E-Bay bans all ivory sales! - Page 2

A. G. Maisey · 24th October 2008, 04:06 AM

Fearn, from my perspective, we are not debating.

We are discussing.

I am not attempting to change your point of view, nor anybody else's point of view, I am merely putting forward my own. Debate involves the idea of "winning" and "losing". I am here to do neither.

Insofar as your point of view is concerned, I say again:- we are not in disagreement, it is just that your perspective is limited , perhaps by the nature of your area of speciality.

As a professional in the field of conservation, you would be aware of the figures on forest loss better than most. You would also be aware of the vital role played by the world's forests in maintenance of our world as we know it.

I think that probably everybody except that hermit who has been meditating in a cave in the Himalayas for the last 50 years is now aware that our world is going through a period of change. What name or nature we give to that change still seems to be a matter for some disagreement, however, the one thing that nobody can disagree about is the role of forests, and the the rate of reduction of those forests.

It is simple logic that a species cannot change its environment, and continue to live in that environment in the same way that it has lived in it in the past. Equally, no species can continue to grow in numbers when the place where it lives is limited.

I agree that the human race is not doomed. Of course the race will survive, but it will not survive in the numbers or form that it now has.

I have already said that I think in macro terms. I also think in abstract and philosophical terms.

Throw your mind forward 3000 years.

And in terms of the life of the planet, 3000 years is nothing.

I'm going to leave this discussion here, not simply because it can only become even more depressing from this point forward, but also because I have some commitments to keep that will remove me from my computer for a few days.

Remember:- we are not in disagreement.

VANDOO · 24th October 2008, 06:49 AM

I AM FOR CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES ANIMAL SPECIES BEING ONE OF THEM. THE ECO SYSTEMS WERE SET UP BY A POWER MUCH GREATER THAN MANKIND AND WE ARE A PART OF IT. BUT LIKE THE ELEPHANT WE AS A SPECIES ARE UNDER THE SAME NATURAL LAWS.
TOO MANY ELEPHANTS FOR THEIR RANGE ? IF THEY ARE NOT THINNED OUT THE ENVIRONMENT WILL BE DEPLEATED TOTALLY AND ALL ELEPHANTS THERE WILL DIE. THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY DONE IS A HERD OF ELEPHANTS THAT IS CLOSE TO THE SIZE CONSIDERED TO BE TOO MANY FOR THE AREA TO SUPPORT IS FOUND. IF THERE IS NO PLACE TO MOVE THEM, THEY ARE ALL KILLED AND THE IVORY BURNED. MANY TONS OF IVORY HAS BEEN BURNED SINCE THE BANS"VERY WASTFUL" IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD AND USED TO TAKE CARE OF THE REMAINING ELEPHANTS AND PERHAPS BUY MORE LAND.
ONE LAW WE AS A SPECIES CAN NEVER CONTROL IS (MORE OF US LESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE.)
THE MASTODON, MAMMOTH, GIANT SLOTH AND HORSE ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE BECOME EXTINCT IN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA LARGELY DUE TO THE LARGE NUMBERS OF HUMAN HUNTERS. EVIDENTLY SOME SPECIES WERE MORE PREFERRED OR EASY TO HUNT BY EARLY MAN. PERHAPS THEY WERE SINGLED OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE LARGE AND FEARSOM OR BECAUSE ONE WOULD FEED THE ENTIRE VILLAGE OR THEY MADE BETTER STEAKS AND FUR COATS

FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WERE HEAVILY HUNTED HERE AND COULD NOT WITHSTAND THE VARIOUS PRESSURES SO BECAME EXTINCT. EVIDENTLY THE IDEA OF DOMESTICATING ANIMALS DIDN'T CATCH ON IN THE AMERICAS AS WELL. WE HAD THE DOMESTICATED DOG AND I THINK JUNGLE FOWL WERE KEPT IN SOUTH AMERICA. HORSES WERE JUST TOO TASTY TO DOMESTICATE I GUESS

WE HAD TO SEND OUT TO SPAIN TO BRING US SOME MORE.

