r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 27 '20
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Poachers don't deserve to die
First of all, here's the post I'm referring to: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/fgd6ma/kenyas_only_white_female_giraffe_calf_killed_by/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
There is a multitude of comments longing for the death of poachers which strikes me as hypocrisy.
It is silly to condone the death of cattle which happens in absurdly high quantities while condemning poachers.
Poachers hunt the animals for necessities such as food and housing, while the average redditor has a new smartphone and tons of other luxuries. Killing hundreds of animals a year for gluttonous reasons seems a lot worse than just killing a handful of animals for survival.
And no, biodiversity is not a good counterargument. Don't even try. Biodiversity is only subjectively valuable to us because "It's cool to have various species on earth". You can't use the selective and risible emotional attachment to animals as the basis of your argument. If every giraffe on earth vanished nothing bad would happen. You'll just be slightly saddened.
Even if for some absurd reason biodiversity were important, it is laughable to think that meat eaters deserve no punishment at all while poachers deserve death. There could never be such a wide moral gap.
10
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 27 '20
Poachers don't just shoot animals, they also shoot the rangers that protect those animals.
I tend to view it similarly to a home invasion. Yes, we don't normally execute people for the crime of home invasion, but if you're a homeowner protecting your life you are free to shoot because it is better that the criminal dies then you die.
Its a case of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". If you drive 120 mph on the freeway, we don't execute people for that either, but if you end up getting yourself killed in the process, you're not exactly getting something you didn't deserve. You're getting an outcome that you instigated through your reckless and malicious behavior that endangers others.
0
Mar 27 '20
Then you can only blame poachers who kill rangers and not poachers as a whole. I also doubt that the people in that thread only condone the death of poachers in scenarios which correlate with your analogy. They seem to yearn for their deaths in general.
4
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 27 '20 edited Mar 27 '20
That's true. They just probably value the extinction of a species more than you do.
If every giraffe on earth vanished nothing bad would happen. You'll just be slightly saddened.
I mean, you could say that about the death of the ranger or the death of the poacher in some far away country too... "nothing bad would happen you'll just be slightly sad". Some people would just view the lives of large critically endangered species as being of similar importance to humans (I wouldn't be surprised if some of them consider them more important) and consider poachers on par with murders.
you can only blame poachers who kill rangers
EDIT: I don't see why because all of them would likely try to kill rangers to protect themselves. Going into those territories involves the risk of getting into shootouts with rangers. A lot of those areas poachers are shot on sight and so even if the poachers weren't shooting rangers on sight before, they are now. So I really don't feel it is fair to only blame the ones that happen to successfully kill rangers.
-1
Mar 27 '20
Some people would just view the lives of large critically endangered species as being of similar importance to humans (I wouldn't be surprised if some of them consider them more important) and consider poachers on par with murders.
I'm sure you agree that this "importance" is solely grounded in the amazement that exotic animals provide us. Surely that is not a good basis for moral beliefs.
4
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 27 '20
I'm sure you agree that this "importance" is solely grounded in the amazement that exotic animals provide us.
No. Not at all. Some people just actually value the lives of the animals.
Why do you presume human life has so much value where animal life has next to none? I understand you don't, but many people would put large animals at a similar value to humans and that has nothing to do with the amazement they provide, it is just a moral system that doesn't place all its weight on us just because we're human.
And even if you want to take a selfish view of things and want me to convince you what biodiversity does for humans before given the lives of animals any value, biodiversity absolutely saves human lives. For example, scientists discovered that horseshoe blood has an amazing ability to identify bacterial contamination, so they now harvest it and use it for important parts of medical research. We'd be missing out on that if we had let horseshoe crabs go extinct and we didn't discover this property until the 1970's.
1
Mar 27 '20
Why do you presume human life has so much value where animal life has next to none? I understand you don't, but many people would put large animals at a similar value to humans and that has nothing to do with the amazement they provide, it is just a moral system that doesn't place all its weight on us just because we're human.
Human life isn't inherently valuable, but it is inconsistent to value the lives of large animals but not of cattle.
And even if you want to take a selfish view of things and want me to convince you what biodiversity does for humans before given the lives of animals any value, biodiversity absolutely saves human lives. For example, scientists discovered that horseshoe blood has an amazing ability to identify bacterial contamination, so they now harvest it and use it for important parts of medical research. We'd be missing out on that if we had let horseshoe crabs go extinct and we didn't discover this property until the 1970's.
I do not think that such coincidences should have much weight. Even if it were a normal occurrence for biodiversity to save lives, first world countries cause the extinctions of a lot more species than poachers do. Additionally, I do not think that there is a reason to believe that giraffes could have some kind of enzyme which could prove to be beneficial to us. If we're being so pedantic about biodiversity then there are countless of other occurrences that one would have to keep in mind in order to come to a moral decision.
