
Young Gorillas Observed Dismantling Poacher Snares - evo_9
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112661209/young-gorillas-observed-dismantling-poacher-snares/
======
gph
I can't help but read this with a pinch of salt. Yes, it's fascinating that
these gorillas have learned this new behavior and are passing it down. And I
think almost everyone wants to see endangered species protected. Yet I can't
help but feel there is something quite pretentious about all this. We sit here
cheering on the destruction of these traps, when in all likely-hood there are
people who depend on them for sustenance. And really it's rather disingenuous
to call the people setting these traps "poachers". Normally when you think of
poachers you think of thuggish killers only in it for a profit. But even in
this article, which to me appears quite biased, they admit that the traps are
set by local bush-meat hunters. What they do might technically be illegal
(though those laws likely only exist because of Western pressure), but to them
it's just a way of life. I know Diane Fossey had trouble with the locals when
she first showed up and started dismantling traps. I seem to remember from an
Adam Curtis documentary that they even killed a couple gorillas just to spite
her. But I don't think they have a complete disregard for the natural world
that surrounds them. They just hold their own survival/advancement in higher
regard. And who are we to really judge that, given that most Western affluence
came at the expense of vast ecological destruction.

And imagine what it must be like for these people to see some foreigners come
in and spend tons of money and energy on saving gorillas and basically treat
you as the enemy. I'd probably be thinking, why the hell aren't they helping
me instead, is my life worth less than a gorillas to them?

I don't have any great answers to all this. Like everything there is a lot of
gray area to this story. But hopefully while we cheer on the survival of the
gorillas, we should also spare a thought for the survival of the local humans
as well. This article certainly didn't. In fact it pretty much cast them as
the villains who were heroically thwarted by a couple brave young gorillas.

~~~
eshvk
> I can't help but read this with a pinch of salt. Yes, it's fascinating that
> these gorillas have learned this new behavior and are passing it down. And I
> think almost everyone wants to see endangered species protected. Yet I can't
> help but feel there is something quite pretentious about all this. We sit
> here cheering on the destruction of these traps, when in all likely-hood
> there are people who depend on them for sustenance. And really it's rather
> disingenuous to call the people setting these traps "poachers". Normally
> when you think of poachers you think of thuggish killers only in it for a
> profit. But even in this article, which to me appears quite biased, they
> admit that the traps are set by local bush-meat hunters. What they do might
> technically be illegal (though those laws likely only exist because of
> Western pressure), but to them it's just a way of life. I know Diane Fossey
> had trouble with the locals when she first showed up and started dismantling
> traps. I seem to remember from an Adam Curtis documentary that they even
> killed a couple gorillas just to spite her. But I don't think they have a
> complete disregard for the natural world that surrounds them. They just hold
> their own survival/advancement in higher regard. And who are we to really
> judge that, given that most Western affluence came at the expense of vast
> ecological destruction.

Maybe I am reading this wrong but I am getting a sense that you think Africa
is filled with "noble savages" who are getting corrupted by western
influences. Having grown up in Africa, let me hasten to assure you that there
are enough Africans who care a lot about making sure that their beautiful
flora and fauna is protected for future generations. Simultaneously it is
Human nature that there will be people who either out of desperation or malice
wish to kill and plunder wildlife. I don't buy the way of life argument when
one gets to use sophisticated weaponry (guns may or may not be used in this
case but there are enough cases where guns are used to wipe out wildlife) to
plunder the wealth of the country. I hate to use a straw man here but I could
very well use the same reasoning to argue that one shouldn't interfere in the
Hutus vs Tutsi's war because tribal strife has been going on for centuries.

> And imagine what it must be like for these people to see some foreigners
> come in and spend tons of money and energy on saving gorillas and basically
> treat you as the enemy. I'd probably be thinking, why the hell aren't they
> helping me instead, is my life worth less than a gorillas to them?

> But hopefully while we cheer on the survival of the gorillas, we should also
> spare a thought for the survival of the local humans as well. This article
> certainly didn't. In fact it pretty much cast them as the villains who were
> heroically thwarted by a couple brave young gorillas.

You are arguing a false dichotomy here. Helping people by pouring money into
Africa hasn't exactly been useful. The entire clothing industry in Africa is
hosed because some wise people had the bright idea of donating a ton of used
clothes there. Same with the agricultural industry where local farmers can't
compete with "free aid".

~~~
netcan
Thats not a very generous reading of the OP.

He is reacting to the implied (though I didn't think it was very strong)
characterization of local hunters as poachers. They're hunting to eat and
using (presumably) the same type of traps that they're used for generations.
That fact makes gph feel some sympathy or solidarity with them and I think a
lot of people agree.

I'm absolutely not a relativist. That said this is the extreme example were
not looking at things relativistically at all is absurd. You're expecting
people who haven't changed their lifestyle and environment in recent
generations and live off the land to assign similar values to animal
conservation as you do.

