Switzerland and European xenophobia

Started Apr 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,314Gear list
Re: Conservation
In reply to Christoph Stephan, Apr 22, 2012

Christoph Stephan wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

Than: waht gives you the righ to kill them. Because apparantly you displaced them, are they and their offspring your property? Does killing not involve ethics? Do we need ethic specialists, philosphers for instance, to decide?

Here you are very selective about conservationists. If we apply these standards, should not any hobby gardener who buys weedkiller for his lawn, removes weeds (often native speices in favour of exotic species) face the same question?

Did I say he shouldn't? I don't know actually. DO you equal conservation with gardening. I can understand that very well, but wonder if you see it as essentially the same too: it looks a whole lot like gardening, isn't it.

How about the audience, protesting vehemently against chopping down of tree and killing of animals in general and on this basis especially? Who is "we"? I told yuou abot Lombardia. The jduge decided killing grey Squirrels is not in order. So you comply?

Actually, the judge acquitted the scientists (Bertolono Genovesi 2000 Biological Conservation 109 (2003) 351–358), but by then the grey squirrel had spread further it became too late, therefore the project was abandoned.

Not what I read. Will look it up. There were two cases if I am correct.

It also does become a practical "life-quality" question whether we want to life in an environment depleted of plant and animal species.

What do you think: do those invaded places have less or more biodiversity or not? ...

I would like to believe you and you may be right in the cases you quote.

It is true everywhere. The worst outcome is a net status quo on islands where the loss is compensated by the immigrants. In all other cases per country, there is a VAST increase. We are taling doubling of species. New Zealand (posterchild of the detrimental immigrants) has gained 2069 selfsustaining species, lost 4 which means 2065 nativer plants remain. The new total is 4134 instead of 2069. Same is true for california, same is true for Eurasia etcetc. But....we don;t count the newcomers...nono...they do not count...SO Germany and our population is falling, by that logic, as natie dutch people are declining and immigrants, we do not count, are making up more and more of our population.

On the other hand: If 8 introduced species make 2 indigenous species extinct, you still have a net increase of local biodiversity (+6). However you have a net loss globally. The 2 species are gone forever globally, the introduced already existed in their native habitat.

How about that. So you only kill if there is no other solution and the threat is to ourselves. Not being advocates of other species, which fend for themselves.

I find it noble being the advocate for other species

Yet again a human, in nature unknown standard, is applied. For who? For your feelings. Okey. I have feelings to: I like to spread nonnative species. And you cannot stop me. They can be readily found on internet on ebay. Easily to obtain, easuy to spread. You just lose them. I like it. Do you think that is a good reason: my personal feeling, if I where to do that?

Also: the threat to ourselves? Does this include only our very life (sanitary pests) or absolutely essential crops?

"Absolutely essential crops?" Are yoiu being rehtorical. I guess so....

Or does it include all amenity things such as; lawns and parks we keep free of weeds; luxury foods; a level of meat consumption unnecessarily high and even detrimental to the goal to provide food for all humans....

The society decides as a whole. You cannot change eveyrhting just like that, but we see this development indeed. This must come from the awareness if all people. I am not a dictator at all. If we are to kill anything, we should be ethical. And our ethics change over time.

If it does not include these, we arrive at a scenario where you conveniently apply your standards selectively to conservation only, ignoring all the other areas where animals and plants are killed on a daily basis.

I am not applying anything. I am discussing the rationale behind discussions and viewpoints in ecology. I am adocating a soceity as whole decding on what should and should not happen based on sound science and not personal preferences.

My personal preference would be all people to be vegetarian. But people are free to chose. I have no problem with naybody favouring anything personally. That is why I ahve ecologists as friends. But I may principally disagree with them.

Actually you sound like the conservationists are the only ones chopping down trees etc. against which the locals protest.

Well.. in fact his is what is happening. And if others chop down terees in parcs the people protest too and can do this. But mind you: if the trees are foreign no one needsa apermit. If they are indigenouis, even in your own garden. you need a permit. If you, like my German collegue who owns a holdiayresort, want to plant sitkaspruce because nothing else will siurvive in the seabreeze and rtemain green, you are not allowed to do it. You need to plant the few indegenous trees that she strongly dislikes. Yes, so there you go. But of course, of course: it is not nationality. No, it is somehting different.... May be you can tell me what it is then...Idiotic.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow