Bioethics in entomology

I agree with Nilson - a very interesting site!

Here is another stone in the garden for those who are seriously engaged in butterflies. how many pigeons do you think these "scientists" ruined to make these 1,700 pictures of wings     http://morphbank2.csit.fsu.edu/Browse/ThumbList/?tsn=117232

Scientists, then, in quotation marks, because they killed at least 1,700 pigeons... Mdya, the case of Vita lives and wins...
However:
1. Man is not an ordinary mammal after all. In addition to the ability to fundamentally change any ecosystem for itself, it also differs from others in its ability to analyze - in particular, the consequences of its actions. The wolf does not eat all the hares in the forest simply because it cannot (and overfishing, and digest), and not because it understands: if the hares disappear , there will be nothing to eat. And a person is able to understand such things. And with the current level of its capabilities, it simply does not have the right to live as it does, destroying its habitat (NB: not only its own, but also the entire flora and fauna!)
2. To save the biosphere, you need to know it. And ecology, and ethology, and the actual species composition of the fauna (i.e., the same taxonomy). What happens when zealous ignoramuses are taken to protect nature - the example of insects is shown in the topic about Red Books. This requires science. Part of which is the collection of insects (and not only), and experiments on animals in the laboratory. Shutting down entire destinations on the grounds that" they're alive! " (Vita's slogan) is hypocrisy and stupidity.
3. Soak 1,700 pigeons for scientific research - this is fe. I wonder what Proctos would say if someone visually recorded (as in Microcosmos) orders of magnitude more small fauna dying during the "ecological rehabilitation" of Moscow's natural sites? With all this clearing of forest parks from " garbage "(twigs, dead wood, "excess" undergrowth...), when pumping out bottom sediments and concreting the banks of reservoirs, when" ennobling " open areas by replacing natural communities with regularly mowed lawns?! All this is done for "nature protection"... And the forest that allegedly "requires care": if you do not remove "over-mature" trees, it will allegedly "degenerate and disappear"... It remains to be understood-how did the forests exist before the settlement of these places by people?!
False ecology is 90% money laundering, but it wouldn't be on this scale if it weren't for massive environmental ignorance.

This post was edited by Helene - 05/29/2006 16: 33

And a person is able to understand such things. And with the current level of its capabilities, it simply does not have the right to live as it does, destroying its habitat (NB: not only its own, but also the entire flora and fauna!)

The trouble is that even though a person is able to understand such things, he does not want to do it at all

By the way, somewhere recently I saw that on the border on the border of Illinois and Canada, 6.5 billion daytime butterflies only die on highways during the summer months!

2 debaters

Here I am, and here, and in other places of the forum from you (Serge, Uncle Faxer, etc.) I hear that environmentalists (Vita and others like them) launder money, etc. Are you saying this based on the facts or is it just your guess? Indeed, it is interesting to know what this opinion is based on. Could you explain?

to Tarxan

I don't know about money laundering, it's too much of a banking and economic issue. And personal burying of budget money-please. The most obvious example is the Red Books. In the Rostov region. allocated state funds (more than 1,000,000 rubles - not so much, but if it would go to work). Professor M. is a member of the editorial board, executive editor of the volume on animals, and the author of the vast majority of private articles from worms to mammals. The few authors admitted besides him were given 30-40 rubles per article. He himself wrote such an illiterate linden tree: now he has a bison in the Rostov region (then why is there no tur-the ancestor of cows, for it is a more suitable place in the steppes, or a southern elephant), then a dolphin, then a lynx (in the photo given by him in the CC - a copy of the Kamchatka lynx subspecies). For invertebrates in general, complete chaos: the species are either mass species, or never marked on the territory of the region. There are practically no truly endangered species at all. All articles are a complete illiterate compilation. However, the environmental agency happily approved everything, despite the noise of regional specialists raised in the newspapers. And immediately issued money for monitoring this CC. Of course, no real work (expeditions, etc.) was carried out, the reports were clearly in full form, and the funds were spent. This, of course, is not the laundering of illegal money in offshore companies, but a clear financial and scientific impurity. Under the wing of environmental officials.
If you are wondering what kind of fuss was made in the regional press, which, as always, ended in nothing (officials don't care about everyone), then:
http://redbook.nm.ru/index.htm

