|
Grex > Agora41 > #142: 'Enter the water, enter the food chain.' | |
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
'Enter the water, enter the food chain.'
| 
May 2 03:36 UTC 2002 |
Folk in australia are apparently rather miffed at a 20-foot
shark that grabbed a diver it was attacking literally out
of the hands of rescuers on a boat. The shark, a territorial
animal is of a species that is 'protected' by fish and wildlife
laws as it is endangered. Some local residents want the man-eater
hunted down and killed. Others have established a legal defense
fund and hired Johnny Cochran to defend the shark.
(not really, I made that part up).
|
| 32 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 1 of 32:
|
May 2 03:46 UTC 2002 |
I forget what the statistic was, but last year when there were a lot of
shark attacks and a lot of public outcry about it, some group said
there are something like 80,000 shark deaths caused by humans for every
human death caused by sharks.
I thought, "It's great to be at the top of the food chain", and felt
pretty well satisfied by those numbers. I have nothing much against
sharks, but I prefer people.
|
senna
|
|
response 2 of 32:
|
May 2 03:49 UTC 2002 |
So do I. Sharks aren't nearly as tasty when baked.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 32:
|
May 2 05:26 UTC 2002 |
It is stupid to blame the shark. It was just going about its normal
foraging. That was a hazard, just like diving itself, that divers
should accept.
|
md
|
|
response 4 of 32:
|
May 2 11:08 UTC 2002 |
And it's even more stupid to blame a zebra that kicks a pursuing lion
in the head and kills it, or a group of humans that want to kill a
shark that's been eating them.
|
brighn
|
|
response 5 of 32:
|
May 2 15:13 UTC 2002 |
*blink* Comparing humans to zebras is a bit off. We're a lot closer to the
lion than to the zebra. A closer analogy would be to compare humans to the
hyenas that compete with the lion for the zebra.
You swim with sharks, you take your chances. I'm with Rane.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 32:
|
May 2 15:14 UTC 2002 |
I have no problem with the diver wanting to kick the shark for trying to
eat him. That's self defense. But sharks are more endangered than humans,
and humans can reason and sharks can't, so it is inhumane for humans to
gang up on a defensless shark (unless they will engage in hand-to-hand (or
tooth) combat). Humans are stripping the world of biodiversity because
some of that biodiversity inconveniences some humans. That is, of course,
human nature, but it is also a double-edged sword.
|
brighn
|
|
response 7 of 32:
|
May 2 15:25 UTC 2002 |
I"m not sure it's fair to conclude that sharks are incapable of reason. We're
the ones judging reason, we're making the tests, they're going to be biased.
;} It doesn't add anything to your point, Rane, and it makes us even more
arrogant than we really are.
Or did you just want me to disagree with you? ;}
|
md
|
|
response 8 of 32:
|
May 2 15:38 UTC 2002 |
My own feeling is, if you don't want to get eaten by a shark, go swim
someplace else. (Easy for me to say, but that's how I feel about it.)
I was just reacting to Rane's "don't blame the shark" comment, which I
thought was kind of silly. If people don't want to get eaten by a
shark, they're "blaming" it? Puh-leez. As to our intelligence tests
being biased against sharks, double puh-leez. If you guys keep this
up, how can I parody you?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 32:
|
May 2 15:51 UTC 2002 |
It's not a matter of people not wanting to get eaten - it is blaming the
shark and not the swimmer for the swimmer getting eaten. It like blaming
the car when a person gets hit wandering across a busy freeway.
|
md
|
|
response 10 of 32:
|
May 2 15:57 UTC 2002 |
Why do you always have to "blame" somebody?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 32:
|
May 2 16:08 UTC 2002 |
I don't "always". Most others do, frequently. But your question is fine -
why do THEY blame somebody or something? Part of it is our legal system,
in which someone is always to blame for loss (even with our no-blame
insurance system, where you still get blamed if your are responsible, and
your premium goes up). So, they sue the sharks.....
|
md
|
|
response 12 of 32:
|
May 2 16:12 UTC 2002 |
But "If you aren't blaming the swimmer, you must be blaming the shark,"
is basically what you were saying. It's illogical.
|
brighn
|
|
response 13 of 32:
|
May 2 16:31 UTC 2002 |
No, that's what the peopole who want to hunt down the shark and kill it are
saying, Michael. Rane's not blaming anyone, as far as I can tell. The diver
was in the water, the shark was in the water, the diver was doing what divers
do, the shark was doing what sharks do, and shit happened.
I didn't say anything about intelligence tests. I referred to the ability to
reason. That's different.
|
jep
|
|
response 14 of 32:
|
May 2 18:41 UTC 2002 |
The sharks are a product of their environment, subject to all kinds of
awful social pressures. They never had a chance. Don't blame them.
