Animal Issues (was "More Western Lowland Gorillas Found

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A rare bit of good news in the incredibly sad, frustrating (and infuriating) realm of primate depletion. Almost 50 percent of the world's primate species are threatened with extinction, a stunning statistic. The Western Lowland Gorilla is the most numerous and wide-ranging of the four Gorilla sub-species, but they are still listed as "critically endangered". But a new population has been discovered in a remote area of the Congo that appears to have more than twice as many individuals as the entire worldwide population was thought to be.

More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo

Of course, even this good news will be meaningless if the trend of habitat destruction, hunting and disease is not reversed. Other Gorilla sub-species such as the Mountain Gorilla made famous by Diane Fosse and the movie Gorillas in the Mist and the Cross River Gorilla number in the hundreds. And Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Orangutans, the other Great Apes (our closest relatives) are also in dire shape. As are many monkey species.

Nearly half world's primates face extinction

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

What I find interesting is how close the farthest reaches of the Congo are to the Ethiopian origin of humanity. (I know the lines of descent are completely different) How little we know!

[halplm]

What I find interesting is that when humans (also primates) need to expand, enhabit, and procreate... i.e. survive, it's somehow a crime against nature.

If human habitats are growing, and other primate's habitats are thus shrinking, isn't it perfectly "natural" for them to die out?

I'm not saying it's good or desirable, only natural.

[solicitr]

However, Tosh, some recent work suggests that the pongoid/hominoid split may have occurred in the vicinity of Lake Chad.

[Primula Baggins]

Hal, in the natural course of things defined that way, a couple of centuries from now there won't be anything alive on Earth but us.

Diversity of life has a value beyond its usefulness to us and whether it gets in our way.

[halplm]

I'm not denying that, I'm just in constant amazement at the contradition of arrogance and humility that is associated with both claiming a relationships to animal life, and differentiating ourselves from it and claiming superiority over it (and thus being its protectors).

The contradictions are everywhere, and fascinating to me.

In this specific example, the very act of a primate encroaching on the habitat of other primates... seems the very definition of natural selection.

[Primula Baggins]

But natural selection is not a moral prescription, Hal, any more than mitosis or glucose metabolism or any other natural process. As intelligent beings we don't define ourselves by natural processes. As moral beings we can go beyond expediency into compassion.

And, for those of us who are religious, we're supposed to be stewards of the earth. A steward keeps and maintains his charge; he doesn't use it up and leave it in fragments.

[halplm]

I agree mostly, but you switched in there, and said two different things:

But natural selection is not a moral prescription, Hal, any more than mitosis or glucose metabolism or any other natural process. As intelligent beings we don't define ourselves by natural processes. As moral beings we can go beyond expediency into compassion.

And, for those of us who are religious, we're supposed to be stewards of the earth. A steward keeps and maintains his charge; he doesn't use it up and leave it in fragments.

As moral beings, I think you are absolutely right. We are stewards of the earth, and we can be compassionate and look beyond our natural wants and needs.

As intelligent beings, however, we are not tied to morality in any way, but are defined by natural processes. If intelligence is the natural progression of evolution, then it is merely the most reason leap that provides one species an advantage over another. It would, in fact, be a contradiction to use such an advantage to provide our natural competetors with safe harbor and protection at our own expense.

Sorry, VtF, I've gone way off topic in your thread, didn't mean to start a whole thing here

[Primula Baggins]

Hal, we are what we are: intelligent animals capable of morality. Our brains and our consciences are both gifts. We can use them both in the same lifetime: we can think about the world, learn about it, and understand it; we can care about it and each other. I don't see in what possible way those things are mutually exclusive. You're surely not arguing that we should not use our intelligence, because doing so makes us bad people?

[halplm]

My only point here, because to go any further would need its own thread, which I do not want to get into any time soon, is that humanities ability to contradict its own best interests (for survival) is a fascinating idea to me

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sorry, VtF, I've gone way off topic in your thread, didn't mean to start a whole thing here

Not that far off-topic, I don't think. I'm comfortable with this subject being part of the discussion here.

[Maria]

Isn't there a standing order from God for people to be fruitful and multiply?

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

My only point here, because to go any further would need its own thread, which I do not want to get into any time soon, is that humanities ability to contradict its own best interests (for survival) is a fascinating idea to me

To bring this back to the lowland gorilla:

In what way does protecting the lowland gorilla contradict humanity's best interests?

I am often confused by assertions that "self-interest" = "screw everything else", when it clearly doesn't.