Helene

ERR! This is what you haven't heard about clearing the forest yet, when all the brushwood, all the twigs are collected in piles, sick and dead trees are cut down for nothing, in general, they clean the forest of "garbage", and then they say - "Eh, why is our country so small?" Freaks damn, I would like to clean them like this

To bora

Sorry, but what you're saying is a stone in "our" garden. This professor apparently is not a member of the Vita :- ) Who argues that officials of all stripes (and environmentalists too) steal. And I'm asking you about the fact that many people (including here) say that organizations like Vita launder money. And I'm interested - are there any facts, or is it all based on guesswork?

"Money laundering" is a slightly different process, Helene just incorrectly gave the term. She probably meant that many shares of such organizations are paid for...
For example: There are no reliable facts, but there are serious assumptions that many GreenPeace shares are paid for by competitors of those against whom these shares are directed.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Of course, all shares are paid for. Both science and general network organizations live on grants. But still, if there are no reliable facts, then is it possible to say so? And if they say that there are serious assumptions that you personally are Elizar, systematically falsify your scientific results (just for example, not as an accusation) would you like it?

Still, I would like to know if anyone has any information about the paid focus of excis and events of ward organizations?

Tarxan, I support you. Too many people in our country now readily believe commercial propaganda directed against environmental organizations. "Serious assumptions" are just a consequence of such propaganda.

Still, I would like to know if anyone has any information about the paid focus of excis and events of ward organizations?

If such information does come up, it is extremely rare and mainly due to mutual "insults" between members. But, since these actions are not illegal (in fact, "this is PEAR"), then everything is at the level of unsubstantiated confidence.

And also - whether there are any other accounting methods. For example, a certain scanner that uses a beam (as in movies) and takes into account some specific or all insects at once by some physical and chemical features. How do you like this option?

Such a scanner will make taxonomists like class

"Money laundering" is a slightly different process, Helene just incorrectly gave the term. She probably meant that many shares of such organizations are paid for...
For example: There are no reliable facts, but there are serious assumptions that many GreenPeace shares are paid for by competitors of those against whom these shares are directed.

That's what I meant. There is no evidence in the literal sense of the word (since there was no investigation or court decision), but there are many indirect signs. Well, for example, in the conversation topic "Pseudoscience in ecology" it was mentioned that the funds allocated for the notorious dog sterilization program did not reach the veterinarians.
It is also true about custom promotions.
There is also such a thing: promotions, "scientific" research and expertise can be paid not by competitors, but by organizations that benefit from pushing a certain program (future contractors).

I repeat, there are no court decisions, but there will be time - I will try to look for some specific thread of information.

I'll be waiting.

quot [We have an unwritten rule at the institute: if an animal has died, it must serve science. Even if you hit someone by accident-you can't throw them, you need to fix them].
That's great!
In the West, it seems, experiments with animals are now problematic. Despite even the obvious positive effect of drug testing, for example. The position of the amateur collector is generally quite uncertain. Apparently, the long-awaited development of natural ethics is not based on an intelligent understanding of the biology of insects. Complete ban on trapping! - commercial, for species with a narrow range (Ferghana draughtsman)? - I agree, but emotions are so gushing, especially from the Red Books.

In the West, well, nothing is better than here. It all depends on the attitude of a particular person and his (her) internal rules.

Here is another stone in the garden for those who are seriously engaged in butterflies. how many pigeons do you think these "scientists" ruined to make these 1,700 pictures of wings     http://morphbank2.csit.fsu.edu/Browse/ThumbList/?tsn=117232

What should I do? is there another way to make a picture?

add to this the students of all the biology departments of the world, who catch tons of insects in practice...and then what happens to these insects is not for me to tell you...

Here, I found an interesting article. on the topic
http://www.seminarium.narod.ru/moip/lib/so...y/ecoetika.html

Very interesting, thanks for the link. I agree with the author in many respects (regarding changes in the ethics and external ideology of environmental organizations - in everything), although, of course, the method proposed by him is unrealizable... unfortunately.

Thank you for the link. Maybe the article was not in the mood, but the rating is average. Many points are interesting, but I didn't catch the main idea.

