Here's an example: I live on a lake in Florida, near Jacksonville. We have manatees, a protected animal, in the lake and the river to which it is connected, and several years ago the city increased restrictions on where boaters can drive their boats. Manatees are incredibly slow, fat, and stupid (in other words, they are a marine version of Europe's concept of the average American) and like to hang out in shallow water eating seagrass. Up until a few years ago, shallow areas were dubbed "manatee zones" and boaters had to keep their speed down so as not to wound them. Now, however, the manatee zones have increased in size. Not only does this create a narrow corridor in the lake where boats can still go fast, increasing the risk of collisions and accidents, but the dozens of new signs and buoys that mark the manatee zones are poorly-lit and dangerous at night. These are the kinds of lengths The Man is willing to go to in order to keep certain species on life support.
Now I will give you a satisfying response to these antics: ask them why it is so important to preserve the species. Sometimes there is a good reason, like the fact that this or that animal pollinates a plant that might cure cancer. But most of the time The Man's reply will boil down to one of two things: either they think it's cute or an entire miniature ecosystem will collapse if this animal dies out. When they give one of these answers, you have a choice.
If The Man gives you the former reaction, point out to them how truly useless the animal is. So far as I can tell, manatees really don't do all that much for the environment, much less for humankind (except freak out unwitting kayakers, but that's another story.) And I'm no expert, but last time I checked, pandas spend their time sitting and eating bamboo and sleeping. I know we're all concerned about China becoming overgrown with bamboo, but I'm pretty sure the Chinese government could save millions on the artificial insemination and just hire some experts to manage its growth. Either that or a few bulldozers might get the job done.
On the other hand, The Man may point out that if the three-toed sloth goes extinct, so does the unique mold that grows on its back and provides the only sustenance for a certain moth that is the only pollinator of the rarest orchid in the world. When he gives you this kind of response, use a similar strategy to the last paragraph: ask them why those other animals or plants are so important. Nine times out of ten, he will have no good answer.
Now don't get me wrong. I do not hate animals. I love them. But I hate it when The Man works to preserve an animal at great human cost. I do not endorse the clubbing of baby pandas, but it seems painfully silly to me that millions of dollars are spent on mating a species that is impotent even when given a cocktail of Viagra and Cialis. The majority of the world's population cannot afford the basic necessities of life and yet the wealth of nations is spent on getting a barren panda knocked up. If I am ever in a speed boat, I will not swerve to hit a manatee, but if I had to choose between hitting another boat or a skier and hitting a manatee, it'd be manatee every time.
Until next time,
Hunter
P.S. Also keep in mind that most of the proponents of these kinds of restrictions believe that humans and this animal both evolved from the same thing. When confronted by these nature-worshippers, ask them why we shouldn't destroy all useless species immediately since we are the most evolved and dominant species of the planet. Only some select religions have reasonable explanations for the responsibility of environmental stewardship, and Naturism is not one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment