h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Guilty as charged, you Honour























BUT I'M BACK NOW AND READY TO BE NOISY












Are you happy with the election result?

Why 'badmood' ???

How's that Kakapo entry progressing?

Noisy, eh? Well the place does need a bit of a rak up

Election. Wasn't that weird? The interesting thing is that it took long enough for them to reach a decision that most people were over the election. Had Clark wedded Peters the day after the election there would have been an uproar. I feel a bit sad and jaded, but relieved that Brash lost and will probably lose his job. I haven't really looked at the NZF deal, but the increase in the minimum wage is a surprise bonus.


badmood = crappy real life.


poor old kakapo is terribly neglected

Hi there,

Not so much noisy - not yet - but I think I have added a little bit of colour (incl a touch of green ) - F2121986?thread=646783&post=15437399#p15437399

Re the election... Weird is the word... fingers crossed we don't need another one sooner than scheduled... not that I'm worried bout the right getting in - just the unnecessary cost - although HC would go into the history books again as 1st woman to be elected PM four times!

Sorry to hear (why doesn't saying 'read' come more naturally????) that your having a CRL - you know where to find me

Thanks People have been cheering me up all over the place, it's a bit disorientating . One of my favourites is here: F107909?thread=1305231


Never mind about the az cabal, you've missed the last few months of wolfiedom


I still like Helen Clark, given that anyone in that job is going to get corrupted. Not that I like everything she does or all their policies. But she strikes me as a very interesting politician. It's hard to imagine what the political scene will be like in 3 years time...

Brilliant to see that you have (finally!) submitted your entry to PR!

I noticed the ??? after the date of 'protection' and remembered, vaguely, that there was some 'legal' protection instituted around 1900 or so

However, I have also read that kakapo 'supply' outstripped demand to the point where, in the 1930s, the price went so low that hunters began to look for more $ valuable "game"

Anyhoo... I found this

http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/doclibrary/public/wai262/effective_exclusion/Chapter07.pdf

Page 11

In >>>>> 1899 <<<<<<<<, the schedule of native game protected by law was extended to include kokako, tui, >>>>> kakapo <<<<< , stitchbird and korimako. Hunting seasons were standardised throughout the country in 1900 in response to the settler sport-hunting lobby.

The Animals Protection Bill of >>>> 1903 <<<< proposed licences to shoot native game,but this was omitted from theAct because it was perceived as merely reserving native game to those who could afford
to pay the licence fee.

The 1903 Animals Protection Amendment Act repealed protection for stoats and weasels


...

The 1903 Act further fixed both ‘game’ and ‘native game’ seasons, gave
power to rangers and acclimatisation societies, set a season in which
godwit (kuaka) could be hunted, and prohibited the killing or taking of any ‘game’ or ‘native game’ within any domain or forest reserve.

--------------------------

Although this seems to be the only section mentioning kakapo, I think the whole document is worth a read (or at least 'saving' ... it is 104 pages long!) as it tells a rather important part of our history - one that all to many of us seem content to consign to the << oh, that's so long ago, stop worrying about it >> basket

Ooh that's good, I'll have a look tomorrow.

The best I found was some Waitangi Tribunal references to the 1907 Wildlife Protection Act where the kakapo was specifically mentioned as being what I took to be fully protected. But it's hard to know when you've reached the earliest legislation. I would have thought copies of old legislation would be online by now, but apparently not.


>>In1899,the schedule of native game protected by law was extended to
include kokako, tui, kakapo, stitchbird and korimako.<<

Hard to know if that's full protection or out of season protection.


>>
However, I have also read that kakapo 'supply' outstripped demand to the point where, in the 1930s, the price went so low that hunters began to look for more $ valuable "game" <<

Do you know what they were being hunted for at that stage? Food? Specimen preservation?


It's good to have the entry finally in PR. I kept finding more and more information, especially stuff that wouldn't be online, but in the end I just had to go enough and let it be. There's room there for someone to write about the recovery programme in more detail.


>>as it tells a rather important part of our history<<

Yes, thanks for that, I've saved a copy.

One suggestion... and it's not a major - hence me posting it here rather than the PR thread

Instead of

... through differing kinds of forest, to lowland tussock. The major factors to bring on the decline of the kakapo were: predation by humans; the loss of habitat as native ecosystems were cleared for farming; the introduction of predating mammals (stoats, ferrets, rats and cats); and the introduction of browsing mammals (deer and Australian possums) that competed for and changed the vegetation.

How about

... through differing kinds of forest, to lowland tussock.

The major factors to bring on the decline of the kakapo were:

predation by humans
the loss of habitat as native ecosystems were cleared for farming
the introduction of predating mammals (stoats, ferrets, rats and cats)
and
the introduction of browsing mammals (deer and Australian possums) that competed for and changed the vegetation.

