re:Time to test Darwin... by cagrin · · Score: 1

      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, fish extinction seen by 2048.

      --
      ~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
    2. Re:Time to test Darwin... by bendodge · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    3. Re:Time to test Darwin... by calcapt · · Score: 1

      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.
    4. Re:Time to test Darwin... by bendodge · · Score: 1

      We are part of nature.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    5. Re:Time to test Darwin... by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      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 everything, is to survive.

      Saving animals is often just sentimental - "wont it be a shame if they die out" but it does have an important application in our own survival (which *is* our responsibility) we don't know what the loss of one species might do to the ecosystem which we need to support our diet, produce oxygen, etc. So (being as we know that the current environment is pretty good for human existence), we should try and maintain the status quo.

      That said I do think that sometimes (think the Panda) ecologists forget that evolution is at work now as it was before. Many species existed in the Galapagos because land based predators hadn't got there yet. Well now they have and some animals will die out just as they did throughout Pacific island history - humans find island, humans colonise island, some animals and plants die out on island, humans perish on some islands/thrive on others.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
  19. This isn't science, it's politics by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:This isn't science, it's politics by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, true. And I don't want to see any patent-related or censorship-related issues on /. either.

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

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:This isn't science, it's politics by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 1

      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, this is not news, and it's not science. It's a PR stunt by a lobbying group.

    3. Re:This isn't science, it's politics by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think that how rapidly the whole thread degenerated to name calling, discussion about international aid in Africa, etc. etc. shows just how badly it devalued /., and the science topic in particular.

      There are plenty of places for policy wonks and activists to saturate the ether. /. has, until fairly recently, not been one of them.

      We have enough holy wars on tech without bringing in the "Sky is falling" vs "Pave the planet" debate that is raging in every other forum.

      Let's at least make sure that the topic of the articles is correct. If it's politics, put it there. If it was an article pointing to a multi-year species diversity and environmental survey, with trend analysis and correlation to visitors, human population, etc., it would have been science.

    4. Re:This isn't science, it's politics by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      You must be new here...

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    5. Re:This isn't science, it's politics by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 1

      You're being facetious, right? 242293 is definitely older than me, but I'm under 1 Million in member number.

    6. Re:This isn't science, it's politics by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Yes - it's a sarcastic joke

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  20. Could you be more selfish? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Could you be more selfish? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, 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...

      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 appreciation of them outweighs any other use we, as humans, would have for them. 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.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    2. Re:Could you be more selfish? by stoicfaux · · 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 in arms when a beavers dams a river and changes the ecological environment. As humans we just build bigger dams.

      Granted, it is pretty stupid to destroy the ecology you rely upon to survive. And I would hate for the Vogons to use that kind of logic to justify destroying the Earth and Humanity to make space for a hyperspace bypass.

    3. Re:Could you be more selfish? by azuretek · · Score: 1

      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?
    4. Re:Could you be more selfish? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Ecosystems aren't just pretty, their vital to our very existence and future as a species. It's not a question of utility - instead it highlights the fact that even the most remote ecosystems suffer great damage from unsustainable practices.

    5. Re:Could you be more selfish? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      If it isn't a question of utility, then why say ecosystems are "vital to our very existence and future as a species"? That's a very utilitarian answer.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:Could you be more selfish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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? They did it to the native americans (indians) and the hawaiians, what's to make you think anyone would give two shits about anyone else? It's called business. Whether you like it or not it's here to stay.

      I'm gonna make 2 guesses... one is, you're white and number two is, you're american. and you have the balls to call anyone else narrow-minded. can you say "asshole"?
    7. Re:Could you be more selfish? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna make 2 guesses... one is, you're white and number two is, you're american. and you have the balls to call anyone else narrow-minded. can you say "asshole"?

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

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    8. Re:Could you be more selfish? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      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 of a shock, but the animals enjoy fucking and eating and possibly even shitting. You dog humps you leg because he enjoys it. You dog overeats because he enjoys it. There are plenty of things to enjoy the island after humans leave.

