Out of curiosity, are these organizations literally fighting poachers? I.e. we're saying that an elephant's life is more valuable than a human's?
That's an interesting moral question.
That's an interesting moral question.
> That's an interesting moral question.
It's not actually. The poaching groups are connected to the likes of Boko Haram http://www.nationalgeographic.com/tracking-ivory/article.htm.... So it's two birds with one stone really.
Also the poachers kill anti-poachers regularly
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/25/two-wild...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/17/leading-...
--
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fight-against-...
"Between 2010 and 2012, ivory hunters shot down an astonishing 100,000 elephants across Africa—more than 60 percent of central Africa’s elephant population has been lost during the ten-year period beginning in 2002—according to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences."
http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/van_anim_elephant.htm
"Demand for ivory, combined with habitat loss from human settlement, has led to a dramatic decline in elephant populations in the last few decades. In 1930, there were between 5 and 10 million African elephants. By 1979, there were 1.3 million.
In 1989, when they were added to the international list of the most endangered species, there were about 600,000 remaining, less than one percent of their original number.
Asian elephants were never as abundant as their African cousins, and today they are even more endangered than African elephants. At the turn of the century, there were an estimated 200,000 Asian elephants. Today there are probably no more than 35,000 to 40,000 left in the wild."
--
So, we ask the question: Why save endangered species?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150715-why-save-an-endanger...
1) We like them, 2) The biosphere provides trillions of dollars to the global economy, 3) Loss of species impacts ecological systems and puts us at risk as we depend on them for survival.
Why is this the question? Why is "extinction" so important? The fate of most species is extinction anyway.
> "...1) We like them, 2) The biosphere provides trillions of dollars to the global economy, 3) Loss of species impacts ecological systems and puts us at risk as we depend on them for survival."
Is there a non-selfish reason, that is morally justifiable, for preventing species extinction?
When natural systems can no longer sustain life, that life dies out. This can happen when there are no longer enough natural resources to support said life. But this does not necessarily happen quickly. The cause could be drought or famine or climate chane, resulting in lack of an environment suitable to life. This can cause the deterioration of a species to the point of disease, starvation, cannibalization, and other painful processes.
Let's take an example. Assume that some new disease affected a wolf population in a given area. Once those wolves died out, the lack of natural predators would cause other species (say, deer) to reproduce abundantly, and then overgraze, which would then affect the growth of forests, which then would affect the ecology sustaining a myriad of species that live in said forest. Assuming those species attempted to adapt by migration, they may be adversely affected by other species in a new region, or adversely affect those species themselves, setting off new chain reactions.
This is not a theory. This is a real problem affecting the northeast united states. Except it wasn't disease that killed off the wolves: it was humans.
> Nothing is ever black and white.
It's a valid point, I do agree it's worth thinking about, I've heard of the movement before.
But it means you are very pro poacher though. Every animal they kill often saves hundreds.
Interesting outlook.
Is an elephant’s life worth more than someone who poaches endangered animals? Probably.
Also, these poachers are usually armed and willing to kill for their poach. The best defense against an idiot with a WWII export AK variant is a smarter person with a much longer-range weapon.
According to The Law of Scarcity isn't the life of an elephant more valuable than a human?
It's a bit like asking whether a human life is more valuable than a sack of money when a bank robber goes down shooting. Either law enforcement has teeth or there are no laws.
I think the moral takeaway is not that the lives of these people is worth less than that of an animal. It's that they are breaking knowingly and are often murderers themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I happily hunt and fish. I clean and process dead animals with great frequency. The difference, in this case, is that elephants are truly at risk of extinction.
Importantly, this isn't poaching. This was lawful collection of elephants. Morality aside, this does provide funding for cash- strapped nations and some of that funding goes to protection of stressed animal populations.
Yeah let's not do that.
I personally dislike zoos and don't visit them. At the same time, I'm not comfortable telling you how you should feel.