| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
In the grand scheme of things the loss of a species is generally insignificant and like Skeet says, nature fills a void. But I think the issue here
is whether we are taking fish stocks below their population buffers...fish stocks that we as a society want to have around for the future, if
possible. It is perhaps more a matter of aesthetics than necessity but there is truth in beauty too, no?
The ocean is like the prairie--if you've ever seen the few relatively virgin patches of Midwest prairie and compare it to what it is composed of
now(Rye, Cheat Grass, etc)....well, if the same thing happens to the oceans we'll be eating Surf Perch and Catfish. Not that we can't survive on
whatever invader species take over but many folks kind of like it the way it is now.
|
|
|
Natalie Ann
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2819
Registered: 8-22-2003
Location: Berkeley
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
As I have now passed my 76 Birthday, I have made arrangements for 1/2 of my Ashes to be spread over the Sea of Cortez... |
So Skeet... what are ya gonna have done with the other half?
Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.
.....Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
Sharksbaja
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5814
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Newport, Mulege B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
|
|
up, up and away?
DON\'T SQUINT! Give yer eyes a break!
Try holding down [control] key and toggle the [+ and -] keys
Viva Mulege!
Nomads\' Sunsets
|
|
|
BajaBruno
Super Nomad
Posts: 1035
Registered: 9-6-2006
Location: Back in CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy
|
|
I really don't want to get involved in this whole environmental vs. Intelligent Design conversation, because I think it's a distraction from taking
positive action, which is what each of us should take the time to do.
Cardon Man has been good enough to post a thread (Mexico sportfishermen, read and take action!) down the list from this one with a URL to
SeaWatch which will allow you to write an email, or use their canned email, and have it sent automatically to sixty government officials.
That post has generated half the views of this one, unfortunately. I realize it isn't as much fun as engaging in pseudo-philosophy, but let's
send the letters first, please, and then argue the merits of extinction afterwards.
Christopher Bruno, Elk Grove, CA.
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Skeet wrote:
"What effect, if any, has the loss of any Species had on the World, or maybe I should say "Humans" ??"
If you ask the wrong question, you will come to the wrong conclusion.
The question is a specious question. There is no way of documenting the impact of something that has happened in relation to how it would have been if
nothing had happened. I will not elaborate on the issue of specious questions, one can learn about them by studying logic and rhetoric.
By the way Skeet, when did you stop beating your wife?
I have added to this post a very interesting article that might be germane to the discussion. He argues for the legitimacy of advocacy for species
based upon affective criteria. It is well stated so thought at least some might be interested.
Iflyfish
The Emotive in Animal Rights Discourse
By Thomas G. Kelch
In our Western way of thinking, rationality and cool deliberation are the talismans of truth, the holy grail of all sensible arguments. The emotive is
dangerous, ‘feminine’ and irrational, an enemy of veracity, an evil to be avoided at all costs. And so it is in the discussion of animal rights issues
in moral philosophy and the law. Most serious academic and legal writers on animal rights shun discussions of compassion and caring and empathy, and
trade instead exclusively in rational argument and cold logic. Indeed, such writers often premise their discussions with self-commendation on the fact
that their positions do not originate in passion, but solely in the dry and ordered realm of reason.
In moral thought, the schism between the emotive (for present purposes, compassion, caring and empathy), and the rational may be credited to the late
18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In Kant’s moral theory, duty grounds morality and duties are discerned only through application of
reason. On Kant’s moral battlefield, the proud flag of reason flies over the categorical imperative and all moral axioms worthy of respect. Emotions
and feelings hold no ground. In our current legal system, the situation is no different; the emotive holds no sway on issues of rights, whether the
subject of discussion is human or nonhuman.
Fear and Dichotomy
There is reason, I suppose, to be shy about claiming that animals should be holders of rights because, "I feel empathy towards animals," or "I am a
compassionate person." The reason, of course, is the fear that one will not be taken seriously, that one will be characterized as a fuzzy
sentimentalist whose arguments are not worthy of consideration. But apart from these political considerations, is it really necessary that serious
discussion of animal rights issues be divorced from the feelings of compassion, caring and empathy that are, for most of us, among the reasons we
believe that animals are holders of moral rights and should be holders of legal rights?