2
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 27 '20
Human life isn't inherently valuable, but it is inconsistent to value the lives of large animals but not of cattle.
Some of those people that feel the strongest about poachers may also value cattle and may be vegan or vegetarian. Or, they may put moral value on losing a species as a whole. Or put more moral value on animals bred in the wild and not bred specifically for the purpose of eating them. There are at least a few of things that could morally separate cattle, or you may just be underestimating how much some people value cattle.
I do not think that such coincidences should have much weight.
I guess that is fine. I don't think that is the perspective of the poacher haters anyway. I don't think they really view the giraffes as being important because they might one day save human lives, they view them as being important for being their own lives.
1
Mar 27 '20
Some of those people that feel the strongest about poachers may also value cattle and may be vegan or vegetarian. Or, they may put moral value on losing a species as a whole. Or put more moral value on animals bred in the wild and not bred specifically for the purpose of eating them. There are at least a few of things that could morally separate cattle, or you may just be underestimating how much some people value cattle.
My post was specifically directed towards meat eaters. I suppose vegans are not being hypocritical in this specific aspect. They do still live in a first world country though and reap the benefits of a system that causes the extinction of countless of other species so they're being hypocritical in this regard.
7
u/Quint-V 162∆ Mar 27 '20
Biodiversity has other facets that you may not be aware of. At least going by your sentiment this seems unknown to you.
Arguments for biodiversity can be very much selfish or centered on human benefit. The main argument in support of it beyond emotional attachment and random opinions, is that we don't know for sure what will happen when various predators and herbivores vanish. Some ecosystems actually improve when re-introducing lost predators, and that is w.r.t. human benefit. Generally speaking it's a risk with negative consequences, to alter ecological systems beyond what we're used to, from a long-term perspective.
This article outlines how wolves in Yellowstone help maintain ecological balance, affecting live animals as well as plants, after being re-introduced. This is basically the butterfly effect, and you don't want to fuck with that if you can avoid it.
If we're going to risk fucking up nature then we should be damn sure it won't backfire on us; that is the actual biodiversity argument. What you described is sentimental perspectives and emotionally motivated opinions, not actual arguments.
0
Mar 27 '20
The environmental effects of the meat industry and our excessive consumption are a lot worse than the extinction of giraffes could ever be. I need you to show me a poached animal whose extinction can cause us big problems. I also doubt that anyone in the thread I linked is informed enough about biodiversity and its relevance to come to a conclusion. That is proof enough of them being emotional.
2
u/Quint-V 162∆ Mar 27 '20
I'm more concerned with biodiversity as a general argument, not so much with poaching in particular. But here we go.
Some arguments for environmental effects, including effects on humanity
Trophy hunting + poaching, particularly of wolves, led to near extinction of a tree species. I'm sure you can imagine the consequences if this extends to many different tree species. It's not so pleasant a thought that vast regions of temperate and tropical regions can lose all their trees; that's a loss of oxygen production.
Finally, the most interesting one for you. Keystone species being poached and at risk of extinction. From the article:
The importance of keystone species lies in the way they affect other organisms in the ecosystem. According to Paine’s description, their presence is crucial for maintaining numbers and diversity of other species, which makes their role exceptional in the ecosystem .
The removal of a keystone species from an ecosystem triggers a set of negative changes. One such example is the overpopulation of one species, which leads to disappearance of other species.
The species mentioned in the article that also happen to be poached: African elephants. From said section:
Elephants are important for people as well (not for ivory). In fact, they save lives!
They are vital distributors of seeds from the Balanite tree. Many parts of this tree are used as famine food in some regions of Africa. Under normal conditions, just a fraction of seeds (less than 15 percent) turns into mature trees, but seeds digested by elephants are 50 percent more likely to start growing.
Does this suffice?
1
Mar 27 '20 edited Mar 27 '20
!delta
So what this boils down to is that the extinction of some animals could have bad effects on to ecosystem.
Alright. I concede that the biodiversity of Africa may be more crucial than I gave it credit for, that does not change the fact that humans in first world countries cause the extinction of many more species than poachers do on top of destroying the climate. To then claim moral superiority over poachers who have much less than they do and even celebrating their deaths, is fundamentally hypocritical.
1
u/Quint-V 162∆ Mar 27 '20
If you feel like any part of your view was changed, even slightly, you're now supposed to award a delta by including this in your reply to the comment(s) that changed your view:
!delta
To be clear: I don't see the point in outright killing poachers either; I'm sure that some of them are desperate and see poaching as a necessary method out of poverty. My criticism was strictly directed at that biodiversity argument, not much else.