Protecting the lowland gorilla is in our interest for a number of reasons:

1) The survival or extinction of species serves as a marker for the health of the ecosystem on which we depend for our survival. The extinction of a species indicates a weakening of that ecosystem, which signals a potential danger to ourselves. Those species (such as the lowland gorilla) which are very much like ourselves may serve as critical markers.
2) We exploit other species for our survival. Some are exploited directly, such as cattle, grain crops etc. Some are exploited indirectly, such as plant life that provides oxygen (if not directly providing food, wood, fiber etc). Some are exploited potentially, such as various rainforest species that are studied for possible uses in medicine etc. At the far end of potential exploitation lie those species for which we have no known direct or indirect need, but which serve to fill an ecological niche upon which other species that are more directly exploited may depend. Species such as the lowland gorilla may fall in that area provisionally, since they were clearly surviving in a large population without ourselves being aware of them. However, existing populations of the lowland gorilla are exploited for purposes of eco-tourism, which aids in the survival of endangered species while providing needed cash for poor countries, encouraging sensible management of resources etc
3) We gain knowledge and better understand ourselves and our world for each species that we learn about. We learn more about ourselves when studying creatures more like us, such as the lowland gorilla. What kind of social structures do they have? How did they manage to survive unknown for so long? What is the genetic relationship they have with existing populations? Do they carry AIDS-like or Ebola-like viruses in their population? If so, would a study of their genetics vs. the genetics of those viruses yield clues to similar viruses that affect humans and other primates?

I could go on.

BrianIs AtYou

[Primula Baggins]

Human survival isn't our only "best interest." People often have to decide that their own comfort or safety or even survival is less important than something else, and that isn't stupid; it's often admirable. And it's part of how society works; I allow my freedom to be infringed (my freedom to, say, drive as fast as I want wherever I want, or my freedom to punch someone in the nose because they annoy me) in exchange for knowing my life will be easier and safer because everyone else is following the same rules.

[River]

Humans are a bit unique in the sense that we are very, very good at adapting our environments to suit our needs. The only continent that does not support a large, permanent human population is Antarctica, and that's just because we've mutually agreed to just Not Go There (who wants to live in an ice desert anyway?). In the process of adapting the environment, we break the equilibrium that was established before we arrive. We change it, sometimes irrecovably, and when we're not careful those changes render the environment inhospitable to anything that is composed of more than one cell, including us. We've burned rivers, tumbled down mountains, diverted rivers, created dead zones in oceans, etc. Bad farming practices in Africa have caused the Sahara to creep southward. In China, the Gobi is advancing eastward at a rate that can be measured by the day. If we do not exercise a bit of caution, we can destroy ourselves through environmental wreckage. And that is not in our interest, as a species. Our intelligence is as capable of destroying us as it is of saving us. Some respect and caution is advised.

So what does that have to do with gorillas? Well, they're part of the forest down in the Congo. Healthy forests are good. They spit out oxygen, they hold down topsoil, and they provide wood and food. And in the Congo, gorillas are part of a healthy forest. That and they just have an awesomeness factor.

[halplm]

Then we get back to the point of maybe our intelligence is meant to help us wipe ourselves out. Maybe that's the natural order of things.

I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, of course, as I have no problem preventing extinction of other species, and would love to avoid any destruction of the planet, as it were.

If it's in humanity's best interest to save the forests, and save the species going extinct, then obviously our intelligence allows us to attempt that. However, you can take this to an extreme, and actually hurt humanity, while attempting to save a species or forest that should go extinct, or should burn down.

But as a species, we might recognize we need to "save the forests" or whatever, but how can you tell that to the farmer that needs to clear another acre to be able to feed his cows, that he needs to sell to feed his kids?

My mind sometimes gets spinning in circles of things I find contradictory... that and I'm trying to avoid actual work...

[Primula Baggins]

The problem, I think is with "should" go extinct, "should" burn down. At least with fires, the thinking presently accepted seems to be that fires not caused by humans should be allowed to burn—that what "should" happen, in terms of a balanced forest life cycle, is what happened for the millions of years the forests were here before we were (at least in the Americas): lightning caused fires and the fires burned.

Extinctions directly related to human activity certainly don't fit that definition of "what should happen." We are too smart, too efficient, and much too numerous to be competing with any other life form on earth on the level of "natural selection." We have put ourselves outside the process.

That doesn't mean my biologist husband doesn't still enjoy referring to us as "genetically dead" because we can't have kids any more. But biologists are weird.

[halplm]

I think, you have nailed my point exactly, Prim... "biologists are weird."

Also, that I don't understand how we can claim being a direct result of natural processes, and claim to suddenly be separate from it.

but now we're getting closer to the topic I don't want to discuss.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

but now we're getting closer to the topic I don't want to discuss

I agree.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, the impenetrable divide. . . .