      --
      We are all just people.
    9. Re:Could you be more selfish? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      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 Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  21. Galapagos by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Galapagos by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    2. Re:Galapagos by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      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!

  22. Re:How's it go? Survival of the fitest ? by Shetan · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  23. *sigh* by Gabbermatt · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who cares?

    The animals on the Galapagos Islands are in danger of dying... and I am sure some environmental psychopath society will want to spends loads of money to fix the problem. While that money could be put to better use by feeding starving children in Africa, helping third-world countries develop an infrastructure, or funding a SimCity-clone that will predict how humans will react to propaganda and warfare.

    Stupidity gets someone killed (through hunger in this case), and somewhere The Ghost of Darwin's Past is laughing.

    1. Re:*sigh* by calcapt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What? You think throwing money at the starving of Africa is going to solve their problems?

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

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

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

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

    2. Re:*sigh* by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I'd like to point out that sending money to underdeveloped countries is in direct opposition to the lessons on evolution that Galapagos has taught us. While I love my fellow man and all,how will they ever learn to revolt and build new governments and societies that will sustain their furtherance to posterity and mankind? No,like Marlin Perkins said" Don't screw with the animals in their natural habitat"(more or less quoted from intent).Natural selection put into practice would solve many of the worlds ills.
                Even the Galapagos themselves need to continue to evolve to meet an ever changing world. We can't and shouldn't try to save everything as unchanged!We don't have the time,money or space! I am personally glad no well meaning cavedwellers made it a mission to preserve prehistoric wildlife.Who needs giant and/or carnivorous lizards,birds and mammals any larger or troublesome to our existence than they are presently?
                It's all well to be inspired by "captain planet" when you're a kid and don't realize it's just not very well thought out propaganda by well meaning but,stupid hippies who themselves are taking themselves out of the food chain with also not very well thought out regurgitive activism.(sorry ,cynical,but has a ring of truth)
                The truth is,we are growing more populous and the world,which has to change to accomodate anything,is changing too.Sentimentality is not necessary or welcome to survival. At some point we will farm Yellowstone,put up housing developments in the Grand Canyon and colonize the Rain Forest.It is inevitable.We will adapt or die and I don't see other species or locations getting in the way because some with recessive genes got all misty about something that used to be.
      Time to toughen up and realize Captain Planet is just a poorly animated cartoon.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    3. Re:*sigh* by Gabbermatt · · Score: 0

      You bring up a good point regarding starving children in Africa, but you didn't even touch on helping other countries to build an infrastructure.

      I am sure you will use your same logic (giving has done nothing in the past, so why even try), but I will throw that right back at you. We have "protected" endangered animals before, only for them to go extinct, so why even try?

      My whole point that I attempted to make (and apparently failed) was that we should focus our efforts more toward helping humanity than a few species of animals in a remote area of the world.

      That is my opinion, maybe I will get trolled for it again.

    4. Re:*sigh* by calcapt · · Score: 1

      You've apparently missed MY point.

      Nowhere in my post did I ever say, "Why should we try?" What I did say, is that we need to do more than piss money onto Africa. For instance, providing actual manpower and expertise, and using that manpower to build infrastructure (and yes, I did touch on this, if barely. I don't think I'm qualified enough to discuss it though) required to distribute food and aid to the hungry.

      You also imply that not enough focus is put into helping humanity. I'm not sure about that. I think a lot of people are putting their efforts into helping humanity; unfortunately, I don't think people are doing a good job of it. See my fish and feeding analogy. I feel that we're simply propping developing nations up with our current methods, rather than teaching them to stand on their own.

