To Save or Not to Save
James over at “Right On!” posted his opinion on a new plan called, Edge (Evolutionarily Distinct Globally Endangered), a conservation effort to save endangered species. James’s focus was on “man” and mans obsession with control and stepping in on Mother Nature by trying to preserve a “naturally?” dying out species.
There is nothing new about this. Groups and organizations have been out there for a long time to protect endangered species. As far as if it is right or wrong, who can say? Doesn’t it not equally effect nature in saving a life and in taking one? We take animals lives all the time, for survival, for food. Would it really hurt so much, to save? There is a whole lot of killing in the world, and not much saving. In this respect, I can’t complain about the act of saving a creature, a life. If the species were about to go extinct, and we saved it, therefore, not becoming extinct, and have the possibility to repopulate, is this unnatural? What is natural anymore? Does a snowflake not fall perfectly in place?
I do agree on “mans” ego though and trying to control everything. We are too big for our britches. With power comes responsibility, and the modern man has not been as responsible as it should. Our abuse of nature is outweighing our respect and care for nature. In the end, we will have destroyed ourselves due to a lack of responsibility of our power. Maybe we should take a refresher lesson from our native Indians on “resourcefulness.”
What are your thoughts?
17. January 2007 um 14:59
I’m a bit of a progressist in these matters. If it’s part of the evolution of one species to overtake the other, then that’s how it is.
Of course, we have the added element of intelligence and thus reflection. We shouldn’t mindlessly wipe out entire species and their habitats just because it’s a result of our presence. The fact that it is in our power to save whatever we can, is a part of that progression as well.
In other words: become successful and overpower the other, become even more successful and use your power to overcome your own shortcomings.
I think that means we agree.
17. January 2007 um 15:40
Welcome Nils. It’s nice to have you here. Yes, we do agree. I like how you put it. I too, am pro progress. One just has to be careful in what one decides to do will really be a move of progress, and will the positives consistently outweigh the negatives in this move. Other things to consider are, who and what will progress? Will it be a move of progress as an individual, or will it be a move of progress for mankind, or for the complete world and all its species? Obviously, in a move of personal progress, there still will be that chain reaction of everything that happens thereafter as a result of that move, and we can only hope we did our math right, and more positives come from it then negatives.
Here is a question,
Is it right for one to act on a move of self progression if it negatively impacts the “whole” resulting in regression of everything else? Also, how does one define success?
17. January 2007 um 16:03
Thank you Travis. I’ve been a long time reader actually, but I fear I’ve been lurking around somewhat. I’m happy to step from the shadows.
Your point is great: progress for whom? I believe that we should try to get results for the greatest possible part of our environment and its inhabitants.
I also agree on the aspect of how hoping we’ve done the math right is the only thing we can do. Safest would be not to act at all, but who could live with not acting? Making sure the math is right, is of the essence of course.
How to define success, though? That’s a hard one. Survival would be an obvious answer, but at what cost? Is a species that only hangs on to life, in sheltered environments for the happy few and incapable of taking care of the majority of the population, successful? Hardly. And yet that’s what is happening today, with us clinging to the relative safety of our high-tech cities, while we’re powerless against starvation, war and environmental decay…
17. January 2007 um 16:34
I’m happy you stepped out too. I agree with your answer on “progress for whom.” If one understands ones connection and participation with the “whole,” Then one would know that the surival/success(as you defined) of the “whole” is the course.
Again, Nils, I’m glad you showed yourself and decided to participate. Your contribution is priceless. I think these discussions are invaulable to understanding the way.
18. January 2007 um 08:13
I read this post yesterday. This morning while sitting this thought came to me:
Classic query: What is the sound of one hand clapping?
My response: There is no hand, there is no clapping,
there is no sound.
Query: What is the sound of one species demise?
It is the thunderous sound of one tear
crashing to the ground.
It is the tear of all form and its joy.
Form arises for a season.
Its mortification sure.
Save what can be saved. Weep for the moment.
That is what we do. Rejoice in the emptiness
of all form. Form is the illusion
that arises to make emptiness seem real.
Is there no thing?
Is there something?
Yes.
18. January 2007 um 08:49
Beautiful Ron! Thak you.
14. August 2008 um 00:18
Let\’s save endangered species and make world green