Talk:Privatization of wildlife/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 15 August 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Bullshit

Wow, all I can see is that "bullshit" will end up privately owned. ħuman 23:50, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Huh? Read this. Anarcho-capitalist 01:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Gee wow, I guess you pwned. What about snail darters? What about species that aren't "pretty" or "huntable" - or eatable - ie, boring? What does your "privatization" have to say about them? ħuman 03:49, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

But, but (arguing the libertarian point again just to be silly): snail darters were endangered by a big government agency (TVA). Secret Squirrel 08:18, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Why should we care about species that aren't attractive, huntable, or otherwise useful to humans? Is it really that much of a tragedy if they go extinct? Throughout the history of the earth, many species have gone extinct and many new species have arisen, and it hasn't been a big deal. Are we really all the worse off, for instance, without the dodo bird? Sure, that food source is gone, but we still have chicken, turkey, etc. Tisane (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense. ħuman 04:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguing by editing

I have been guilty of this here - arguing against the "for" points in their section, rather than arguing against in the "against" section. I hope more editors join in and clean up :) ħuman 03:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

The whale oil -> kerosene thing could go on ad infinitum. Nobody will go back to whale oil if/when kerosene becomes scarce. Electric lights, anyone? Biodiesel in kerosene heaters? We have teh technology. We can make it better than before. better, stronger, faster. SAVE TEH WHALEZ!1!!! Secret Squirrel 08:15, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Heh, probably true, but still... the whole problem I have with this idea in general is that it's relatively easy to concoct or cite simple examples where it could or has worked (like the bison one?), but a lot harder to get real and address the huge number of not necessarily convenient to "own" species - like, say, rare plants. Also, predators that require a huge and ecologically diverse range to survive and breed would seem impractical to "protect" this way. ħuman 17:38, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

You're probably correct about that, but you still haven't explained why we need to save those predators. There are a lot of species that it would not be a big deal if we killed off. Consider, for instance, if it were possible to destroy all the mosquitoes and make them go extinct. That is not an attractive or economically useful species, and probably few people would object to getting rid of them; in fact, the government encourages people to destroy mosquito habitats, e.g. by getting rid of standing water. But someone who is a purist about preserving species would not want to completely destroy them, much as some people are objecting to proposals to destroy the last remaining smallpox.

Humans are in competition with other species, and some of them are going to lose out completely. E.g., wolves are in competition with ranchers, so in some cases the wolves are going to have to go. As human population increases and people demand better lifestyles around the world that require more resources, probably more and more species that lack economic usefulness are going to be pushed to the brink of extinction. If we choose to protect those species rather than helping people, then it is going to hurt the quality of life of humans. So, which is the greater evil, and why? Tisane (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)