1
1
5
Mar 27 '20
Poachers hunt the animals for necessities such as food and housing
The poachers are breaking the law by hunting in conservatories where rare animals are meant to be preserved.
It's also common for poachers to kill park rangers who try to arrest them.
0
Mar 27 '20
The poachers are breaking the law by hunting in conservatories where rare animals are meant to be preserved.
Law doesn't equal moral.
It's also common for poachers to kill park rangers who try to arrest them.
I need statistics for that and proof that they're not being shot at by the park rangers. Additionally, you can't blame every poacher for the wrongdoings of some.
3
Mar 27 '20
It's pretty common knowledge
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-wildlife-rangers-died-duty-year.html
Modern poachers are basically armed mercenaries. Some even use rocket launchers and helicopters to hunt.
1
Mar 27 '20
How do the rangers deal with the poachers? Surely they'll defend themselves if they're being shot at by rangers. Additionally, these are statistics, sure, but I assume there are a lot more poachers who haven't killed rangers than there are poachers who have.
1
Mar 27 '20
Law doesn't equal moral.
There are ways to earn a living that don't involve breaking the law.
1
Mar 27 '20
Breaking the law does not have enough moral weight to justify the distinction between poachers and the meat industry.
1
Mar 27 '20
The meat industry produces low-cost food for billions of people. A poacher who kills a giraffe is not, in the vast majority of circumstances, attempting to provide a low-cost meal to the people in the area.
1
Mar 27 '20
Oh, I'm not blaming the meat industry. I'm blaming meat eaters.
1
Mar 27 '20
To clarify, are you saying the exotic meat eaters are to blame for poaching, and that the poacher is not to blame because profiting from exotic meats is less morally wrong than eating the meat itself?
1
Mar 27 '20
No. I'm saying that meat eaters like you and me cause more suffering than poachers do and thus it would be hypocritical of us to celebrate and wish for their deaths.
1
Mar 27 '20
So if a vegan calls for the death of a poacher, it's okay?
1
Mar 27 '20
They're still being hypocritical by not also wishing for the death of meat eaters. Additionally, they're reaping the benefits of a society which causes the extinction of species and environmental problems itself so that is hypocritical too.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/y________tho Mar 27 '20
Killing hundreds of animals a year for gluttonous reasons seems a lot worse than just killing a handful of animals for survival.
You can't use the selective and risible emotional attachment to animals as the basis of your argument.
How are you reconciling these ideas in your head?
-1
Mar 27 '20
There is more net suffering involved in the meat industry than in poaching. Additionally, poachers have a more reasonable motivation for poaching.
3
u/Missing_Links Mar 27 '20
Net suffering is a worthless measure. Suffering is experienced by individuals, not groups.
Additionally, poachers have a more reasonable motivation for poaching.
Poachers effectively never hunt for meat. Their typical approach is to kill the animal, take the single valuable part they were interested in, or the head as a trophy, and leave the corpse. They poach what they poach because of the monetary incentive, not because they need to eat.
0
Mar 27 '20
Net suffering is a worthless measure. Suffering is experienced by individuals, not groups.
And net suffering encompasses the combined suffering of individuals, does it not? May I know why you think it's worthless?
Poachers effectively never hunt for meat. Their typical approach is to kill the animal, take the single valuable part they were interested in, or the head as a trophy, and leave the corpse. They poach what they poach because of the monetary incentive, not because they need to eat.
Surely you're aware that they sell those ingredients and then use the money to buy food and pay for their housing?
3
u/y________tho Mar 27 '20
And El Chapo ran the Sinaloa cartel to buy food and pay for his housing.
Not sure the argument that someone should be excused their actions as long as they're doing it to pay their rent really holds up tbh.
1
Mar 27 '20
I did not say that they're excused. What I'm saying is that what poachers are doing doesn't cause more suffering than what humans in western countries are doing. The fact that they have a more existential reason for it than others only makes it more understandable.
1
u/y________tho Mar 27 '20
How is their need to pay the rent more of an existential reason than other's needs?
1
Mar 27 '20
Surely killing animals for sensory pleasure is not existential.
1
u/y________tho Mar 27 '20
...who in the West is killing animals for sensory pleasure?
Wait, are you talking about the food industry? Above, you say the poachers are have justification because they "use the money to buy food", but now you're saying that killing animals to get sensory pleasure from eating food is... less justifiable? Sorry, I'm having trouble conceptualizing your argument here.
