[igravious]

Sharks kill humans annually. So do big cats. And snakes. What are we going to do? Shoot all these on sight? Predate to extinction (and not even for their nutritional value) those species that harm us in even the slightest way? I oppose that. No thanks. That's not the type of world I want to live in. I want to co-exist with these amazing creatures, not drive them to extinction, or only have them alive in captivity.

[jmnicolas]

This kind of reasoning is fine until YOUR child get killed ...

[dalke]

Did you really just argue that if a snake were to kill your child, you would want the species eradicated?

If an automobile driver were the cause of death instead, would you demand the removal of all automobile drivers? Or all automobiles?

If your child were to drown, would you demand the removal of all swimming pools?

[jmnicolas]

Oh common stop putting words in my mouth ...

When a specie is invasive and dangerous you thin it by removing the ones that are too close to human habitat, that's it.

[dalke]

Your response was to the statement by igravious, which highlighted "Sharks", "big cats", and "snakes".

Two of those are not invasive species at all. Of the third, only a few species of snakes are invasive. You'll also notice that sharks have not gotten closer to human habitation in any significant way.

So your response is almost irrelevant to what igravious was talking about.

I assumed it was relevant, and the only way I could figure out how to assume you mean that human (and more specifically child) safety gets priority over everything else.

If someone wants to live in or move to a place with big cats, then your view is that they should kill (or "thin") the species, yes? Eventually this means the extinction of all potentially dangerous creatures, does it not?

[jmnicolas]

Do you see even what you do ? Your way of framing this argument can only lead to a fight.

Of course you have to be 2 to fight, so I'm going to be reasonable and just drop the matter. I don't NEED to be right. Have a nice day.

[PepeGomez]

Unless we're thinkíng of some apocalyptic scenario, your child is million times more likely to die in a car crash than being killed by a wolf and a hundred times more likely to be killed by your neughbor's pitbull.

[igravious]

I have a child, but think about it this way. Every creature killed was the child of some creature. You're saying it's our children versus their children, all or nothing? But they're non-human animals so tough luck to them. We can do better I believe.

What I'm asking is are we asserting that humanity has claimed the _entire_ globe as its habitat? Where do all the other species go that because of their nature run into trouble with us? Why not share a habitat with the creatures we can and make large wildlife reserves for the creatures we can't. Is this too idealistic? And if our paths do cross they need to be protected from us, not the other way around, because they don't know any better and we do.

[jmnicolas]

I'm certainly not advocating killing everything that moves and I certainly agree that there are too many humans on earth. I have no solution for that except stop making babies.

However when there are dangerous animals around humans I will certainly not blame someone for protecting his / her family, especially in the case of an invasive specie like the coywolf that is not in danger of extinction.

[igravious]

By the way, I never said that I think there are too many humans on Earth. This is a populist viewpoint, and it is not one I share. Even with current technology I believe the Earth could sustain > 10,000,000,000 humans with the caveat that humanity recognises which activities are unsustainable and alters its collective behaviour possibly through regulation if people won't voluntarily change their lifestyles.

Examples: increased urbanisation, cutting meat consumption to increase the amount of land for crops, increased shared use of transport, assuming hydrocarbons and peat-bogs are semi-scarce non-renewable resources then transition away from them as sources of energy to renewables, travel less by using telecommunication, and so on.

[chroma]

Many pathogens and parasites are amazing creatures. Do you take the same stance with those, or are you only in favor of charismatic megafauna roaming wild?

From my point of view, lions, crocodiles, wolves, etc... they're basically microencephalized sociopaths. It would be better if they never harmed any creature capable of suffering. That means either eliminating them or drastically modifying them. Granted, this is currently neither feasible nor a high priority. The world has plenty of other problems that need addressed first.

Still, I'd rather these predators not exist. The harm they inflict on other creatures far outweighs the warm fuzzies we get from seeing them on nature shows.

[haylem]

Interesting. Not wanting to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like trying to impose a vegan lifestyle (for the record: I'm vegetarian and mostly vegan now) to the animal kingdom.

I can understand part of the sentiment, but I'm a bit cautious of 1) the possibility of that happening 2) the impacts 3) the ethics.

[chroma]

That's an accurate representation of my views. Though as I said, it's pretty low on the list of things that need fixing.

One day –hopefully– humanity will have its shit together. Then the majority of suffering will be inflicted by (non-human) animals upon other animals. What do we do about that? I don't have an answer, but I'm pretty sure "let it continue" isn't it.

To bring the discussion back to the present: I think most people don't consider the morality of letting predators exist. If it was a disease or parasite that killed 10 people a year, we'd all agree on eradication. If it was a human being who killed 10 people a year, we'd all want to lock that person away until they died of old age. Nobody would make arguments like, "Your child is 1,000x more likely to be killed by a car than by a serial killer." But give the creature some fur and claws and have it roar or howl majestically... suddenly all manner of rationalizations are brought out in support.

[Swinx43]

The level of damage you will inflict on functioning eco-systems by "engineering" predators out of the equation will be truly catastrophic. What you might not realise is that by removing predators you will also have to change each and every other animal or organism that is currently alive in the world. You are talking about re-engineering almost all living creatures on our planet.