GAME MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE DONE IN A CAREFUL, LOGICAL, AND EFFECIENT WAY ANY RESOURSES SHOULD BE USED AND PUT BACK INTO THE OPERATION NOT WASTED. EMOTION SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE MAIN PLAN JUST STUDY THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ANIMALS THERE AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO KEEP THE SYSTEM WORKING AND ALL PARTS OF IT SHOULD PROSPER.
THE BAN IS A TOOL THAT SOMETIMES WORKS AND HELPS AND SOMETIMES DOES NOT. IF SOMETHING IS WASTEFUL OR IS NOT WORKING IT SHOULD BE REORGANIZED AND FIXED NOT JUST PUT A BAN BECAUSE IT IS EASY AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY. MY MAJOR WAS MARINE ZOOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY SO I UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK BUT THE SHOTGUN APPROCH TO ECOLOGY DOSEN'T WORK VERY WELL IN MANY INSTANCES. THE UNEDUCATED, EMOTIONAL, AND UNREALISTIC IDEAS OFTEN FORCE THRU BAD POLICYS THAT WORK POORLY.
FOR EXAMPLE
SOME PERSON OR GROUP WHO LOVES PANDAS BECAUSE THEY ARE CUTE AND CUDDELY LOOKING IS NOT THE ONES TO PUT IN CHARGE OF THE PANDA OR OF MAKEING UP THE RULES. SOMEONE WHO HAS STUDIED AND LIVED AROUND THE PANDA AND KNOWS HOW IT LIVES AND WHAT IT NEEDS IS THE PERSON TO MAKE THE RULES AND WATCH OVER THEM. I THINK THE CHINESE ARE FOLLOWING THE SECOND AND MOST LOGICAL CHOICE AS FAR AS THE PANDA GOES SO THEY ARE HAVEING SUCCESS PERSERVING PANDAS AND MAKEING MONEY DOING IT.
BUT IT WILL STILL COME DOWN TO (MORE OF US LESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE) WHEN MAN NEEDS THE LAND OR RESOURCE WHATEVER IS THERE MUST GO .
MOTHER NATURE IS WORKING ON THINNING US OUT WITH GERMS, VIRIUS AND OUR BAD INSTINTS THAT KEEP US HATEING THE OTHER GUY AND GOING TO WAR AND DESIGNING BETTER WAYS TO EXTERMINATE EACH OTHER. SO EVENTUALLY A BALANCE WILL BE REACHED DESPITE OF OR BECAUSE OF OUR TECKNOLOGY.

BANNING IVORY ON EBAY NO BIG DEAL
CONFICATEING A 100 TO 200 YEAR OLD IVORY MASTERPIECE AND BURNING IT SACRILEGE.!!

fernando · 24th October 2008, 01:23 PM

It's interesting to notice that there are points of view ... and points of blindness

And the worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see

.

Fernando
Ph.D. in empiricism

fearn · 24th October 2008, 04:50 PM

Either way, Alan and all. I don't call your view blind or short sighted, but I'll go back to the car analogy. In the long run, there will always be cars (I'm being facetious here, but we're in metaphor land, where ecosystems look a lot like cars). Therefore, the long-termer doesn't worry so much about his car. That's fine. Someone who lives day to day, and has to have a car to get to work, that person worries about their car.

I'm like a mechanic. I'll say "change the oil, get a tune-up, drive carefully, and your car will last longer." And if the car breaks down, I won't focus on fixing or replacing the car (too expensive!), but rather I'll focus on finding the part that's broken and replacing that. That's the cheap way of getting the car working again, and that's what we want.

Inevitably, the long-termers call me shortsighted, because I happen to care about keeping cars working, and that means knowing about the parts and how they interact. That's fine. They don't have to worry about the details, since there will always be cars of some sort.

I would point out that the people for whom cars will always be around are those who take the worst care of them. Wealth has its privileges. People whose livelihood depends on their cars usually learn the hard way that they have to take care of their cars, and so they do so.

This also applies to ecosystems. One reason traditional peoples often (not always!) had sustainable livelihoods was that their choices were stark: be sustainable or starve (and usually, they got to watch their kids starve before they died). Personally, I keep hoping we'll learn to be sustainable before we start starving, but I don't hold out much hope on the matter. Still, ehough people will learn to be sustainable that I'm quite sure our species will survive. Our culture probably won't, but hey, there will always be cultures, right?