And the main idea is this: the author wants to lead us to the idea that in the framework of the basic ideology of democratic liberalism (i.e., in our situation), it is impossible to actually protect someone from extinction at all. The reason for this is the divergent in principle "interests" of the technocenoses of homo sapiens and biocenoses. Abandoning private property and the market economy seems to him (and to me too) the only way out. But we have not taken this seriously for a long time. Because it is impossible to love and protect those you don't know, and the inhabitants of cities (whose population in developed countries exceeds the rural one) have never seen anything but "gray biota" and household insects in their entire lives.
Leaving on the author's conscience the arguments about "g-d who does not exist", I admit that the article is really very deep, and I also do not say that I understood it 100.

And the main idea is this: the author wants to lead us to the idea that in the framework of the basic ideology of democratic liberalism (i.e., in our situation), it is impossible to actually protect someone from extinction at all. The reason for this is the divergent in principle "interests" of the technocenoses of homo sapiens and biocenoses. Abandoning private property and the market economy seems to him (and to me too) the only way out. But we have not taken this seriously for a long time. Because it is impossible to love and protect those you don't know, and the inhabitants of cities (whose population in developed countries exceeds the rural one) have never seen anything but "gray biota" and household insects in their entire lives.
Leaving on the author's conscience the arguments about "g-d, who is not", I admit that the article is really very deep, and I also do not say that I understood it 100%.

Yes, what is there killed one insect, when the global urban chaos around which brings the "unintelligent man" to the environment? Ploughed fields, savagely cut down forests, and similar outrages. Oaks are primarily used for felling.
Especially without musing the topic (there was a lot said about this above) I will say-of course, that all this is annoying and not at all pleasing to the eye , but how to influence it: on collective farmers with their vegetable gardens (what does he care about a small steppe refugium, if you can plant potatoes there), on human greed? No way! This is the sad truth. Which is what was pointed above.

but how to influence it: collective farmers with their vegetable gardens (what does he care about a small steppe refugium, if you can plant potatoes there), human greed? No way!

Well, why. The carrot and stick method is quite effective. And not so much a carrot as a stick.

Well, why. The carrot and stick method is quite effective. And not so much a carrot as a stick.

Yes, I am happy in some cases - whip them ,whip them! But on a global scale, a separate group of enthusiasts is unlikely to somehow manage to influence the inevitable process of decline . At least at this stage of savage capitalism.(This is another topic)
Sorry in a minor

Yes, I am happy in some cases - whip them ,whip them! But on a global scale, a separate group of enthusiasts is unlikely to somehow manage to influence the inevitable process of decline . At least at this stage of savage capitalism.(This is another topic)
Sorry for the minor key.

The paradox of the thought of an entomologist (and a natural scientist) is that due to the high cost of gasoline and other agricultural equipment , many fields that were cultivated in the past have now fallen into decline (this is from the point of view of an ordinary layman.) They grieve over this, and you have a balm on your heart!. Wildlife is being revived again!

Don't be too happy: the mass psychosis of suburban (and other) construction is now destroying the surviving refugiums in the Moscow region. We lost one habitat of Mnemosyne and Firefly in Serpukhov district this year. But here's a major: people are fighting as best they can:
http://www.oka-info.ru/index.php?option=co...id=984&Itemid=2
http://nbp-info.ru/4339.html
"the enemy will still destroy our forest, it means only-not a step without a fight"
(A. Nepomnyashchy)

Don't be too happy: the mass psychosis of suburban (and other) construction is now destroying the surviving refugiums in the Moscow region. We lost one habitat of Mnemosyne and Firefly in Serpukhov district this year. But here's a major: people are fighting as best they can:
http://www.oka-info.ru/index.php?option=co...id=984&Itemid=2
http://nbp-info.ru/4339.html
"the enemy will still destroy our forest, it means only-not a step without a fight"
(A. Nepomnyashchy)

Yes, being away from politics, I can say-the case is just! It remains to add-the enemy will be defeated ! But seriously, it is really necessary to counteract man-made vandalism with all our might. (I was once very interested in paleontology myself)

Oh, you Necrocephalus! So you will sell your mother country! It's scary to imagine what a terrible entomological oligarch you will turn out to be!