      Furthermore, your statement that we've protected endangered species only to fail is not all inclusive. There are numerous instances where we've protected species and succeeded. The American bison and the bald eagle are prime examples of where we have succeeded, and I assure you, protecting them cost less than the billions poured into helping Africa.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is this. I agree that we need to help humanity. You're absolutely right. It's of the utmost importance, that's for sure. But I think we're already devoting a large part of our efforts to doing so, but we're not doing it efficiently enough, or correctly. If we fixed how we gave aid to developing nations, we could probably get them finally take care of themselves. But, even if we don't do all these things, I'm sure there will be resources available to help the Galapagos that would never make it to helping developing nations anyway.

    5. Re:*sigh* by calcapt · · Score: 1

      The Spiegel link is bad. Here's a better one: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,363604,00.html

  24. WHAT?! by Captain0Flash · · Score: 0

    Who moderated this [+4 Insightful] and how can I find out where they live?!

  25. It is Evolving! by DeadboltX · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I guess the animals will just have to evolve to survive then.

  26. Insults by Graabein · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
  27. Islanders hurting themselves by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

    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 become just like any other ordinary pieces of rock in the middle of the ocean, and neither fishermen nor the tourist industry there will be able to make money.

    --
    ---------
    There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
  28. Shit.... by Adam+Hazzlebank · · Score: 2, Funny

    Galapagos Islands to the list of sites in danger from environmental threats or overuse I better go visit them before they're gone
  29. Beauty by Morosoph · · Score: 1

    Without a human observer, beauty doesn't exist, just eating, shitting, and fucking.
    Not so, or nature wouldn't select for it.
    1. Re:Beauty by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  30. Observation by Morosoph · · Score: 1
    If you would like your posts appreciated, it would help not to insult people in the subject line.

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

    Just my 2 cents.

  31. Perception of Beauty by Morosoph · · Score: 1
    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 neurology doesn't negate the concept.

    You over-emphasise consciousness; beauty is neurological.

    1. Re:Perception of Beauty by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What I'm saying is nothing near "language is reality". I'm just saying beauty is closer to language than it is reality, because it can't exist independent of perception--in other words, "language is language".

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    2. Re:Perception of Beauty by Morosoph · · Score: 1
      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.

    3. Re:Perception of Beauty by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      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 was selected to elicit this neurological experience in animals. I still think it is interesting to note that we find owls and monarch butterflies to be beautiful, when their appearance wasn't selected for this purpose at all--owls evolved camoflauge and monarch butterflies evolved their distinctive appearance to dissuade predators from eating them. And, in any case, the fact that they are beautiful to us is what we usually mean when we say that they are beautiful--the fact that they elicit similar neurological reactions in other animals is unsurprising, but beside the point.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    4. Re:Perception of Beauty by Morosoph · · Score: 1
      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 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 disprove the existance of alignment.

      If I believed that you were arguing in bad faith (I don't), I would say that you were seeking to misdirect the reader.

      But really, we're not discussing the real issue here, which is also why I believe that you're arguing in good faith; your real focus is the separation of humans from the rest of nature, so that they can be seen to deserve special treatment. I don't believe that this can ultimately be done in good faith given common decent. Possibly, we can give less weighting to other species on the basis of their incapabilities, but to give them zero requires a categorical difference between species, and not merely orders of magnitude.

    5. Re:Perception of Beauty by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      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 part of nature too, and wouldn't it be arbitrary to favor one part of nature over another? 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.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:Perception of Beauty by Morosoph · · Score: 1

      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 of the whole of nature (including ourselves) our remit. This doesn't necessarily mean government action; it could mean the development of sustainable practices on a volutary basis. It could also mean culling preditors who are in excess in a region; for populations to soar and crash isn't really in any species' interests.

      We should certainly include our own well-being in our judgements, for example protecting livestock. However, the argument from capability isn't a good one for excluding other species, IMO, for the qualities that we select as worthwhile will not be chosen objectively.

      If instead we say, "well, as humans, we should act only in [enlightened] human interests", then the argument, being based upon genetics, leads to a diminished consideration for those who are unrelated to ourselves.