What is our fear of the emotive? It is, I believe, that in Western thought, reason and emotion are perceived as dichotomous and mutually exclusive.
Reason is dispassionate, self legitimating and objective. This is the proper stuff of arguments, be they about animal rights or any other issue. The
path of emotion, on the other hand, is rife with peril. Emotions are dangerous outbursts of rage, jealousy and the like. They are uncontrolled,
subjective and prejudiced. Thoughts of this nature should not permeate serious discussions.
I do not believe this polarized view of reason and the emotions is accurate. Reason itself can lead us astray. We may, though applying reason, be
unduly credulous or skeptical. We may inappropriately accept authority as fact. Moreover, emotions are not typically uncontrolled outbursts of rage or
malevolence; rather, they are ordinarily the much more dull and diffuse feelings that are the inevitable background to each instant of our lives. Is
it even possible to separate reason from emotion? Is it not the case that in all of our activities, whether they involve the application of reason or
not, there is some element of emotion? Indeed, I must have some emotion to be motivated to do anything. Reason is inert. It is emotion that moves us.
It is in a subtle mixture of reason and emotion that we live our lives. They coexist in our crania and cannot be separated as wheat from chaff.
Claiming Legitimacy
Even in our Western tradition we can find voices claiming legitimacy for the emotive in moral thought. David Hume, for example, claimed that the
passions (emotions) were the fountainheads of all moral thought and that—try as we may—we cannot ascertain through reason the truth of any moral
proposition. In fact, for Hume there is an innate moral sense that determines our perceptions of vice and virtue in the world. Arthur Schopenhauer too
saw compassion, something he viewed as an element of human nature itself, as the root of morality. Morality, then, is felt, not judged.
Outside of this tradition there are others who hold that there is a place for the emotive in moral discourse. Most prominent are feminists. Though
feminist thought tends to be inimical to traditional concepts of rights (though not all feminist thinkers eschew talk of "rights"), it is a basic
tenet of feminism that compassion, caring and empathy are foundations of the moral world.
But surely the emotive should not be a part of the law and our notion of rights. Here, at least, we must be governed solely by reason. Again, I think
we are misled. Emotion already plays a part in the law. When we provide for victims rights, we are expressing our compassion for the victim’s loss.
When we speak of retribution as a ground for criminal penalties we are expressing our anger and indignation toward the perpetrator. We reduce
penalties for crimes committed as a result of overheated emotions and mental disturbance. Even in property law we protect emotional attachments when
we provide for special sorts of remedies for loss of or damage to family heirlooms.
This list could be expanded, but it is sufficient to note that the emotive already plays a part in our law. And so it should be when we speak of
issues of moral and legal rights for animals. It is normal for us to feel compassion for animals and empathy for their suffering. Somehow, through
evolution or rearing or a combination of the two, these feelings are a normal part of human nature that cannot be separately compartmentalized from
our capacity to reason. This is not to say that we should reject reason. Rather, we must recognize that the emotive cannot be parsed out from reason
and that our emotions can be legitimate grounds for moral and legal arguments. Thus, in the area of animal rights, our emotions, our feelings of
compassion, caring and empathy, should count as genuine reasons for granting moral and legal rights to animals.
Thomas G. Kelch is a professor of law at Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa, California. This article is based, in part, on a more detailed treatment
of this issue in the author’s article, "The Role of the Rational and the Emotive in a Theory of Animal Rights" in 27 Boston College Environmental
Affairs Law Review 1 (2000).
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Better question...
| Quote: | Originally posted by Natalie Ann
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
As I have now passed my 76 Birthday, I have made arrangements for 1/2 of my Ashes to be spread over the Sea of Cortez...
|
So Skeet... what are ya gonna have done with the other half? |
Which half? 
