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."
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.
Here is some background from Sea Shepherd on the insults facing the Galapagos.
Did someone fart in the islands' general direction?
Those huge turtles should email their congressman.
Charles Darwin's research took place in 1978?
If the island dies, that's the way god, by his intelligent design, wants it. Who has a problem with god? Do you?
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
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....
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
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.
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)
...I guess the inhabitants of the islands will have to, umm, adapt?
"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
And fundraising to boot. Agree or not, this doesn't belong in science, and probably doesn't belong on /.
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
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.
Your god does not exist, but mine does. Now we shall all go to war to settle the matter.
What? You think throwing money at the starving of Africa is going to solve their problems?
1 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.
t 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.
Africa's got a shitload of problems that, in order to be solved, need more than rich fucks funneling money in their direction. Billions have already been poured into Africa, and damn near ZERO (I exaggerate, but it feels like it) progress has been made [http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,15
With it's problems, Africa needs more than money. It needs help from the international community/UN. All that will probably require a gross monetary sum larger than what would be required for the restoration of the Galapagos, and if we really want to fix things in Africa, it'll probably cost lives too. Even helping 3rd world countries develop infrastructure is going to be a bitch. You can't just develop it for them; you have to teach them a whole lot of shit too. Like the saying goes, give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he'll eat every day for the rest of his life.
Lastly, you can't just write off the loss of the Galapagos animals as non issue. You have no idea how this will impact the overall ecosystem. Time and time again, we have been shown that biological changes in a location have vast impacts, usually negative, on the surrounding ecosystem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching][ht
Oh Yeah. Stupidity gets people killed, sure, but it also wastes money by throwing it at a problem and hoping it will go away.
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.
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.
Wikileaks, no DNS
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.
Wikileaks, no DNS
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.
Wikileaks, no DNS
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. ,cynical,but has a ring of truth)
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
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!
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.
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
Don't fish there and don't go there as a tourist. Problem solved....
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.
The Spiegel link is bad. Here's a better one: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,363604,00.html
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!
Free trade and free markets will do the trick.
Libertas in infinitum
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?
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
.
- aqk
F U
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
No, neither of them do.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.