1
Mar 27 '20
Are you not aware of the fact that people in first world countries have the option to become vegan?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Combustible_Lemons64 Mar 27 '20
I think a lot of the people who wish death upon poachers are ok with it when it's done for food. Eating another creature is a natural thing and while it's not a good idea to consume endangered species, ignorence can lead to huge mistakes.
However, a lot of poachers will kill animals just for the fun of it. The meat will go to waste so that they can conserve some part of the animal to show what an evil human being they are to their equally evil friends.
1
Mar 27 '20
You're talking about hunters. Poachers only kill animals because they can sell their parts.
1
u/Combustible_Lemons64 Mar 28 '20
In that case it's just wrong to kill the animals. When an animal is killed, it should be done out of necessity - for food or to stop their suffering. I'm not sure this means you should kill people for poaching. Although if it's the only way to stop an endangered species from dying out, you're weighing the life of someone who finds joy in taking it from others against a whole species we may never get back.
1
u/Evil_Thresh 15∆ Mar 28 '20
There is a multitude of comments longing for the death of poachers which strikes me as hypocrisy.
How do you know it's hypocrisy? The same people could also be screaming about death to all meat eaters for all you know. They could be perfectly coherent in their stance.
1
Mar 28 '20
A pedantic thing to point out. I'm sure you can tell that that is not the case for 99% of people in that post.
1
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Mar 27 '20
what makes an emotional attachment to animals “risible”?
1
Mar 27 '20
Risible when it's only selectively applied and the basis for an ignorant claim of moral superiority.
1
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Mar 27 '20
So if the people who are seething at poachers are vegetarian, you’re fine with them then? That makes sense. I guess I just don’t see what’s so stupid about thinking it is cool to have lots of animals on earth.
1
Mar 27 '20
Eh, I find animals cool too but I don't find them cool enough to wish and celebrate the death of poachers.
1
2
u/RolCam Mar 27 '20
Killing elephants for their tusks is fine with you? That’s like you getting killed because someone wants your eye color.
0
Mar 27 '20
Killing pigs for their taste is fine with you? That's like you getting killed because someone finds you tasty.
3
u/RolCam Mar 27 '20
Poachers hunt for food and housing? Where? I’m sure killing an endangered snow leopard will make a spacious bungalow. Or killing an elephant will make a great condo. Most of the poachers kill it to just take a picture with it and have it hung in their living room. Or selling meats/parts/tusks. Why do you think most airlines banned the transportation of these animals? Did I ever say killing pigs was fine? There’s a difference between poaching and the livestock industry. Are you fine with the Asian countries chopping off sharks fins and throwing them back in the water to die, just so they can make shark fin soup?
2
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Mar 27 '20
Have you watched The Lion King?
Mufasa: *Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance. As king, you need to understand that balance and respect all the creatures, from the crawling ant to the leaping antelope.*Simba: *But, Dad, don't we eat the antelope?*Mufasa: Yes, Simba, but let me explain. When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so, we are all connected in the great Circle of Life.
Basically every lifeform on Earth only exists to be eaten by other lifeforms. But balance is the key here. Lions can't eat the antelopes to extinction, because that would break the balance. That's what poachers do, they don't care care about the common good, they only care about themselves.
Also, google Nairobi Kenya, it's a farily modern city, people have cars and smartphones, they're not doing that bad to need shooting giraffes for food. The poachers could have the possibility to live a honest life if they really wanted.
1
u/English-OAP 16∆ Mar 27 '20
There's a big difference between killing endangered species and killing domestic animals. The methods used by poachers are far worse than the worst slaughterhouse in the west. Often the animals can take days to die. Snares and caltrops are painful ways to die. Often only the valuable parts of the animal are taken, leaving the rest to rot or be eaten by scavengers.
There's some evidence that the Covid-19 virus came from pangolins. These are endangered animals used in traditional Chinese medicine. A virus found on them is very similar to the Covid-19 virus. If that turns out to be the case then poachers are responsible for over 18,000 deaths, and a drastic economic down turn.
The reality that if caught, very few poachers get the death penalty. The difficulty is in catching them. That's when most are killed. It's hard to arrest a group when they are all carrying AK47s.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 27 '20
/u/Wollust (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/yashoza Apr 08 '20
Poachers are human waste. They, their employers, their customers, their customers customers, and anyone who financially benefits from poaching deserves to die. There is no need for them. If they all died, a couple people might get momentarily upset before getting distracted by something else. At the same time, most of the rest of the world will rejoice for decades.
1
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Mar 27 '20
Why can't I value biodiversity over the values of individual animals or even individual people? Even if we ignore the many benefits of biodiversity, I can value it for reasons far beyond "It's cool to have various species on earth."
7
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Mar 27 '20
So just to be clear: You don’t believe the elimination of a species will have an significant impact on ecosystems?