18 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziDeciding whether its impacts are "positive or negative" is the ethical dimension.
it is first a question of ecology. "impact" is not necessarily positive or negative.
Like you said, "chemistry is not ethical or non-ethical. what you do with chemical compounds might be". Same goes for ecology. It's what you do with it that might be ethical or non-ethical.
You said "if you resurrect enough extinct animals to make an impact and then release them into the wild, it is a matter of ecology, and still not a matter of ethics. it becomes a matter of ethics when you do as i suggested and make hamburgers out of velociraptors. we can discuss ethics then".
I doubt you still stand by these words.
18 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNext we will resurrect Edmund Burke. Now that conservative intellectuals are extinct, people are no longer dying in the streets like they were in his day.
Welcome...to Jurassic Park!
When Edmund is given life again, what the dinosaurs do not eat, Edmund will finish off!!
Mwhahahahaha!!
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think that preventing an animal from exhibiting its natural behaviour is
Are zoos, and farms unethical? If so, why?
What is so great and ethical about the natural habitat? Have you ever seen animals in their natural habitat? Its often not a pretty sight.
I have always wondered why the animal cruelty argument doesn't inexorably lead to the conclusion that we should sterilize all carnivores so that they go extinct.
unethical.
I would shut down all zoos.
I would ban all factory farming.
If exterminating a species guaranteed less suffering then why not?
(Does not seem ecologically viable but morally????)
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFyou are jumping a few steps. just the act in itself of adding 5 bunnies into an ecosystem is not ethical or non. we ask ecology and common sense what would happen to those bunnies, maybe they will get eaten by a predator in said system, maybe they are all males and will die out. maybe they won't find anything to eat.
Deciding whether its impacts are "positive or negative" is the ethical dimension.
Like you said, "chemistry is not ethical or non-ethical. what you do with chemical compounds might be". Same goes for ecology. It's what you do with it that might be ethical or non-ethical.
You said "if you resurrect enough extinct animals to make an impact and then release ...[text shortened]... of velociraptors. we can discuss ethics then".
I doubt you still stand by these words.
after ecology is done assessing the impact, we might discuss ethics of the original act , if it is relevant. if the impact is minor, what is there to discuss?
and no, whether the impact is negative or positive is not decided by ethics. ethics could decide wolves are "unethical" because they kill stuff even though they fulfill a vital ecological function.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe ethical dimension of a proposed action is the weighing of the harm that it can do to others. Releasing a new species into an ecosystem clearly raises ethical issues if the action could cause harm to others.
you are jumping a few steps. just the act in itself of adding 5 bunnies into an ecosystem is not ethical or non. we ask ecology and common sense what would happen to those bunnies, maybe they will get eaten by a predator in said system, maybe they are all males and will die out. maybe they won't find anything to eat.
after ecology is done assessing ...[text shortened]... are "unethical" because they kill stuff even though they fulfill a vital ecological function.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59That raises the difficult question of what 'natural behaviour' is. (what is a domestic cats 'natural behaviour'? or for that matter any domesticated animal or animals that have adapted to living alongside humans.
I think that preventing an animal from exhibiting its natural behaviour is
unethical.
It also raises the question of why such restriction is unethical.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFbut we do not know that. the species is extinct. we have no idea what impact it would have. and we have not yet decided what exactly we will do with the animals once we get them.
The ethical dimension of a proposed action is the weighing of the harm that it can do to others. Releasing a new species into an ecosystem clearly raises ethical issues if the action could cause harm to others.
maybe velociraptors will fart rainbows and happiness and single handedly end global warming.
maybe we only would rez a couple of them and stick them in a zoo
maybe we will make raptor farms and add them to KFC menu, never putting them in the wild
maybe we will genetically engineer raptors to be fluffy and keep them as pets.
there is a lot of these issues to get straight before we consider the ethics of it.
19 Apr 13
let me offer an example to ilustrate my stance better, because i believe we are arguing semantics here.
building something is not ethical or unethical in itself. one needs a building, one builds it. now, what if that building is flawed? surely it is unethical to build a crumbling dump, that would kill its inhabitants. however, we would still have to go to an arhitect or engineer, and he/she will give that verdict. only after someone qualified labels an object as flawed because X might happen that we can begin to question whether it is ethical to go ahead with the project because nobody wants X to happen.
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou said "if you resurrect enough extinct animals to make an impact and then release them into the wild, it is a matter of ecology, and still not a matter of ethics." Weighing the harm that the act of releasing them into the wild could do against its possible benefits, and then deciding whether or not to do it, is a matter of ethics.
but we do not know that. the species is extinct. we have no idea what impact it would have. and we have not yet decided what exactly we will do with the animals once we get them.
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFSometimes once the genie is out of the bottle replacing it isn't so easy.
You said "if you resurrect enough extinct animals to make an impact and then release them into the wild, it is a matter of ecology, and still not a matter of ethics." Weighing the harm that the act of releasing them into the wild could do against its possible benefits, and then deciding whether or not to do it, is a matter of ethics.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFafter the experts in opening bottles decide what has been spilled and how it affects the the system. you can't decide the spilling of the bottle is ethical or not unless you understand what the spilling does.
As far as I can make out what Zahlanzi is saying, he seems to think the ethical discussion occurs AFTER the bottle has been opened.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhether or not to introduce a potentially destructive species into an ecosystem is the subject of the ethical discussion. Of course it relies on ecological knowledge. It will also rely on knowledge of the local economy, livelihoods, resource usage etc. The idea that the ethical discussion happens AFTER the species has been released into an ecosystem or that it only concerns things like whether to use the species to make "hamburgers" seems to me to be unconvincing, to put it politely.
after the experts in opening bottles decide what has been spilled and how it affects the the system. you can't decide the spilling of the bottle is ethical or not unless you understand what the spilling does.