Hacker News Reader

Comment by rch | Hacker News Reader

Supply Chain info must be on record somewhere - people could just boycott beef from these ranches.

And buy beef from the places where wolves have been eliminated entirely and not reintroduced? That may not be sending the message you hope for.

I think I could find people to buy from in Colorado who are in favor of a reintroduction plan to build on the handful of wolves that have migrated into the state naturally. I also prefer bison or even yak.

I think you'll have a hard time finding any rancher who is in favor of reintroducing wolves, Colorado or otherwise.

Well my co-worker is one: ex-military, java/python/etc dev. I can't remember how many head of beef, but I recall being impressed.

Come to think of it, another friend in Texas has 50,000 acres (family property) and would probably be in favor too.

Other significant land owners have independently introduced me to Mission Wolf... one has Yak I think.

Finally, I met Allan Savory not too long ago, and I'd wager that he would be happy to introduce me to wolf-friendly ranchers.

>ex-military, java/python/etc

do you work at Raytheon in Aurora by any chance?

I think you should ask him. If his lively hood solely depends on the livestock he raises I doubt he supports reintroduction. Same goes for the others ... it's easy to support something if there is no risk to you for doing so.

Nope, not Raytheon.

You make a good point, but I think that it's not really a life or death thing for any of these ranchers. Obviously if it was then there should be some mitigation in place (and probably for all of them regardless).

I like the line of thinking, but people can't even be bothered to boycott places like Walmart in meaningful numbers.

Shame on you, the well-being of humans should be more important than an animal.

I think biodiversity is a net positive for humans.

How does boiccoting and ruining farmers lives help with biodiversity? How is that net positive for them?

The answer to the first question should be instantly obvious. The second is a little more nuanced, and I'm sure the above person's answer would be a little more abstract.

An interest in human well-being makes no sense without an interest the environment in which humans live.

Of course not, "protecting" wolves by boyccoting meat from those farmers does nothing for the environment.

In what way does that necessitate a choice between the well- being of a human and a non-human animal? Sounds very much like a false dichotomy.

Don't tell me that, tell that dude who said boiccoting farmers meat is protecting wolves.

Funny, HN is all about capitalism while it works against labor.

Suddenly, when it works against capital, HN gets very upset.

It's almost as if there are multiple people with different opinions posting on HN

Capital? We're talking about some farmers here not billion dollars corporations.

That would not have been my first thought after reading "the well-being of humans should be more important than an animal" - I'd've thought "oh shit, they just triggered all the urban dwelling armchair economists".

On the other hand, I suspect the trend you describe at least somewhat exists, and you're suffering from the human brain being an overactive pattern matcher in any given specific case rather than being entirely wrong about the general case.

Urban dwelling? I live in rural Romania.

I gave my guess as to who was downvoting and/or angrily replying to your post, as a counterpoint to bsder's guess as to who said people are.

I also meant to type "armchair environmentalists" but too much marginal revolution and too little coffee apparently made me braino.

Rural romanian sensibilities versus US urban dwelling archair environmentalist would totally explain the attacks on you to me - and now seems even more plausible than "labour versus capital" as the underlying cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com