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
I've got as good a sense of humor as most, but all this BS about then and now etc., with factory ships being unleashed on the Sea Of Cortez, isn't a
joking matter. About tomorrow or next year, if I can't find some fish to catch
they just as well ice me down with the by catch.
|
|
|
backninedan
Senior Nomad
Posts: 865
Registered: 3-8-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
Skeet, someone mentioned the possibility of a species loss being linked to an alzheimers cure.... Think about it..
|
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Mexitron:What Prarie are you talking about?? I live in the Texas Panhandle on the Caprock{The Largest piece of Flat Land in the World} The Buffalo
Grass is still Abundant. Thousand's of Cattle still Graze this area, and the Grass still keeps Growing. The Wildlife is beyond Belief. the Water is
Deep and Clear, the Air is Clean.
Many of the People who try to Foster their Ideas on the unsuspecting use Scare Tactics, Phony Stats and information to overdue many of the "Good
Things" that should be of Concern.
After Fishing and Living on the Sea of Cortez, I donot think that the new Shark program will have the results that are claimed, It very well may
reduce the Numbers, but the Shark will come Back, just as they have after the taking for Vitamins, the Japanese Boats, and the Panga Fisherman.
Nat: The other half will be spread on the Texas Panhandle where I can watch the Eagles Soar, The Bob Whites Whistle, The Deer and Turkeys roaming, the
Cattle Grazing, The Armadillo Grubbing, and the Clear Air Blowing.
Also can keep a Watch on my Horses!
I hope that you will all be Blessed as I have in my Short Life. God Willing and the Creeks Don't Rise we can again discuss this issue in 20 years.
Skeet/Loreto
|
|
|
Osprey
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3694
Registered: 5-23-2004
Location: Baja Ca. Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
Maybe a lightbulb will go on somewhere in Mexico City! Somebody will ask the question "Does it make any sense to spend 2.2 billion dollars on the
Escalera Nautica (Sea of Cortez Project), to attract boating fishermen from the U.S., then sell all the fish?
|
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
BacknineDan:
Someone told me when I was 6 years old that "Masterbation" would cause Hair to grow out of the Palm of my Hand!!
I am still waiting!!!
|
|
|
bajajudy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6886
Registered: 10-4-2004
Location: San Jose del Cabo,BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Article in Tribuna
http://www.tribunadeloscabos.com.mx/newpage/index.cfm?op=por...
[Edited on 5-19-2007 by bajajudy]
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
| Quote: |
Maybe a lightbulb will go on somewhere in Mexico City! Somebody will ask the question "Does it make any sense to spend 2.2 billion dollars on the
Escalera Nautica (Sea of Cortez Project), to attract boating fishermen from the U.S., then sell all the fish?
|
great observation, Osprey. maybe this sentence should be included in EVERY email to the stupid mexican hoars-i mean politicians!
[Edited on 5-19-2007 by woody in ob]
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
Skeet--glad to hear the High Plains prairie is still hanging in there...there's some beautiful patches of lower Midwest prairie here in Ft. Worth but
the vast majority of it is less specious than it once was...
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Skeet,
You said: "What effect, if any, has the loss of any Species had on the World, or maybe I should say "Humans" ??" in many of your posts.
You proudly challenged someone to answer that question as a response to the very thoughtful comments of others on this list. I provided a very
thoughtful and direct response to your question.
Ya know, it's really interesting that you rant about no one responding to your challenge and then when I do.............silence. It is deafening.
I find it is common for those who profess to be conservatives that they often resort to specious logic and redefinition of problems and are in the end
not really conservative at all, but bow to the gods of industry and commerce. Rush Limbaugh is a master of this sort of dialogue, redefinition and
specious logic and the country and our public discourse has suffered greatly from it.
When their faulty logic and redefinitions are challenged.......silence. Or their next recourse is to resort to name calling.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Sharksbaja
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5814
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Newport, Mulege B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hey that's not fair Flyfish. Your termiology is something most have to look up. That's a good thing because it explains so much that is so hard to put
to words. Skeet was blessed with his ability to include a higher authority in many of his passionate posts. That's ok, it's just his opinion.
Thank god and his too, that many of us realize living things are finite on this planet. To assume anything else would be, well, sacreligious in my
book.
DON\'T SQUINT! Give yer eyes a break!
Try holding down [control] key and toggle the [+ and -] keys
Viva Mulege!