Getting back to ecosystems...

Anyway, elephants do have a massive effect on the forests and savannas they live in, and if they disappear, habitat for a number of other species will also disappear. That's why they are valuable. Alan's patagonian cockroach (thanks for the lovely image!) probably has much less impact on other species, and thus it is metaphorically more like a cupholder in the car of life.

F

Atlantia · 24th October 2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANDOO

I AM FOR CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES ANIMAL SPECIES BEING ONE OF THEM. THE ECO SYSTEMS WERE SET UP BY A POWER MUCH GREATER THAN MANKIND AND WE ARE A PART OF IT. BUT LIKE THE ELEPHANT WE AS A SPECIES ARE UNDER THE SAME NATURAL LAWS.
TOO MANY ELEPHANTS FOR THEIR RANGE ? IF THEY ARE NOT THINNED OUT THE ENVIRONMENT WILL BE DEPLEATED TOTALLY AND ALL ELEPHANTS THERE WILL DIE. THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY DONE IS A HERD OF ELEPHANTS THAT IS CLOSE TO THE SIZE CONSIDERED TO BE TOO MANY FOR THE AREA TO SUPPORT IS FOUND. IF THERE IS NO PLACE TO MOVE THEM, THEY ARE ALL KILLED AND THE IVORY BURNED. MANY TONS OF IVORY HAS BEEN BURNED SINCE THE BANS"VERY WASTFUL" IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD AND USED TO TAKE CARE OF THE REMAINING ELEPHANTS AND PERHAPS BUY MORE LAND.
ONE LAW WE AS A SPECIES CAN NEVER CONTROL IS (MORE OF US LESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE.)
THE MASTODON, MAMMOTH, GIANT SLOTH AND HORSE ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE BECOME EXTINCT IN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA LARGELY DUE TO THE LARGE NUMBERS OF HUMAN HUNTERS. EVIDENTLY SOME SPECIES WERE MORE PREFERRED OR EASY TO HUNT BY EARLY MAN. PERHAPS THEY WERE SINGLED OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE LARGE AND FEARSOM OR BECAUSE ONE WOULD FEED THE ENTIRE VILLAGE OR THEY MADE BETTER STEAKS AND FUR COATS

FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WERE HEAVILY HUNTED HERE AND COULD NOT WITHSTAND THE VARIOUS PRESSURES SO BECAME EXTINCT. EVIDENTLY THE IDEA OF DOMESTICATING ANIMALS DIDN'T CATCH ON IN THE AMERICAS AS WELL. WE HAD THE DOMESTICATED DOG AND I THINK JUNGLE FOWL WERE KEPT IN SOUTH AMERICA. HORSES WERE JUST TOO TASTY TO DOMESTICATE I GUESS

WE HAD TO SEND OUT TO SPAIN TO BRING US SOME MORE.