That is not too far from telling a remote indonesian tribeswoman to cover her
breasts because she's been immorally immodest.

~~~
scotty79
People who eat animals they illegally killed are not poachers?

------
patdennis
_In what can only be described as an impassioned effort to save their own kind
from the hand of poachers_

There are ways to describe it that don't attribute human motivations to
gorillas. I don't really believe this is a reputable source.

This is a bit more reliable:
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120719-young...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120719-young-
gorillas-juvenile-traps-snares-rwanda-science-fossey/)

~~~
astrodust
It's a mistake to think animals are so different from us. They don't all have
the same nuanced emotions, for instance cats seem to lack guilt, they're not
nearly as wired to be social, but dogs, being pack animals have it in
abundance.

Even rats have empathy as proven in an experiment:
<http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/rat-empathy/>

We're about 80% the same as animals when it comes down to it. The difference
is important, absolutely, but not as significant as you'd think.

~~~
diminish
Could some animals have some _richer_ emotions which we don't have? For
example, some animals with Tetrachromacy can have a reacher color space than
us. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy>

~~~
astrodust
Many birds can see ultraviolet, it's fairly common since it seems to allow
them to differentiate flowers the same way many insects do. Some flowers look
completely different in the UV spectrum
([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-473897/A-bees...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-473897/A-bees-
eye-view-How-insects-flowers-differently-us.html)). This is why it's important
that many types of pet birds have some natural daylight.

As for emotions, that's a harder thing to prove. Dolphins are intelligent
enough they should be classified as sentient non-human persons according to
more progressive scientists. They have the richest range of emotions we've
seen outside of chimpanzees, and to be honest, chimpanzees are so very nearly
human it's quite amazing. They don't seem to lack any faculties that humans
have, but some of their emotions are just less pronounced or developed.

Sometimes it seems the only reason that chimpanzees aren't affected more
emotionally is that they don't understand the implications of what's
happening. It's just ignorance more than a lack of emotion.

What might exist in the way of emotions humans don't have is things that are
bio-chemical. Nature has a way of "rewarding" behaviors that are productive
with a positive feeling. Do cuttlefish feel something other than love when
doing their dances? What does an octopus, which has a nervous system entirely
unlike a mammal or fish, feel when going about their day?

~~~
jmmcd
_more progressive scientists_

I don't really like to hear scientists described as progressive or non-
progressive. I would prefer to hear that they are more or less sceptical.

~~~
jbattle
I read "progressive" as an ethical statement. Unless you can demonstrate a
"scientific default" ethical system that all scientists should adhere to, this
seems like valid distinction

~~~
jmmcd
_Progressive_ means the scientists advocate reform or "new, liberal ideas".
All of which is fine in their private capacity, but if these scientists are
influenced in their scientific output by being progressive then they're not
doing their job.

------
rickmode
Interesting the part about non-interference:

"But Vecellio said it would go against Karisoke center policies and ethos to
actively instruct the apes. 'We try as much as we can to not interfere with
the gorillas. We don’t want to affect their natural behavior.'"

It's the Prime Directive in the 21st century.

~~~
sho_hn
Actually that analogy doesn't hold up all that well. In Star Trek, the Prime
Directive applies to populations which have not yet invented the warp drive.
Since the gorillas have already shown themselves capable of dismantling snares
on their own, they've essentially demonstrated a development level that would
make it OK to share "snare dismantling technology" with them.

(Wohoo, Star Trek discussion! On a completely unrelated note: Today sees the
US release of Star Trek: TNG season 1 on Blu-ray, which is the result of a
remastering effort of unprecedented scale, going back to the original film
negatives of live action and VFX elements and essentially repeating most of
the post-production process using modern technology - compositing, editing,
the works. They've spent a double-digit amount of millions of US dollars
remastering season 1 alone, and have dozens of people working in three shifts
24/7 to complete two seasons per year, including several veterans of the
original crew. The effect is something as if you had to watch the show through
a sheet of smoked, colored glass up to now, when someone has finally taken it
away.)

~~~
cliffbean
There's a danger in taking Star Trek too literally; they often break their own
rules in order to suit the needs of their plots. That said...

The warp drive rule was a threshold thing. Before a civilization reaches warp
drive, they're not supposed to receive any help at all, even with technologies
that they've discovered. Once they reach warp drive, then it's time to make
first contact and start to tell them about the galactic birds and bees.

Warp drive is a beautifully natural threshold within the Star Trek universe.
Unfortunately, in our world today, we don't always have nice boundaries like
that. Is trap-disarming for gorillas a threshold event analogous to warp
drive, or is it more like a significant but ultimately incremental step in a
long journey? I don't think there are any easy answers.

------
mparlane
Just need to give them guns now.

~~~
jorahmormont
I guess it can't be worse then giving them to our own Army.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Z_haZqh60> (Pat Tillman case)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-EwReGl88o> (Laveena Johnson case)

------
scotty79
Would be much cooler if instead of dismanling the traps they moved them to the
paths that hunters go through to check if anything got caught.

------
netcan
If this stayed the same for long enough to be meaningful in evolutionary
terms, this would end in very smart apes.