Help them. Rehabilitate them.
As far as culpability... left handers are more rare than right handers
among people; does that make them less guilty if they commit a crime?
How about albinos? People with AB- blood? Senate majority leaders?
Guys with loginids of "jep" on Unix conferencing systems? I don't
think it does, and I don't think it applies to sharks, either. Blame
has nothing to do with uniqueness.
Sharks gang up on their prey; it's their nature. Humans are not
solitary hunters, either. It's our nature to hunt in groups. And to
take risks. And to get upset when someone taking a risk gets eaten by
a shark.
Diversity... hmm. Sharks swim and eat. That's their lifestyle. They
swim. They eat. They swim more. They eat again. That's diversity?
All sharks do the same. Some people live like that (I do), but other
people do other things. There's much more diversity in humans.
Oh, you said *bio*diversity. Right, sharks come in many shapes and
sizes, and have different numbers of bones and such from other kinds of
sharks. (And *still*, they all do the same two things, and nothing
else.) Some types have been around since before the dinosaurs.
They've had their time on the planet, at least that's what I'll think
if they eat one of my kids. Move over, make room for something else.
|
oval
|
|
response 15 of 32:
|
May 2 19:14 UTC 2002 |
don't you people know that sharks are part of the EVIL AXIS, and everybody
knows the evil axii don't know how to reason either, so as part of our war
on terror we *must* KILL THE SHARK! jeez, OUR SAFETY MUST BE GUARANTEED!!
this puts us up code "taupe": IMMINENT threat
|
slynne
|
|
response 16 of 32:
|
May 2 19:33 UTC 2002 |
There are lots of reasons to perserve biodiversity. For example, what
if they were to do some research on sharks that help them come up with
a cure for cancer that would save more lives than are lost due to shark
attacks. What if all the sharks have been killed so they cant do that
kind of research.
Or what if the sharks are killing something that is even worse for
people. I dont know but it is naive to assume that simply killing off
all the big sharks in order to keep the lives of a few divers safer
will end up being the option that is most beneficial to people.
|
oval
|
|
response 17 of 32:
|
May 2 19:37 UTC 2002 |
but didn't you see Jaws?!
|
md
|
|
response 18 of 32:
|
May 2 22:52 UTC 2002 |
Rane said, "IT IS STUPID TO BLAME THE SHARK." (Emphasis mine.) But
nobody is "blaming" the shark. They just don't want to get eaten by
it, which is perfectly understandable, so they want to prevent that
from happening by killing it. Why does it always have to be a blame
game?
I really don't like the idea of killing the shark, and I would
encourage the scared swimmers to find a way that didn't involve that,
if I knew what that might be. But the area of the ocean defined as
places humans swim is miniscule, practically nonexistent in the whole
immense expanse of the sea. A few dozen *feet* off certain seashores,
is all. If a shark keeps coming back to such an area because it has
discovered humans as a source of food, I don't think it's arrogant or
ecologically incorrect to kill the shark the next time it's discovered
there. Not allowing for such things, or accusing people of "blaming"
the shark, doesn't accomplish anything except make you look foolish.
|
md
|
|
response 19 of 32:
|
May 2 22:54 UTC 2002 |
[I would also remind Rane and Paul that *I* voted the Green Party
ticket last November. Who did you shark-lovers vote for, hmm? ;-)]
|
jp2
|
|
response 20 of 32:
|
May 2 22:55 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 21 of 32:
|
May 2 22:56 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 22 of 32:
|
May 2 23:00 UTC 2002 |
[Do you think he's really that stupid, or is it just an act?]
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 32:
|
May 2 23:19 UTC 2002 |
So, why do people intentionally dip bait in the ocean in order to attract
sharks to that particular "miniscule, practically nonexistent" bit of
water? It's not like they don't know they are baiting for shark. Is that
fair? The shark's can't know that that bait is just meant to bob around in
the water and isn't for eating. How dumb can people be, to think they can
bob around in the water without being bait?
And, as if you didn't know, the term "blame" is used to assign the major
responsibility. Given the choice between saying the shark is most
responsible for eating the diver or the diver is most responsible for
baiting the shark, people most often place the "blame" upon the shark when
in fact the "blame" falls mainly on the diver, who has intelligence and
choice, unlike the shark that is acting instinctually.
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 32:
|
May 3 00:07 UTC 2002 |
Sharks are territorial animals. Just as we have to 'deal with' bears
and cougars that decide human areas are food sources and make them part
of their territory, we have to do the same with sharks. Except it's
considerably more justifiable with sharks, because unlike bears and
cougars, we aren't occupying large portions of their habitat.
|