GAME MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE DONE IN A CAREFUL, LOGICAL, AND EFFECIENT WAY ANY RESOURSES SHOULD BE USED AND PUT BACK INTO THE OPERATION NOT WASTED. EMOTION SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE MAIN PLAN JUST STUDY THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ANIMALS THERE AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO KEEP THE SYSTEM WORKING AND ALL PARTS OF IT SHOULD PROSPER.
THE BAN IS A TOOL THAT SOMETIMES WORKS AND HELPS AND SOMETIMES DOES NOT. IF SOMETHING IS WASTEFUL OR IS NOT WORKING IT SHOULD BE REORGANIZED AND FIXED NOT JUST PUT A BAN BECAUSE IT IS EASY AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY. MY MAJOR WAS MARINE ZOOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY SO I UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK BUT THE SHOTGUN APPROCH TO ECOLOGY DOSEN'T WORK VERY WELL IN MANY INSTANCES. THE UNEDUCATED, EMOTIONAL, AND UNREALISTIC IDEAS OFTEN FORCE THRU BAD POLICYS THAT WORK POORLY.
FOR EXAMPLE
SOME PERSON OR GROUP WHO LOVES PANDAS BECAUSE THEY ARE CUTE AND CUDDELY LOOKING IS NOT THE ONES TO PUT IN CHARGE OF THE PANDA OR OF MAKEING UP THE RULES. SOMEONE WHO HAS STUDIED AND LIVED AROUND THE PANDA AND KNOWS HOW IT LIVES AND WHAT IT NEEDS IS THE PERSON TO MAKE THE RULES AND WATCH OVER THEM. I THINK THE CHINESE ARE FOLLOWING THE SECOND AND MOST LOGICAL CHOICE AS FAR AS THE PANDA GOES SO THEY ARE HAVEING SUCCESS PERSERVING PANDAS AND MAKEING MONEY DOING IT.
BUT IT WILL STILL COME DOWN TO (MORE OF US LESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE) WHEN MAN NEEDS THE LAND OR RESOURCE WHATEVER IS THERE MUST GO .
MOTHER NATURE IS WORKING ON THINNING US OUT WITH GERMS, VIRIUS AND OUR BAD INSTINTS THAT KEEP US HATEING THE OTHER GUY AND GOING TO WAR AND DESIGNING BETTER WAYS TO EXTERMINATE EACH OTHER. SO EVENTUALLY A BALANCE WILL BE REACHED DESPITE OF OR BECAUSE OF OUR TECKNOLOGY.

BANNING IVORY ON EBAY NO BIG DEAL
CONFICATEING A 100 TO 200 YEAR OLD IVORY MASTERPIECE AND BURNING IT SACRILEGE.!!

Hi Vandoo,

Just wanted to speak 'briefly' about the deliberate destruction of illegal ivory.

It is certainly breathtakingly sad to see a pile of tusks going up in flames.
For many reasons.
From the POV of someone who has marvelled at antique carved ivory since childhood I can see the destruction in terms of potential lost art.

But this ivory is different. No matter what use it was ever put to, it would always carry the stain of being taken in what should be a more enlightened time, against all reason from a species of beautiful and intelligent creatures barely able to absorb the loss of the individuals it represents.

The problem with stopping this trade is of course demand.
I believe there have been instances where illegally poached Ivory was sold on by the authorities concerned and the proceeds ploughed back into conservation. But the problem is still the demand, and legally or illegally sold ivory may well still end up in the same places feeding the same demand, and therefore encouraging more poaching leading to the unimaginable horror of the loss in the wild of these incredible creatures.
The choice to destroy or resell to fund better protection (in often very poor nations) must be an agonising one for those involved. Remember the Tiger pelts a couple of years back?

My personal view is that as hopefully somewhat enlightened people we understand better now than did past generations the issues involved in owning an item made from one of our fellow creatures, and where ever we personally choose to 'draw the line' we must do so weighing up all the issues involved.
For me, there can be no justification for modern Ivory, therefore I would personally not want to own any, and I sincerely hope that there will come a time when people marvel at antique pieces and say 'wow I cant believe they made that out of an elephants tusk'.
I realise that is still (even after all these years) a pipe dream. But I think that if we could stop the trade for long enough that those potential 'consumers' have never known Ivory in any other context than antique curios, they might not see it as a desirable 'commodity' for its own sake.
Rather like other formerly widespread items made from endangered species, which now would be unacceptable to consumers.
I can only imagine the look on my Gal's face if I bought her a fine perfume and then told her after she'd put some on that it was made using 'ambergris' from Sperm Whales! (I know thats a daft example but its the first that sprang to mind)
Changing attitudes is certainly not easy or quick.
And of course the biggest problem (Affecting us as antiques collectors) is the fake antiques trade.
Certainly whether they realise the deception or not, all the while there are western collectors buying 'genuine antique Ivory' items made in China, then there will be a demand for black-market ivory to supply the carvers making a living off of it.
Hopefully if this ban is enforced, they can go back to carving 3000 year old Jade daggers! ;-)

My main worry is that ebay are not going to effectively enforce it.

