New mammal found in Borneo

[morphius]


I'd say their time would be better well spent campaigning to preserve the habitat of this species (and others in Borneo) instead of subjecting them to suffering and distress via live trapping.

This reminded me of a scientist studying animals admitting (and feeling guilt about) that he did the most harm to animals (death comes to play here too) than anyone else by trapping and studying them then if they were to have been left alone. He had the statistics too. They keep logs!

[morphius]

So what do you folks think should be done about this?

First, one needs to know what works to not harm any animal (for the better good of the animal). Then, those rules should be implanted in scientists brains. Also, they should be monitored and punished if they don't follow such rules.

Meh! It is easy to think/know how things should be handled.... it is another story to try to make the rest to follow reality.

The goal is there, but there are many road blocks in the middle for people not to ignore.

So, we need a new world order. Well, unless you are an alpha male.

[morphius]

I'd say their time would be better well spent campaigning to preserve the habitat of this species (and others in Borneo) instead of subjecting them to suffering and distress via live trapping.

This also reminded me of a scientists studying big crocodiles (they are rare now a days) and he found one (after searching all over the world). The story broke out in the media and also among local people. The scientist knew the location of the sighting, hell, he tried to capture him (it?) too... hmm... i don’t really know why he wanted to! but he failed miserably! After the news got out, the very next day (or there after)... there was nowhere for the big crocodile to be found.

End of moral story. (true story though)

[Yarn]

AngryCitizen:

Or perhaps we should stop playing Steward of the Earth and leave them alone. Species have being dying off for billions of years. Who are we to say otherwise?

We are the dominant species on Earth and may do what we like in this matter. We are incapable of exercising the prime directive because our presence on this planet is too substantial to allow us to. This makes our right to interfere irrelevant because we cannot avoid interfering. We can either limit our impacts to inadvertent ones that will mostly cause harm to the natural environment or we can decide to simultaniously try to save that which is within the natural environment that we most cherish. Biological diversity is one of these things, especially when it comes to fellow mammals.

[Primum non nocere]

Those two goals aren't mutually exclusive, and they are in fact symbiotic. Preservation of the species enables scientific study of wild members of the species for a longer duration, and scientific study of the species makes it easier to adertise the species to the public as something worth saving.

I see no indication within the article that this group intends to "advertise the species to the public as something worth saving". In fact, the implication seems to be that they merely wish to study the mammals before they (inevitably) become extinct.

Regarding distressing the creatures by trapping them, that is a justified cost of doing research.

There is a lot that can learned about other animals in situ as well, and because they are not placed in an artificial environment it can be even more beneficial.

I cannot support placing sentient beings in a state of suffering in the context of environmental preservation unless it is absolutely necessary for their survival.

[grandpa]

I see no indication within the article that this group
intends to "advertise the species to the public as something
worth saving".
In fact, the implication seems to be that they merely
wish to study the mammals before they (inevitably) become extinct.

There is no point discussing this without looking at what the WWF said:
"The WWF says this is the heart of the issue. It accuses the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia, which each own parts of Borneo, of encouraging the loss of native jungle by allowing the development of giant palm oil plantations...But the WWF says species like the new viverrid - if new viverrid it be - are threatened by such development."

They apparently have expressed concern about the species' survival, and I doubt it's just because we don't find something "new" every week. Essay length responses aren't neceessary to find that out, really. It's right in the OP. If they cannot save the species, it wouldn't only be their fault. They're not in a position where they can be chief protection.

Grandpa h.

[Angry Citizen]

I cannot support placing sentient beings in a state of suffering in the context of environmental preservation unless it is absolutely necessary for their survival.

Why do it even then? There is no need to ensure the survival of every species in existence.

[Yarn]

Lostinlife:

I cannot support placing sentient beings in a state of suffering in the context of environmental preservation unless it is absolutely necessary for their survival.

An appropiate metaphor for how most people value other species is a song. They value the existence of the song very much, but value individual digital copies of it very little. It isn't about the individual, it is about the category. Sentient is a highly imprecise term that is frequently seen as connotating more than is placed in its technical definition, and its technical definition itself utilizes notions that are difficult or impossible to be determined with certitude.

[brendand]

It seems like humans just assume every animal is going to eventually go extinct. At the rate we are going, it's probably right. I think there are more things we can do properly to (at least) provide a healthier environment for ourselves and wildlife, but I think environmentalists can be too idealistic and under-estimate the cost of humans simply existing sometimes.

Anyway, that is very cool that they found a new mammal. I wonder how many more are out there that we haven't discovered yet...

[Yarn]

brendand:

It seems like humans just assume every animal is going to eventually go extinct. At the rate we are going, it's probably right.

That's an exaggeration. I recall reading a study that said that many biologists estimate at the rate we are going we will only wipe out 25% of Earth's macroscopic biological diversity by the end of this century. If we, as a civilization, survive that long, it is reasonable to suppose we will have gotten our act together on this matter because survival will require an increased degree of enlightenment.

[brendand]

brendand:
That's an exaggeration. I recall reading a study that said that many biologists estimate at the rate we are going we will only wipe out 25% of Earth's macroscopic biological diversity by the end of this century. If we, as a civilization, survive that long, it is reasonable to suppose we will have gotten our act together on this matter because survival will require an increased degree of enlightenment.

You're probably right that what I said was a bit exaggerated, considering that many species, also known as pests, have also been quite successful at living alongside humans.