Let me explain by way of an example that is close to home for me. In my country of birth we have many areas which normally used to have free roaming wildlife including predators like lions and leopards. These areas where subsequently taken over as farm land and the big cats removed. This allowed the pray, usually antelope and other herbivores, to breed out of control causing immeasurable damage to the vegetation and if left unchecked would cause these animals to die of starvation in the end. It might sound far fetched but these ever increasing herds do cause damage to the vegetation if their numbers become too big. Given this situation farmers and conservationists either have to organise regular culls of these animals or capture and relocate them. Unfortunately there is only so many place you can relocate them to before the natural environment cannot accommodate them anymore and starvation due to destroyed vegetation sets in.

Predators in these natural eco-systems serve a very necessary function.

I am not talking about Human predators here so please dont confuse the above example with justifying why some human beings prey on others. Human predators need to be removed from our society. We are not animals and have the ability to reason which sets a different standard for us.

What I am trying to illustrate is the logical conclusion of your very well intended desire to reduce suffering. I applaud your desire to reduce animal suffering, of which we humans have a lot of blame for, but to extrapolate that to natural eco-systems could have disastrous effects.

[logfromblammo]

I might be on board with eradicating parasitism from the Earth ecosystem. But there's no way I would agree to eliminate non-human predation, ever.

Yes. Let it continue. It is not your place to eliminate anyone else's suffering, in humans or otherwise.

I once read "Three Worlds Collide" by E. Yudkowsky. There are alternate endings to the story, that I won't spoil. But it is a tale intended to make you think about your own ethics. It is a long hypothetical that sets up the question, "What could it mean to have an ethical imperative to eliminate suffering?"

I didn't like the endings. I think it is unethical to project your own morality onto other species.

And that's the story that made me realize that those who practice veganism because they do not wish to inflict suffering upon other species for their own benefit are perfectly reasonable people, capable of coexisting with others, whereas those who would attempt to enforce that lifestyle upon others are a threat to me. When you cross over that line between "I don't" and "you shouldn't", I become wary. When you move a bit further to "no one should", you become my enemy.

[mod]

> Then the majority of suffering will be inflicted by (non-human) animals upon other animals.

I think this is likely already the case. Most animals killed by humans are killed quickly and efficiently.

A typical kill in the wild, however, can be horrific. Especially when the predator does not dwarf the prey--coyotes killing a deer, for instance.

[PepeGomez]

That doesn't make any sense. You treat a human being as one entity and a whole animal species as one entity. Almost nobody would see any problem with killing a particular wolf that repeatedly attacks people.

Diseases that are part of erradication programs used to kill or cause lifelong disability to millions. Diseases that kill thousands could be recommended to vaccinate aginst for those at risk. There would hardly be any research into a disease that kills 10 people a year.

[haylem]

Well there's quite a lot of research going into creating anti-venoms for stuff that kill only a (relative) few per year.

For instance, see: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34513177 (which I may have come across from HN actually)

Note that they talk about 13 recorded deaths and none since the program began, but consider the effort involved.

And we do get pretty crazy about sharks and stuff when they kill less than a handful per year worldwide.

[lost_my_pwd]

Funny that you mention rationalizing; something these non-human predator can not do. They are simply doing what their instincts drive them to do: hunt and survive.

That is nowhere near the same thing as a human killer that does it for non-survival reasons; anger, entertainment, sexual excitement, etc. Even if we say that human killers are driven by instinct, as animals are, they also have the ability to reason about the motivations, impact, and eventual consequences of those actions.

[mod]

Plenty of animals hunt and/or kill not to survive, but because they enjoy it.

You should see my dog go after camel crickets, and how it plays with the dead bodies. It prefers them to tennis balls, for certain.

I wouldn't be surprised if other predators feel similarly about their prey, even if they also eat it.

[pvaldes]

"It would be better if predators where eliminated"

Wrong idea; and the campaigns against predators in journals, just because this sells newspapers, are becoming a big problem in itself.

Anybody people honestly worried by animal and human suffering should definitely welcome predators. Yes, is true that coywolves had unfortunately killed 1 women doing footing some years ago in a national park. One.

But maybe we should be worried also about people killed in car crashes or bleeding in pain before to be rescued. Maybe should be worried also for the more than 100.000 men and women suffering each year in hospitals, with brain inflamation, recurrent fever, chills, diarrhea. Or for pregnant women having miscarriages and stillbirths.

... Yes, people probably should be afraid, very afraid by the beautiful herbivores instead, responsibles of all of this.

When I think in a real microencephalized sociopath that runs blindly trying to grasp any human at sight (children, women and men), something evil and terrifying, that lurks hidden out of your house waiting patiently for your children, I think in deer ticks.

So if you think that to eliminate the predators are a good idea, think again. You will have much more deer ticks around instead (and much more human and animal suffering as consequence).

[pvaldes]

s/are a good idea/is a good idea/

[goda90]

The problem is that every creature harms something else. Every species would eat itself to starvation given the chance. Look up the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone and the diversity and balance it has allowed.

[h1940624]

It would be fairly strange if animals followed human social norms.