Regards
Gene

Rick · 5th January 2009, 05:30 PM

I thought I'd add this article from Slate .
http://green.msn.com/Home/eBay-Ivory...ion/?gt1=45002

Just for fun ........

fearn · 5th January 2009, 06:11 PM

Hi Rick,

While I agree that the transparent sale of ivory might help save elephants as a species, I think there's another big problem, amply covered in An elephant crackup?, an article from a couple of years ago in the New York Times. Basically, it's about the problems elephants are causing for humans in Africa (like, for instance, raiding their farms and killing them), and how these problems are growing.

Why are they growing? In part it's about population pressure, but it's also about the nature of elephants. See, they're smart and long-lived, and because of they're smart and long-lived, they have a culture. They survive because the elder elephants know where the water is, where the food is, what the threats are, and so on, and pass them on to the younger elephants. Elephant culture is also strongly gender divided. There are matriarchal herds of females and younger offspring, and there are bands of males, and the two largely come together to mate.

The problem with the ivory trade is that it targets the bigger, older males with the biggest tusks. The old bulls are the carriers of male society, and what ivory poaching leaves behind is a group of leaderless, young bulls.

Ditto, unfortunately, with culling, which is more interested in killing a set number of elephants than with keeping elephant social structures intact.

You might want to consider how much this sounds like the problems of ghettos and war zones, where angry young men are growing up without a strong, peaceful, male role models. Heck, just imagine what would happen to this site if someone started killing our old bulls to get the gold fillings out of their teeth, and discarding their collections and libraries in the process.

Anyway, that's the problem with both poaching and culling--it promotes social fragmentation in elephant herds. While I can't say for sure that vengeance or PTSD are things elephants deal with, I am quite sure that elephants who don't know better will raid crops, will kill people, and will be much more of a problem than were previous generations who were taught by other elephants how to deal with people.

So what do we do? I don't have an easy answer, but I do know that it's complicated, and neither poaching nor indiscriminate culling are the answer, whatever E-Bay does.

Best,

F

24th October 2008, 01:23 PM	#33
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	different viewpoints It's interesting to notice that there are points of view ... and points of blindness And the worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see . Fernando Ph.D. in empiricism

24th October 2008, 04:06 AM	#31
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,859	Fearn, from my perspective, we are not debating. We are discussing. I am not attempting to change your point of view, nor anybody else's point of view, I am merely putting forward my own. Debate involves the idea of "winning" and "losing". I am here to do neither. Insofar as your point of view is concerned, I say again:- we are not in disagreement, it is just that your perspective is limited , perhaps by the nature of your area of speciality. As a professional in the field of conservation, you would be aware of the figures on forest loss better than most. You would also be aware of the vital role played by the world's forests in maintenance of our world as we know it. I think that probably everybody except that hermit who has been meditating in a cave in the Himalayas for the last 50 years is now aware that our world is going through a period of change. What name or nature we give to that change still seems to be a matter for some disagreement, however, the one thing that nobody can disagree about is the role of forests, and the the rate of reduction of those forests. It is simple logic that a species cannot change its environment, and continue to live in that environment in the same way that it has lived in it in the past. Equally, no species can continue to grow in numbers when the place where it lives is limited. I agree that the human race is not doomed. Of course the race will survive, but it will not survive in the numbers or form that it now has. I have already said that I think in macro terms. I also think in abstract and philosophical terms. Throw your mind forward 3000 years. And in terms of the life of the planet, 3000 years is nothing. I'm going to leave this discussion here, not simply because it can only become even more depressing from this point forward, but also because I have some commitments to keep that will remove me from my computer for a few days. Remember:- we are not in disagreement.

