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

We need the wolf

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: We need the wolf

#41

Post by mulmen »

rorykoehler wrote: post #19
ur-whale wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but curious to know if you have thought how, practically, you'd enforce something like this?

Urban densification including urban farming in skyscrapers. Desalination would need to go mainstream too. Of course many will be upset they can't live in a pile on 4 acres. I also have little confidence this would be a popular move given the outrageous individualist fundamentalism we've managed to create in society but I am convinced it is essential to avoiding systemic collapse.

How is that better than living in harmony with nature? A handful of acres can support a family if properly cared for. Why is living in boxes and pretending the world doesn't exist preferable to coexisting with it?

I'm skeptical of anyone who is convinced of anything. Especially that we can do a better job than nature.

Re: We need the wolf

#42

Post by raxxorrax »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #11

The last HN thread about wolves turned into a flamewar between wolf fans and realists.

Heh. I think you are correct though. Having a few packs could be beneficial, but while city dwellers are mostly in favor, hunters and farmers see it more critically.

I like wolves, but if they gain a critical spread, there will be conflicts with civilization.

And of course you need to hunt them at some point to keep them away from urban areas. Didn't take 5 years after their immigration for my country to allow to hunt them again because they primarily attack grazing animals even if they are only present in tiny numbers.

We have too many boars and there is truth in the argument about ecological balance, but they aren't the preferred prey if there are that many sheep around. They aren't that stupid.

edit: Hunters also request anonymity for hunting wolves because they fear retaliation. You cannot make this up...

Re: We need the wolf

#43

Post by smcl »

mulmen wrote: post #37
croisillon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By 1700, wolves had long been extirpated from the current UK, though their old territory is commemorated in the toponyms. In Europe, those that survived retreated to rare enclaves and mountains. But with the modernization of farming and urbanization, marginal land too steep or too depleted to be worth the effort falls into disuse, bringing back step by step wild vegetation, small animals and bigger carnivores. There…

Naive question: isn't this why we have dogs? Can't we have packs of dogs that don't kill sheep hang out with the flock and scare off wolves?

Yeah but it seems that the kind of dogs who can scare off or fight off a pack of wolves are quite expensive:

" He has 17 of these guard dogs now. They are expensive animals, each one worth far more than a sheep. “Last year, I had to explain to my seven-year-old daughter that I couldn’t get her a Christmas present because I had to buy a new dog. That was heartbreaking.” He doesn’t own his land. At this rate – the extra costs of security, the growing losses – he never will. For even with the dogs, his flock is not safe. "

Re: We need the wolf

#44

Post by black_puppydog »

mulmen wrote: post #28
black_puppydog wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to write this, but you formulated it much clearer than I would have. Personally, I'd prefer a world with those animals. But that's an ideological (spiritual?) stance. I recommend Adam Curtis' "All watched over by machines of loving grace" as an exploration of the theme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_o...

I'm not so sure, we are still largely natural creatures. We are more nature than machine, certainly. Air is far more important to me than electricity. Wolves serve an important role in the ecosystem, it is unclear to me that we can so easily survive without them.

I actually agree. The point is not that it would be easy, or desirable to have an engineered ecosystem without wolves. It wouldn't; the article makes the against it being easy, and I'm opinionating the point about it being desirable. :P

The point of my comment (and of Curtis' series) is that there is no magical "natural balance" that we could strive to return to. It just doesn't exist, and never has. However, and without wanting to make this into a flamewar: the concept of a natural order of things is very convenient for people in power, or even just people in comfortable, moderate luxury, to justify their privilege over others' misery.

The idea that there is a "sweet spot" for ecosystems that they return to was unfortunately firmly established in the mind of many while it was "scientific consensus" (scare quotes to indicate what a fraught concept that is).

While the idea was being popularized, the idea of natural balance was already being scientifically dismantled, but by then the "damage" was done, and now we get to still discuss this...

Re: We need the wolf

#45

Post by strogonoff »

fogihujy wrote: post #35
rorykoehler wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Urban densification including urban farming in skyscrapers. Desalination would need to go mainstream too. Of course many will be upset they can't live in a pile on 4 acres. I also have little confidence this would be a popular move given the outrageous individualist fundamentalism we've managed to create in society but I am convinced it is essential to avoiding systemic collapse.

And those of us who are living a quiet life on a small plot of land in one of those areas? Forced relocation into a physically and culturally unfamiliar place? "Sorry, you're not a part of the problem, but you live in the same area as those who are. Off you go!"? There has been attempts at mass re-locations of people before. It usually didn't turn out well.

Were there ever mass relocations of people done with the specific goal of preserving and re-wilding nature?