<< we're trying to re-establish the Dawn Chorus here >>

I heard something on the radio just last week, I think, about some boffins who are doing that with audio gear... digitilising the 'bird calls' on old tapes etc PLUS 'engineering' the calls of birds _without_ any archival sources INCL the moa!

I think it must have been on National Radio...

I'll have a hunt for a link or similar - although not now, I'm supposed to be w*rking

Interesting. I have no idea what a moa is meant to sound like.

Did you see the news a month or so ago about the possible South Island kokako sign in Fiordland?


The bullet point idea above is good - it'd break up the text nicely. But it might lead people to think there was more on each of the point whereas I've only really written in detail about 2 of the four points. Next time I'm in the edit page I'll have play and see what it looks like.

Hiya!

I see you've settled on 'turn of the 20thC' Fairy enuff too - despite extensive Googling, I couldn't find a date

However!!! I thought laterally... and phoned (remember, like we did in the olden days) the local DoC office - where I know some people

As for the date? dunno! yet... the boffins who will know are out in the field - but one of them will phone me back... soonish

Whilst I'm here, I thought I'd mention something else...

I lurked upon the thread... where you said "witness the still widespread view in the scientific communities that animals don't have emotion"

widespread ??? Maybe among those who never talk to scientists... the ones I know reasonably well (eight of them, in six fields) all have dogs and/or cats that they adore and fuss over

Now, I'm not a scientist... but I do appreciate what I understand of the scientific method - which, in a nutshell, seems to be 'Observe, think, test, observe, think, test, observe, etc, etc until the cows come home'

So... although I haven't ever asked the scientists I do know, from what I've observed, I'd be totally gobsmacked if any of them would entertain, even for a moment, that animals lack emotion

If you know otherwise, I'd be fascinated to know

Cheers
six7s

Thanks for checking the date! I considered phoning someone in DOC but basically couldn't be bothered when I considered the wait and the back and forth it probably would entail. In the end I went with your source (1889) but kept it general in case it was 1907. Let me know what you find out though

Did you get to see the kakapo chickies last year?


Re the animals and emotion thing - it's always good for people to pull me up when I make gross generalisations Sometime I do it because I'm unsure if anyone is actually interested in what I say, the thinking being that if someone shows interest I'll be more specific.

What I was referring to is scientists within the debate about animal testing and whether animals have emotion. Mostly this is stuff I've read online. Psychological sciences consider animals to have no emotion (or at least they are still debating it).

In terms of experimental labs I'd guess there is a variety of opinion and experience. I'm sure there are people there who have compassion for animals although I doubt that it's the most empathic people (who probably couldn't stand to work there). But I'm sure there are people there also who have little or no feelings for the animals.

However I think the point I was trying to make is that it's the bigger picture that concerns me. The reductionist model, plus the influence of big business make it hard to believe that we have the capacity for ethical decisions. I don't buy the argument that animal testing is really expensive therefore drug companies wouldn't do it unless really necessary. They may need animal testing to make money out of patented drugs. But science may not need animal testing so much if the profit margin wasn't the overriding issue.

I see this alot with research on herbal medicines where the research looks like it's being done to isolate constituents that can be patented rather than trying to further knowledge about the use of the herb which can't be patented (it's obviously not as black and white as that, but there is no doubt that the paradigms the research are being done within are reductionist and economic and that this influences the kind of research that gets funded and HOW it is done).

<< Did you get to see the kakapo chickies last year? >>

Alas, no... but that's cool - they're endangered, not entertainment


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


<< it's always good for people to pull me up when I make gross generalisations >>

I just knew you wouldn't mind, esp here in this quiet corner...

-------
I've popped back to write 'this' bit just before I post, cos what follows could sound rather confrontational - so just imagine there are a shedload of smileys littered about - and remember too that I like you and value your ideas
-------



You use the term 'reductionist', and, I guess, so do I - but differently

Trying to look at things from an holistic point of view, one I'm sure you endorse, I see that scientists are simply today's grown ups, yesterday's kids in our local schools and communities - and WE (collectively) told them to do science... so they did

Some of them got 'cuddly' jobs, saving pandas, kakapo, even snails, etc... and they get 'good' press

Meanwhile, most of their peers go about their work largely ignored - cos they're doing the humdrum stuff - like finding cures for diseases - v few photo ops there

The 'ambulance at the bottom of the cliff' analogy makes sense if we say energy/funding/research should be diverted from finding cures to prevention

But... in my eye, that's a reductionist view: ignoring the reality that the diseases/etc are only _symptoms_ of the whole-general-mish-mash, and 'fixing that' is an art, not a science