24th October 2008, 06:49 AM	#32
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	I AM FOR CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES ANIMAL SPECIES BEING ONE OF THEM. THE ECO SYSTEMS WERE SET UP BY A POWER MUCH GREATER THAN MANKIND AND WE ARE A PART OF IT. BUT LIKE THE ELEPHANT WE AS A SPECIES ARE UNDER THE SAME NATURAL LAWS. TOO MANY ELEPHANTS FOR THEIR RANGE ? IF THEY ARE NOT THINNED OUT THE ENVIRONMENT WILL BE DEPLEATED TOTALLY AND ALL ELEPHANTS THERE WILL DIE. THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY DONE IS A HERD OF ELEPHANTS THAT IS CLOSE TO THE SIZE CONSIDERED TO BE TOO MANY FOR THE AREA TO SUPPORT IS FOUND. IF THERE IS NO PLACE TO MOVE THEM, THEY ARE ALL KILLED AND THE IVORY BURNED. MANY TONS OF IVORY HAS BEEN BURNED SINCE THE BANS"VERY WASTFUL" IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD AND USED TO TAKE CARE OF THE REMAINING ELEPHANTS AND PERHAPS BUY MORE LAND. ONE LAW WE AS A SPECIES CAN NEVER CONTROL IS (MORE OF US LESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE.) THE MASTODON, MAMMOTH, GIANT SLOTH AND HORSE ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE BECOME EXTINCT IN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA LARGELY DUE TO THE LARGE NUMBERS OF HUMAN HUNTERS. EVIDENTLY SOME SPECIES WERE MORE PREFERRED OR EASY TO HUNT BY EARLY MAN. PERHAPS THEY WERE SINGLED OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE LARGE AND FEARSOM OR BECAUSE ONE WOULD FEED THE ENTIRE VILLAGE OR THEY MADE BETTER STEAKS AND FUR COATS FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WERE HEAVILY HUNTED HERE AND COULD NOT WITHSTAND THE VARIOUS PRESSURES SO BECAME EXTINCT. EVIDENTLY THE IDEA OF DOMESTICATING ANIMALS DIDN'T CATCH ON IN THE AMERICAS AS WELL. WE HAD THE DOMESTICATED DOG AND I THINK JUNGLE FOWL WERE KEPT IN SOUTH AMERICA. HORSES WERE JUST TOO TASTY TO DOMESTICATE I GUESS WE HAD TO SEND OUT TO SPAIN TO BRING US SOME MORE. GAME MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE DONE IN A CAREFUL, LOGICAL, AND EFFECIENT WAY ANY RESOURSES SHOULD BE USED AND PUT BACK INTO THE OPERATION NOT WASTED. EMOTION SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE MAIN PLAN JUST STUDY THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ANIMALS THERE AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO KEEP THE SYSTEM WORKING AND ALL PARTS OF IT SHOULD PROSPER. THE BAN IS A TOOL THAT SOMETIMES WORKS AND HELPS AND SOMETIMES DOES NOT. IF SOMETHING IS WASTEFUL OR IS NOT WORKING IT SHOULD BE REORGANIZED AND FIXED NOT JUST PUT A BAN BECAUSE IT IS EASY AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY. MY MAJOR WAS MARINE ZOOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY SO I UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK BUT THE SHOTGUN APPROCH TO ECOLOGY DOSEN'T WORK VERY WELL IN MANY INSTANCES. THE UNEDUCATED, EMOTIONAL, AND UNREALISTIC IDEAS OFTEN FORCE THRU BAD POLICYS THAT WORK POORLY. FOR EXAMPLE SOME PERSON OR GROUP WHO LOVES PANDAS BECAUSE THEY ARE CUTE AND CUDDELY LOOKING IS NOT THE ONES TO PUT IN CHARGE OF THE PANDA OR OF MAKEING UP THE RULES. SOMEONE WHO HAS STUDIED AND LIVED AROUND THE PANDA AND KNOWS HOW IT LIVES AND WHAT IT NEEDS IS THE PERSON TO MAKE THE RULES AND WATCH OVER THEM. I THINK THE CHINESE ARE FOLLOWING THE SECOND AND MOST LOGICAL CHOICE AS FAR AS THE PANDA GOES SO THEY ARE HAVEING SUCCESS PERSERVING PANDAS AND MAKEING MONEY DOING IT. BUT IT WILL STILL COME DOWN TO (MORE OF US LESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE) WHEN MAN NEEDS THE LAND OR RESOURCE WHATEVER IS THERE MUST GO . MOTHER NATURE IS WORKING ON THINNING US OUT WITH GERMS, VIRIUS AND OUR BAD INSTINTS THAT KEEP US HATEING THE OTHER GUY AND GOING TO WAR AND DESIGNING BETTER WAYS TO EXTERMINATE EACH OTHER. SO EVENTUALLY A BALANCE WILL BE REACHED DESPITE OF OR BECAUSE OF OUR TECKNOLOGY. BANNING IVORY ON EBAY NO BIG DEAL CONFICATEING A 100 TO 200 YEAR OLD IVORY MASTERPIECE AND BURNING IT SACRILEGE.!!

