If the researchers and biologists felt it was the right play (which they did), it seems like a dangerous risk to wait for committees of non-scientists to make a political decision based on it.
If the researchers and biologists felt it was the right play (which they did), it seems like a dangerous risk to wait for committees of non-scientists to make a political decision based on it.
We've definitely lost something here. As Peter Thiel noted: [1]
There are ways that the government is working far less well than it used to.
Just outside my office is the Golden Gate Bridge. It was built under FDR's
Administration in the 1930s in about three and a half years. They're currently
building an access highway on one of the tunnels that feeds into the bridge,
and it will take at least six years to complete.
I wonder what it might take to get that back.[1] http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1187
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)
They had been on the island and survived for 80 years, though it probably wasn't a picnic..
Imagine if the scientists had tripped a landslide over the habitat? What if the entire population had gone the way of the first two and died within two weeks?
It seems to me that in this case careful consideration probably saved the species rather than risk its survival.
Like rabbits?