Interfering with Natural Selection
This charming story about Jessica the Hippo is a bit disturbing. Jessica was saved from death by human intervention--we are the only species that do this constantly for species other than our own. And the game warden's saving her life at the age of one day, represents our unique capacity to empathize with all life. (Yes, I have heard the occasional story about humans being saved by dolphins from sharks.) Not only did this interfere with the usual workings of natural selection, but rather than returning to the wild, she has been substantially domesticated. Indeed, she is now a pet.
Animal behavior can be profoundly impacted by their contacts with us--as Jessica demonstrates. This shows us our raw power to surmount nature--another unique attribute of human beings that make us so exceptional.
But with that power come solemn responsibilities. I am not sure that domesticating wild animals like hippos fulfills that responsibility properly. Jessica is happy, sure. But we have interfered with nature in a profound fashion. And we have changed her in ways that could affect her progeny.
Is this right? What say you?
Labels: Human Exceptionalism. Interfering with Natural Selection.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:41 PM
15 Comments
15 Comments:
Yep, interfered with nature.
And I'm cool with that. *grin*
I'm certainly cool with interfering with natural selection--as in saving wounded seals. Why those who deny human exceptionalism and embrace a crass materialistic view of life would support such charity, I don't know.
Well, if you think that you're no better than the steak on your plate, I don't think much of your rationality anyways. ;^)
(This charming story about Jessica the Hippo is a bit disturbing. Jessica was saved from death by human intervention--we are the only species that do this constantly for species other than our own.)
No we aren't. Dogs and cats will often defend the human members of their family,
"But with that power comes solemn responsibilities. I am not sure that domesticating wild animals like hippos fulfills that responsibility properly. Jessica is happy, sure. But we have interfered with nature in a profound fashion. And we have changed her in ways that could affect her progeny."
This has been going on for 10,000s years. Look to the domestication of dogs, farm animals, and crops. We've profoundly altered nature, in fact, I think it's the nature of humans to tinker with the world around him. If that's immoral, then human existence is immoral.
Tony-- I know my folks' house cat thinks she's human, to the extent that she hates cats.
Also, dad's dogs know him as the pack leader.
Crassly, humans exploit animal instincts. Less meanly said, people treat animals as pack members, and that can result in the animals doing similar.
Royale: I didn't say it was immoral. I said that domesticating a hippo was probably not the proper exercise of our responsibility or our capacity to change nature. Exercising wisdom is also a unique function of human exceptionalism.
Tony Jones: Do you read the posts? Your comment omits my comment about how close interactions with humans changes animal behavior--which is what has happened with cats, and our human intelligently designed friends, the dogs. Moreover, it proves my point by definition. Cats and dogs defend MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES. This isn't the same thing as empathizing with other species, since the cat or dog perceives the human to be one of its own.
"I said that domesticating a hippo was probably not the proper exercise of our responsibility or our capacity to change nature. Exercising wisdom is also a unique function of human exceptionalism."
If it can be done safely (i.e., domesticated hippos aren't trampling crops by accident), then I don't see a problem with it.
Just because there's not a lot against it isn't an argument *for* it, Royale.
What about dolphins in the wild? They often help humans despite being of a different species.
Tony: Once again you are not reading the post carefully. I mentioned that.
Sorry about that. Anyway, I think that intelligence begets selflessness, athough altruistic genes tend to get passed down more often. Here's a video about it and game theory - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzeCn02l_Rw
These type of questions crop up in my conversations with naturalists all the time. A strict interpretation of naturalist beliefs seems to work against the type of meddling that we do in ecosystems both for altruistic and experimental reasons. We guard endangered rhinos from poachers with the threat of extreme violence (machine guns). We reintroduce wolves into Yellowstone to thin the elk herds naturally. (Presumably human hunting of the elk and human destruction of wolf packs are unnatural) We adopt animals and raise them at extraordinary financial costs. At what point does this behavior cease to be rational? Do we support killing people to protect rhinos and gorillas? Does it make sense to exhaust hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean seals covered in spilt oil in Alaska? Our extraordianry capacity to care about animals draws us into unusual areas of thought.
Yes, of course it's interference. And we do not know enough to interfere in a way that conforms to natural selection processes. On the contrary, I'm guessing we often do the reverse.
My current worry is that 'cute' species like Pandas (& Hippos) come first; where on earth does 'cute' figure in the scheme of things?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home