      At best we can say "we elect government, and thus government should reflect our interests as our representatives". That possibly does settle the issue for governments, but it doesn't ultimately resolve the issue, for there is still the issue, as individuals, what we decide matters to us; ie. what our interests actually are.

    7. Re:Perception of Beauty by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  32. Lonesome George by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think George can write, apparently he can't even have sex. Famous Galápagos Tortoise, Lonesome George, May Not Be Alone

  33. Fuck the Islands, People are More Important by tjstork · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The article laments that dogs killed a bunch of iguanas and a bunch of birds died because of tourism and fishing. Surely the birthplace of evolution can yield a dogproof iguana and a carproof bird. There are plenty of birds and who really likes lizards anyway. It's up to the people of the island to decide how to balance it, not you. If you want to save all those lizards, put them in your house.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Fuck the Islands, People are More Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some reading for you, The Celestine Prophecy...enjoy.

  34. Blue-footed Boobies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.
    Now you've got my attention. I've never seen any blue-footed boobies before. Yeah, it truly is a land of wonders!
  35. Yeah, cause we really need more people. by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

    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 number of members of Birdlife International which is only one of multiple groups trying to save the Galapagos) So the Galapagos Hawk has a value of around 2,500. So according to the Law of Supply and Demand a Galapagos Hawk is worth 1,650,056,101 people. Face it, despite what all of our mothers told us, we just aren't all that special.

    --
    We are all just people.
  36. Then stop it by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    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. But again, going or not going is not what controls the number of visitors there, instead it is simply a case of WHO is going.

    If there are always going to be slots, and you really want to go see it, then you are better off visiting as a low impact tourist, than whoever else might have used the same slot.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  37. I have a great idea... by axia777 · · Score: 1

    Don't fish there and don't go there as a tourist. Problem solved....

  38. Buy the Documentary by deek · · Score: 1


      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!

    1. Re:Buy the Documentary by tcolberg · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree with your idea, but I think the PS3 is the downside. =P

  39. Solution to Africa... by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Free trade and free markets will do the trick.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  40. Re:why problem something that doesn't exist? by p'g,fr4g.r · · Score: 1

    why would I have a problem with something that doesn't exist? such as oxygen, for example? or such as something of which you are ignorant?

  41. Re:Great? by aqk · · Score: 1

    Fuck you/

    Sink your boat.
    And you too.

    You don't have kids. And never will. I can sense that.

      Enjoy your selfish life now, while you're still alive, and to hell with the next generation.
    nfact. you probably don't give a damn about THIS generation either you selfish clot.
    The sooner you go, the better

  42. I wish I could remember who said this... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    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 little hill ;)
  43. Shut the fuck up liar by dharbee · · Score: 0, Troll

    No one give two shakes about what your lying ass thinks. You say one thing, then when you get called, twist and manipulate it into something different, claiming it was the same all along.

    YOU'RE A FUCKING SCUMBAG, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.

  44. Re:How's it go? Survival of the fitest ? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    No, neither of them do.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  45. Re:why problem something that doesn't exist? by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

    such as oxygen, for example? or such as something of which you are ignorant?

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

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

          Far more straigtforward to admit that the whole concept of God, heaven and hell were created by man to keep the plebe in line and to force political alliance based on "moral" convictions. Not to mention it's a huge source of revenue since the world is FULL of stupid people.

          God = Santa Claus for adults. Psst, I have news for you - there's no Santa Claus either.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  46. No more Photos.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Boulder Colorado some are speculating that there is an impact from people who take pictures of the landscape and environment. They are pushing to ban people from the nature trails there because of this. Maybe we should remove everyone from the Galapagos and enforce a ban on photography there. If no one is there to see it will the environment still be harmed?

  47. Re:why problem something that doesn't exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God does exist, i know Him personally...to bad you don't know Him, though you may find out someday, or maybe not...up to you.