24th October 2008, 04:50 PM	#34
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Either way, Alan and all. I don't call your view blind or short sighted, but I'll go back to the car analogy. In the long run, there will always be cars (I'm being facetious here, but we're in metaphor land, where ecosystems look a lot like cars). Therefore, the long-termer doesn't worry so much about his car. That's fine. Someone who lives day to day, and has to have a car to get to work, that person worries about their car. I'm like a mechanic. I'll say "change the oil, get a tune-up, drive carefully, and your car will last longer." And if the car breaks down, I won't focus on fixing or replacing the car (too expensive!), but rather I'll focus on finding the part that's broken and replacing that. That's the cheap way of getting the car working again, and that's what we want. Inevitably, the long-termers call me shortsighted, because I happen to care about keeping cars working, and that means knowing about the parts and how they interact. That's fine. They don't have to worry about the details, since there will always be cars of some sort. I would point out that the people for whom cars will always be around are those who take the worst care of them. Wealth has its privileges. People whose livelihood depends on their cars usually learn the hard way that they have to take care of their cars, and so they do so. This also applies to ecosystems. One reason traditional peoples often (not always!) had sustainable livelihoods was that their choices were stark: be sustainable or starve (and usually, they got to watch their kids starve before they died). Personally, I keep hoping we'll learn to be sustainable before we start starving, but I don't hold out much hope on the matter. Still, ehough people will learn to be sustainable that I'm quite sure our species will survive. Our culture probably won't, but hey, there will always be cultures, right? Getting back to ecosystems... Anyway, elephants do have a massive effect on the forests and savannas they live in, and if they disappear, habitat for a number of other species will also disappear. That's why they are valuable. Alan's patagonian cockroach (thanks for the lovely image!) probably has much less impact on other species, and thus it is metaphorically more like a cupholder in the car of life. F

5th January 2009, 05:30 PM	#36
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,288	I thought I'd add this article from Slate . http://green.msn.com/Home/eBay-Ivory...ion/?gt1=45002 Just for fun ........

5th January 2009, 06:11 PM	#37
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Rick, While I agree that the transparent sale of ivory might help save elephants as a species, I think there's another big problem, amply covered in An elephant crackup?, an article from a couple of years ago in the New York Times. Basically, it's about the problems elephants are causing for humans in Africa (like, for instance, raiding their farms and killing them), and how these problems are growing. Why are they growing? In part it's about population pressure, but it's also about the nature of elephants. See, they're smart and long-lived, and because of they're smart and long-lived, they have a culture. They survive because the elder elephants know where the water is, where the food is, what the threats are, and so on, and pass them on to the younger elephants. Elephant culture is also strongly gender divided. There are matriarchal herds of females and younger offspring, and there are bands of males, and the two largely come together to mate. The problem with the ivory trade is that it targets the bigger, older males with the biggest tusks. The old bulls are the carriers of male society, and what ivory poaching leaves behind is a group of leaderless, young bulls. Ditto, unfortunately, with culling, which is more interested in killing a set number of elephants than with keeping elephant social structures intact. You might want to consider how much this sounds like the problems of ghettos and war zones, where angry young men are growing up without a strong, peaceful, male role models. Heck, just imagine what would happen to this site if someone started killing our old bulls to get the gold fillings out of their teeth, and discarding their collections and libraries in the process. Anyway, that's the problem with both poaching and culling--it promotes social fragmentation in elephant herds. While I can't say for sure that vengeance or PTSD are things elephants deal with, I am quite sure that elephants who don't know better will raid crops, will kill people, and will be much more of a problem than were previous generations who were taught by other elephants how to deal with people. So what do we do? I don't have an easy answer, but I do know that it's complicated, and neither poaching nor indiscriminate culling are the answer, whatever E-Bay does. Best, F