Endangered Animals vs Poverty

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Dario

Mind you, it still seems like a somewhat irrelevant point to make.

Again the magic words are "as an aside" and see also "philosophical cul-de-sac".
Although I do think there is worth in testing well held assumptions related to such debates defined as they are for the most part by peoples preconceptions. To my mind everyone should test their preconceptions on a regular basis - although granted perhaps not in the forum of a specific debate.

That and has already been pointed out the debate hinges on making a distinction between humans and animals. Implies something special about us - and perhaps thats not the best idea to hold dear in the first place.

Its more interesting to me then discussions with black and white premises to whit I can give black and white answers fairly easily thats all.

[Campestral]

i've lost track of this, are we asking if impoverished peoples should be allowed to kill endangered species to survive or are we asking if humans are better than animals?

obviously anyone impoverished should be able to kill any animal if it's in order to survive, that's morally sound.

to ask if humans are better than animals is just the same as apples and oranges. humans have a better brain structure because we have awareness. but using the word 'better' isn't really correct because we could be asking better physically or morally? mind you lol due to the fact an animal can't think then how could one possibly be morally better?

so yeah what is it we're asking again?

[supernothing]

Originally Posted by Campestral

i've lost track of this, are we asking if impoverished peoples should be allowed to kill endangered species to survive or are we asking if humans are better than animals?

obviously anyone impoverished should be able to kill any animal if it's in order to survive, that's morally sound.

to ask if humans are better than animals is just the same as apples and oranges. humans have a better brain structure because we have awareness. but using the word 'better' isn't really correct because we could be asking better physically or morally? mind you lol due to the fact an animal can't think then how could one possibly be morally better?

so yeah what is it we're asking again?

I was just about to say "animals don't have awareness?!!" but then I realised who I was talking to.

On the big question: to even talk about apportioning blame or condemnation to impoverished people for killing endangered animals is bourgois hypocracy plain and simple - it's just one of these "paradoxes" which is actually just a contradiction in bourgois thought and culture.

[pANDAS Radio]

What about people who make their living by helping western hunters illegally track and kill endangered species? I seem to remember seeing a wildlife show where an area was turned into a reserve and the poachers were given jobs as the wardens, therefore replacing their lost income. The ex poachers made very good wardens.

That sort of diversification isn't possible everywhere unfortunately.

[Campestral]

super pretentious, i would hardly aportion blame to the bourgeosie, everyone is culpable in this disenfranchise so maybe we are all bourgois in our aspirations

[bikuki]

Originally Posted by Dario

Well, as I understood it, the point was that chimpanzees who advance to stages where they can use tools to hunt, in a similar fashion as to early humans, would pose a similar threat to endangered species.
However, (assuming I've interpreted that correctly) I feel it misses the point-- we're in a position where we need to consider this because of the sheer scale of devastation that humans are capable of causing, which would prove (or rather, is proving) catastrophic to ecological environments, in what would be a relatively short period of time. For that reason, it's imperative for people to rethink their behaviour in this regard. Apes, however, aren't in this position- their basic hunting techniques hardly have the same far-reaching consequences.
Plus, I wouldn't think it very 'ethical' to intrude on a species' sociological development in such a manner (which, again, you could say people have done in the past). While "Animal Police" would undoubtedly make a compelling US cop drama, I can't speak highly of it as an environmental approach. Ultimately, the issue ends up revolving around the issue of severe disruption of an ecological system/hierarchy just the same.

This post, plus pretty much everything Mwezzi's said pretty much covers my opinion on the subject.
My brain's too fuzzy to actually post anything of use, though.

[Campestral]

aawww that's so romantic

you know monkeystar loves getting married just to get divorced so they can throw shit at each other in a court

[supernothing]

Originally Posted by Campestral

super pretentious, i would hardly aportion blame to the bourgeosie, everyone is culpable in this disenfranchise so maybe we are all bourgois in our aspirations

Absolutely, I was referring to the bourgois morality that pervades/invades all classes of capitalist society - not the opinions of the bourgois themselves.