Nomads\' Sunsets
|
|
|
bajajudy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6886
Registered: 10-4-2004
Location: San Jose del Cabo,BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
From CNN.. not extinct afterall
Angler catches 'prehistoric' fish
POSTED: 1306 GMT (2106 HKT), May 20, 2007
JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- An Indonesian angler caught a fish once thought to have disappeared along with the dinosaurs and held it in a quarantined
pool until it died 17 hours later, a biologist said Sunday.
The coelacanth fish was thought to have become extinct 65 million years ago until one was found in 1938 off Africa's coast. The discovery of the
so-called "living fossil" ignited worldwide interest.
Several other specimens have since been found, including one in 1998 in waters off the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, where Justinus Lahama also
hooked his 1.3-meter (4-foot), 50-kilogram (110-pound) fish early Saturday.
The fisherman pulled it from waters near Bunaken National Marine Park, which has some of the highest levels of marine biodiversity in the world and is
a popular diving spot for tourists, marine biologist Lucky Lumingas said.
Lumingas classified the fish as Coelacanth Latemeria, a powerful predator with highly mobile, limb-like fins. It is usually about 5 feet (1.5 meters)
long and weighs around 45 kilograms (100 pounds). Unlike most other fish, it gives birth to live young rather than laying eggs.
Lumingas, who works with the local Sam Ratulangi University, said it was "extraordinary" the fish survived for 17 hours in a quarantined pool.
"The fish should have died within two hours because this species only lives in deep, cold-sea environment at a depth of at least 60 meters (200
feet)," he said, adding that his university would closely study the carcass.
|
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Iflyfish:
Maybe it would have been better to ask "Where is the Proof"?
Being trained to look for "Facts" have been a part of my Life.
Your Post of anothers Words was well Taken.
It does appear to me that "Scare Tactics" are based on Emotion and not Facts.
I was fishing in the Bay at Seattle the day the Commercials were allowed in to Fish, they promptly took all the True Cod away. That is Fact.
Fly fish, instead of Post of others Words, Why not attempt to answer with Facts to support your Position.?
Skeet/Loreto
What effect did that Act have on the the Bay?
Facts do not seem to Turn on People to a Cause- Emotion seems to work better like Stats which attempt to prove, or sway people to a Cause.
|
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Iflyfish:
Cause and effect.
In my humble Opinion one of the Major Causes of the Loss of a Species in the Sea of Cortez was caused by the taking of the Shrimp from the North
Portion of the Sea{Totorova} SP} which was Helped more by the Keeping the Colorado River from Flowing into the Sea.
Why??
Because the Human Species, mostly from Southern California would not have a place to spent their weekends Boating, Fishing, Taking their Clothes off
to make Porno Movies at Lake Havasu City.
Fish just think "What Good" could be done if we let a lot more of the Colo. River return the Nutrients to the Sea of Cortez?
I had much rather Fish than watch a Porno!
Skeet/Loreto
|
|
|
Osprey
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3694
Registered: 5-23-2004
Location: Baja Ca. Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
No Guns
We don’t use guns much anymore when we take somebody’s land or ocean. We just declare Manifest Destiny, cede (plant the flag) or buy. It would be
great fun to witness a grand congress of lawmakers from the U.S. and Mexico convening to discuss “What should be done with the Gulf of California?”
The U.S. might well argue that it should control the little Sea. Mexicans might counter that their neighbors to the north could ruin it better,
faster than Mexico. There might be some interesting banter about Yellowstone National Park, the passenger pigeon and the Tutuava. Mexico’s query
“How (and more importantly why) did you kill 4 billion birds in such a short time, Señores?”
Our blushing reps might take the moment to retire to the cloakroom for a meeting of some kind. On their return they might be surprised to see Skeet
in the front row of the area set aside for the Mexican delegation. We would ask for a recess so we could locate Buffalo Ted Turner and (the other Ted
(Nugent)).
Back in the cloakroom somebody might try to gain support for a movement to buy up all the longline fishing permits from the current holders. How much
could it be? Compared to Alaska or Lousiana it would probably be chump change. Just a thought.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