Oh, you Necrocephalus! So you will sell your mother country! It's scary to imagine what a terrible entomological oligarch you will turn out to be!

Come on, omar! I wouldn't call a bug a " Mother country."
Yes, you yourself are clearly not a blunder in this field - not everyone is able to" without looking " gain a whole kilogram of Mycetophagus tschitscherini

Purely for scientific purposes! For colleagues! And not abroad, but simply to Yaroslavl. This bug is a citizen of Russia, a living, amazing creature, and only scientific necessity is needed to deprive him of the right to a residence permit.

What a horror, and I stole from the poor Carpathian beetles their right to self-determination, bringing them to Moldova. And in general, what difference does it make who decides where to take what, if they have already decided to kill insects, and what is there next-what difference does it make? There was already a topic about morality - it was not particularly successful.

Success in such philosophical matters is doubtful. As for the topic about morality -I did not participate in the forum at that time, we can resume the discussion until complete victory is achieved. And who even said that I'm ready to kill a kilo of griboyedov?! I actually wanted to ship them alive...And serial murders are ripper stuff.

No, I don't think it's worth resuming.. It didn't lead to anything, and it can't lead to anything - because everything goes to the same thing - either everyone holds on to their own thread, or someone partially agrees with someone if they find something in common, or someone supports each other if their opinions naturally coincide, and as a result, those who win more, or no one wins, in general, in any case, no one comes to anything and there is again a conversation about morality = farting with mouths, so forgive me the fighters for morality
I will say one thing - you need to know the measure - there is no point in taking more than you may need. After all, it's the same thing to catch a bunch of insects and change them, and catch some insects, change them, get another request and catch a bunch again, which adds up to the same pile.. Another thing is to catch a bunch, not change it, not sell it, not fry it, then catch another bunch and put it off again.

By the way, if you had sent them out alive, would they have been accepted there, then brought back and released? They would have been killed there, wouldn't they? So what's the difference, it's all the same to death, only in a more vile way from the point of view of humanism. But they're beetles, they don't care..

Bolivar hello!

This post was edited by RippeR - 02/11/2007 05: 28

Maybe they would have let me out... You'll laugh, but I'm just the kind of entomologist who can release a rare insect, unless, of course, it's exceptionally rare. But to equate living beings with material, to exchange them, to sell them, to set the goal of owning a species at any price, thus reducing entomology to the level of philately... not mine. No, I'm not opposed to collections at all. It's just that when making a collection, I am occupied with slightly different goals than arranging even rows of spectacular creatures that shimmer with all the colors. Good night, Ripper!

"take a slightly different purpose"
I wonder what, can I find out?

And what is the point of letting go of a rare species? Will anything change? It is necessary to use humanism in moderation. After all, it is not possible that the rarity that you caught is the last pregnant female of this species, and even if it is the last, the offspring will degenerate due to the fact that they are from the same clutch, but this is still not realistic. And what is the probability of a group of entomologists catching something catching the entire population? I don't think so, because there is no chance that they will catch all the females or all the males before they fertilize the females, or even catch all of them. But a bunch of sheep can easily devour all the food plants and trample out a micro-population of any insects. So a shotgun in your teeth and a skewer of poor sheep and cows for everyone

Yes, mutton, it's all right! Yes, and I will be able to slaughter a sheep quite well, and my conscience will not be tormented. It still won't lead to anything. I just expressed my point of view on collecting insects.

"they have slightly different goals"

I wonder which ones, can I find out?

Gentlemen, whether you wanted to or not, but the topic "bioethics" was raised

So a shotgun in your mouth and a skewer of poor sheep and cows for everyone

Yes! Especially since they say that it's them, vile, Ruminants) we have a greenhouse effect here!
but seriously, I also agree with that opinion. that collecting is not an end, but a means. Otherwise, there is no difference between this and philately.
And, of course, what entomologists can catch is, of course, a drop in comparison with what urbanisation can do, but relatively rare species? Can't the pursuit of them (for the purpose of selling them, for example) significantly undermine their already low numbers and cause kaput? It's not about the last copy, of course.
Well, in general, in my opinion, there is already a lot said about it.