I actually found the idea really interesting. Though one of my parents is living a quiet life on a small piece of land and I entertained that idea myself, I personally find the sacrifice worth it. However, some difficulties would have to be addressed first:

1. Lack of trust in each other, authorities and institutions—in some cases, deserved (rogue actors). Who has to leave first, who gets a better view from their new home in a futuristic skyscraper, entry permit fairness and enforcement (there will be long perimeters to protect, albeit it could be a good source of jobs), etc.

2. Ensuring healthy human habitat in dense urban environments (pollution, clean energy, as well as psychology).

Many of those hurdles are societal/organizational/psychological, and are not liable to be solved by accelerated technical progress alone. Frustratingly, since the best time to do this is probably ASAP.

Re: We need the wolf

#46

Post by inglor_cz »

This is an interesting article. Our wolf population (Czechia) has been expanding for years now, so the problems are very well known.

If the authorities want to keep both sheepgrazing and wolves in existence, they need to reimburse torn-down sheep quickly. Sheep are really prone to massive slaughter and if the governmental response is to investigate the event for 10 months trying to find a reason not to pay, the shepherds will find a way to get rid of the wolves, especially in countries with liberal gun laws.

Sheepdogs are a good solution for sheep, but they are dangerous to people. More so than wolves themselves, who tend to hide away from humans. In my country, hiking is somewhat of a national sport, the landscape is criss-crossed with marked trails. That brings hikers close to flocks of sheep and sheepdogs have a strong protective instinct and will stand their ground.

I like big predators, but finding a new equilibrium will take decades, especially in densely populated countries. It can be done, but the more people (and sheep) around, the higher the costs. Europe can definitely afford them now, though.

Re: We need the wolf

#47

Post by smcl »

tzs wrote: post #4

I don’t know if they are in Europe, but in some ecosystems wolves are a keystone species. That’s a species that if removed leads to cascading changes with large effects throughout the ecosystem. Here is part of an article at Wikipedia on wolves in Yollowstone describing the changes there when wolves were reintroduced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wolves_in_Yellowsto... The range of effects is astonishing.

The story of wolves in Yellowstone gets a very prominent mention in the article and seems to be cited as an inspiration for the movement to reintroduce wolves to Scotland. They don't directly state this, but right after talking about the huge changes observed in Yellowstone there's a section on how Scotland has issues with management of the deer population and suggests that wolves could help.

Re: We need the wolf

#48

Post by mulmen »

black_puppydog wrote: post #44
mulmen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure, we are still largely natural creatures. We are more nature than machine, certainly. Air is far more important to me than electricity. Wolves serve an important role in the ecosystem, it is unclear to me that we can so easily survive without them.

I actually agree. The point is not that it would be easy, or desirable to have an engineered ecosystem without wolves. It wouldn't; the article makes the against it being easy, and I'm opinionating the point about it being desirable. :P The point of my comment (and of Curtis' series) is that there is no magical "natural balance" that we could strive to return to. It just doesn't exist, and never has. However, and wit…

Ah yeah I totally agree with that. Our arguments are orthogonal to the point. I'm simply saying the ideal number of wolves is almost certainly more than zero. You seem to be arguing that there's no ideal number of wolves, which is reasonable. The ideal number could easily change over time as well. Before the industrial revolution wolves posed a larger threat than they do today, for example.

To further internalize your point, rather than talking about "ideal" wolves, which as you established is not a thing, I will think of it as the ideal change in wolves. That number could be positive or negative as a function of time and location.

Re: We need the wolf

#49

Post by eru »

adrianN wrote: post #14
eru wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, most of the globe is still wild. We have barely started colonizing the oceans after all. It would be interesting to rewild much of the land mass as well. However, politics is often against that. Eg see those heartfelt efforts to rescue dying towns in the Appalachians or the Great Plains in the US. Or the general subsidies for suburban / exurban living (like eg the whole structure of USPS).

We have colonized the oceans. Large trawler fleets are fishing many species to the brink of collapse.

We have devastated the oceans, but not colonized.

Fish farming would be colonization.

Re: We need the wolf

#50

Post by eru »

mulmen wrote: post #33
eru wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, most of the globe is still wild. We have barely started colonizing the oceans after all. It would be interesting to rewild much of the land mass as well. However, politics is often against that. Eg see those heartfelt efforts to rescue dying towns in the Appalachians or the Great Plains in the US. Or the general subsidies for suburban / exurban living (like eg the whole structure of USPS).

The USPS provides a critical service. While some rural areas may have reached the end of their viable existence the USPS still exists to serve places where the market has not yet offered a solution. It's a critical service to the functioning and growth of a nation of our size.

See, that's exactly the point.

If you want people to move away from those areas so that wilderness can take over, you should not subsidize them to stay there.

Whether you like rewilding more or the critical service that the USPS provides, is up to you. But you should recognize that they are at least somewhat in conflict.

Post reply on HN