K77":1owq29nn said:
Have fun. This is too left wing for me. My opinion still is (and always will be) that a butcher can do more for conservation in a year if he decides, due to raised awareness, to preserve just one cow, tha
I find your cemented opinion to be distressing. Why lock yourself into one way of thinking. Surely 1000 people deciding to eat less red meat every week would have a greater effect than a butcher not butchering 1 cow.
If you are simply saying that 'global conversation efforts' never ge
Oh no, no, no. I think your points are very valid!
The opinion I'm against is that only a stuffy scientist who uses a 10 million dollar grant to re-plant/replace sea fans can be truely called a conservationalist. I
am cemented against that idea.
Global efforts like that usually have a way of backfiring. Not that they don't do good, but they are often just a waste of time and money. I think individual education is much more valuable when combined with global efforts. My viewpoint is that we cannot talk about conservational efforts without defining
everyone as a conservationalist, whether they are in this hobby or not, scientist or not, child or adult, etc.
I think you're exactly right about the butcher. If scientists or animal rights advocates were the only ones who ever fought for conservation, then I don't think they would really be effective. I don't think most scientists or advocates really even have a personal ability to understand an animal. A butcher at least has the opertunity to be exposed to the animal, educate themselves about it, and choose whether or not he feels that animal is a worthwhile being above and beyond its normal niche. If a butcher decides that he should cut back on his red meat intake to be more compasionate because he's been exposed to the animal, well then I'd rather be the butcher. At least he has some compassion, understanding, and has learned why its important to elevate that life. Does the scientist or advocate ever really elevate the value of a life is the main question? Or do they just have a vague sense that its important that we not meddle with natural processes? Which of those two experiences is more powerful and valuable to the continued life of the animal and the man in the long run? And will the butcher encourage others to reduce their red meat intake?
I think most hobbyists start out with no understanding or care about the things they keep. We are butchers. But by studying aquaria outside of its normal realm, at least we have the ability to form an opinion about its worth here on earth. If we couldn't ever do that, I doubt that any political effort at conservation would have a basis of hope. How can you stop the destruction of elkhorn coral in the keys from sewage leakage if 60% of the population is still of the opinion that coral must be some type of plant? There has to be some individual awareness and learning involved.
Being a butcher is fine. Many butchers are compassionate and care about the enviornment and do all they can to lessen the impact they have.
Exactly the point here! I agree!
But they, like us reefers, have to realize that what we do does have impact, that by any of our actions to stay in business or to stock a tank are destroying the enviornment. We can try to minimize the impact, but it won't be zero. We have to be realistic and honest with ourselves - we are hurting the enviornment because we want to, in the same way people using SUV's to drive to the store are hurting the enviornment because they want to.
Exactly. In our hobby, we have the unique experience where the 10% of hobbyists who understand these issues have stood up and pushed back at distributors for selling anything other than captive raised clams and corals, and even fish in some cases. That in my opinion, is the extreme of how awareness and learning can bring about change. It is not a massive global effort, but it is proving that a large number of hobbyists are also responsible human beings. If we want to label those hobbyists as butchers, then I think most hobbyists would probably wear that title with pride. Other than the australian reef project, I am not aware of any other major, global change which has so vastely affected our oceans. And it was driven only through individual hobbyists, not a massive global effort. Now don't get me wrong, I have one SPS that I suspect might be a wild colony, but hey frags are the only way to go normally!
Here's the thing - its fine to do it. Get a bigger car because you want it, throw away the plastic bottle because it is easier than recycling it, have a wood burning fire because you like the way it smells, buy a wild caught colony once and a while - just don't rationalize it.
It is our choice to do all of these things, and we can ALWAYS not do them. The more honest we are with oursleves about the impact of our actions, the more likely we are to change our actions. The more we make excuses and tell ourselves that we are justified in doing things that harmfully impact the world the more likely we are to continue to do them because we convince ourselves we are doing nothing wrong.
RR :mrgreen:
I think you've made all my points now. Now why did you think I didn't agree with you?
Hey, I am a carnivore. I eat red meat, and I still love a clean furry cow. And I hate to think how many crabs it took to make all those crab legs at Red Lobster's all-you-can-eat special last night. And I don't need to justify the fact that many of my fish, a couple LPS, and one SPS are probably from the reef. And I intend to get more!
But I also don't feel the need to insult others in the hobby though if they are trying to be somewhat consciencious by calling them names like "butcher." And I do feel a certain responsibility to help out newbies in the hobby by pointing out the same things to them that I have learned and trying to help them not be cruel to the animals they keep. If we can't do that, then like flameangel said, I don't know what I'm doing in this hobby.
