Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

#81

Post by cafebabbe »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #59
megous wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use slightly more expensive other source of the same substance? It's like killing whales for oil just to burn it instead of using olive oil, or that stuff pumped from the ground and refined, or whatever. (as was done at various points in history) Kinda annoying how many people take this issue to mean "kill sharks or humans will die" when it's just about money.

Would that make it too expensive for some? So inoculate just those that can afford it?

There isn't a way out to this mess that doesn't involve rethinking wealth redistribution.

Re: A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

#82

Post by sbuttgereit »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #59
megous wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use slightly more expensive other source of the same substance? It's like killing whales for oil just to burn it instead of using olive oil, or that stuff pumped from the ground and refined, or whatever. (as was done at various points in history) Kinda annoying how many people take this issue to mean "kill sharks or humans will die" when it's just about money.

Would that make it too expensive for some? So inoculate just those that can afford it?

Animal expoitation vs the poor... I imagine some "intellectual" will come up with a new sort intersectionalism for this... or is this just one of those externalities we keep hearing about, but of the animal rights movement instead?

Re: A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

#83

Post by jagger27 »

DeusExMachina wrote: post #60
codingdave wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stinks of agenda. Everyone has an agenda. I don't see an agenda of conservation of our ecology as one we need to resist. Especially when their conclusion at the end is not just "Save the Sharks", but a hope that we will research other possible ingredients instead of just running with the first working prototype.

Many agendas masquerade as "conservation of our ecology" when they are none of the sort and produce no results or even the opposite of what they claim. The fact that you like it is no reason to not look at what's behind it.

> look at what’s behind it

Oh yeah, this one has Big Shark written all over it.

The ones that produce no results are more likely to be victims of other agendas than ineffective because of their own.

Re: A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

#84

Post by hakeberio »

jiofih wrote: post #50

Simple: ban the use for cosmetics. Should save 2 million sharks a year if those numbers are correct.

Looking from a different angle, I can see few valid reasons for using cosmetics:

1. Cosmetics often includes medical/dermatological products which are essential for some people.

2. Cosmetics can be used not just for "vanity" but to cover big scars and other unwanted-attention-invoking skin conditions; similar to how plastic surgery may be life-saving for some folks and enable them to live a "normal life".

3. Seeking beauty/aesthetics is not a bad thing in itself

I assume, though, most cosmetics are used for nugatory reasons, and we should always questions whether these above use cases really justify killing millions of animals.

Re: A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

#85

Post by lern_too_spel »

Of the 193 vaccines in development, 5 of them use squalene (GSK, Clover Biopharmaceuticals, Seqirus/University of Queensland/CSL, Medicago Inc. and Farmacologós veterinarios SAC/Universidad Peruana Cayetana Heredia). None of those five are among the eleven that are currently in phase 3 trials.

https://www.sharkallies.com/shark-free-products/could-squale...

Re: A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

#86

Post by throwanem »

rleigh wrote: post #72
dcolkitt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On pure utilitarian grounds, sharks are all carnivores who kill thousands of other animals over their life in horrific, painful ways. That doesn’t mean that there’s not environmental reasons to justify shark conservation. But from the standpoint of animal suffering killing apex predators is almost certainly a net good.

The opposite has been shown to be true. For example, see the effect of wolf reintroduction upon biodiversity. They keep other populations in check which themselves would overall cause harm. Look at the situation in the Scottish highlands. The entire landscape has changed beyond all recognition because of the loss of apex predators (wolves, bears). The deer population is massive, and it prevents forest growth and rege…

The same has happened with whitetail in the eastern US, and a lot of people around here are still foolish enough to get upset with the DNR when they do a cull. That the resulting venison goes to homeless shelters seems not to move these weepers over Bambi; presumably, in their coldly rational utilitarian calculus, the life of a deer exceeds in value that of a human, at least once the human's circumstances have been far enough reduced.

Yes, I'm making fun, a little. I think that's fair in this instance. Someone who has taken the time and thought to identify utilitarianism as a philosophy on which to base consequential decisions has I think no excuse for not having likewise studied ecology, and the modern history of the human role in ecosystems, to at least the minimal extent required to recognize that ecology is really complicated and humans don't understand it nearly so well as we like to think we do. When we behave as if we did, we break things that very often can't be fixed.

Re: A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

#87

Post by jagger27 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #56
cma wrote: post #5

"They keep our fish stock healthy, they keep the food chain intact, they keep diseases out of other animal populations," she said. "Good luck trying to replace that when we lose them." Isn't human predation (fishing) a suitable alternative to shark predation for this purpose? I guess they eat a more wide diet of fish types.

Except we farm most of our fish. And sharks are out of the equation?

“Most”, yeah 50%. What about the other half? Just because we farm more fish now doesn’t mean we catch less in the wild. It just means we’re farming more.

Re: A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

#89

Post by m463 »

shekharshan wrote: post #21

It’s more upsetting to know that over 2.7 million are killed for cosmetics. Humans truly know how to dispense misery on mass scale.

And sharkfin soup aka "seafood soup".

Thing is there will be unavoidable consequences from being at the top of the food chain. Morality will have to be relative when you live by consuming organic matter from other living things.

Re: A Coronavirus Vaccine Could Kill Half a Million Sharks, Conservationists Warn

#90

Post by dcolkitt »

rleigh wrote: post #72
dcolkitt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On pure utilitarian grounds, sharks are all carnivores who kill thousands of other animals over their life in horrific, painful ways. That doesn’t mean that there’s not environmental reasons to justify shark conservation. But from the standpoint of animal suffering killing apex predators is almost certainly a net good.

The opposite has been shown to be true. For example, see the effect of wolf reintroduction upon biodiversity. They keep other populations in check which themselves would overall cause harm. Look at the situation in the Scottish highlands. The entire landscape has changed beyond all recognition because of the loss of apex predators (wolves, bears). The deer population is massive, and it prevents forest growth and rege…

Then that would be a specific environmental consideration. The argument I was addressing was the consideration on utilitarian grounds.

It's possible that there may be second order environmental affects on the utilitarian calculus. I.e. the loss of sharks, causes enough ecosystem imbalance that it out-weights the direct suffering caused by species X. But that's specifically an empirical claim, and simply claiming that "sharks feel pain" isn't sufficient.

In general there's no reason to believe that the current ecological balance is the utilitarian optimal. Darwin selects for inclusive fitness, and doesn't give a hoot about animal suffering. Imagining that the pre-existence of a large predator population exists to improve the lives of the prey population is succumbing to the fallacy of group selection.

Post reply on HN