<< Psychological sciences consider animals to have no emotion (or at least they are still debating it). >>

Psychology is, I reckon, definitely an art - which is not to say that I view psychiatry as a science... but there is, I suspect, a fundamental difference

<< I'm sure there are people there who have compassion for animals although I doubt that it's the most empathic people (who probably couldn't stand to work there) >>

I suspect that is a HUGE generalisation

The people working 'there' trained, got jobs, got promoted etc. They're professionals, who are (generally speaking - according to research¹) motivated by pride in their work - not the money - as if ANY scientist is motivated that way

Isn't empathy the ability to imagine walking in someone else's shoes?
If so, I find it a teensy bit hypocritical when you, as I see it, are painting strangers so badly

<< I don't buy the argument that animal testing is really expensive >>

Surely the drug companies are simply profit-driven businesses, with some of the best intellectual muscle going... If so, do the maths....


Breeding and housing takes time and space = $mega/project

A computer simulation can be run so that 2 zillion years pass in a minute, all from a laptop: $kilo/project


OK... enuff already!

I guess you've stirred something up in the darker recesses of my skull - so thanks!

Ka kite
six7s

_________________
¹ http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html

>>>
I've popped back to write 'this' bit just before I post, cos what follows could sound rather confrontational - so just imagine there are a shedload of smileys littered about - and remember too that I like you and value your ideas
<<<

and likewise


>>>
You use the term 'reductionist', and, I guess, so do I - but differently
<<<

When I use that term I am trying for a word (or phrase) that sums up the paradigm that western science is working within (not that one can reduce it down to a singular ). One of the big frustrations I have on h2 is the lack of recognition that there are other, valid ways of knowing. I generally feel that mostly the pro-Science* people have no idea what I'm talking about.

(* pro-Science with a big S being the people who see see science as the be all and end all of explaining the world we live in).

Mostly I don't see the reductionist view of the western scientific model as having a moral load ie it's not bad or good. It's a tool, often a useful one. However when it gets presented as a fait d'accompli without any meta awareness of what it actually is, it drives me crazy.


However I take your point that I may be appearing reductionist in a more general way by my stance on all this. I think it's probably a matter of debating style and presentation as I actually like science quite alot but end up banging my head against a brick wall alot in these kinds of debates.


>>>
Trying to look at things from an holistic point of view, one I'm sure you endorse, I see that scientists are simply today's grown ups, yesterday's kids in our local schools and communities - and WE (collectively) told them to do science... so they did

Some of them got 'cuddly' jobs, saving pandas, kakapo, even snails, etc... and they get 'good' press

Meanwhile, most of their peers go about their work largely ignored - cos they're doing the humdrum stuff - like finding cures for diseases - v few photo ops there

The 'ambulance at the bottom of the cliff' analogy makes sense if we say energy/funding/research should be diverted from finding cures to prevention

But... in my eye, that's a reductionist view: ignoring the reality that the diseases/etc are only _symptoms_ of the whole-general-mish-mash, and 'fixing that' is an art, not a science
<<<

Definitely agree with that.


>>>
<< Psychological sciences consider animals to have no emotion (or at least they are still debating it). >>

Psychology is, I reckon, definitely an art - which is not to say that I view psychiatry as a science... but there is, I suspect, a fundamental difference
<<<

I was referring to the parts of psychology that use the scientific method. I agree that psychology is as much an art as anything. I'll see if I can find some links to the critique of psychology's view of animals and see if that makes more sense of my argument.


<<<
<< I'm sure there are people there who have compassion for animals although I doubt that it's the most empathic people (who probably couldn't stand to work there) >>

I suspect that is a HUGE generalisation
>>>

Maybe we have different definitions of empathy here. I was meaning people that cringe at the thought of another being's pain. When they see suffering they tend to literally feel it in themselves (emotionally and often physically) and have a low tolerance for things like killing animals, inflicting suffering even where necessary (eg giving a cat it's medicine).

Now obviously that's the extreme end of the empathy spectrum and there are many people who still have the kind of empathy you are talking about who don't have that extreme type. Again there is no moral judgement here on my part. Hypersensitive people can't function very well when exposed to things that make them feel things so intensely eg a squeamish person would have a hard time being a paramedic. I'm not saying they are better or worse people than anyone else (in fact most people I know like that sometimes find that degree of sensitivity a liability).

All I was trying to say is that I think such people are unlikely to be working in labs that do animal testing.

>>>
The people working 'there' trained, got jobs, got promoted etc. They're professionals, who are (generally speaking - according to research¹) motivated by pride in their work - not the money - as if ANY scientist is motivated that way

Isn't empathy the ability to imagine walking in someone else's shoes?
If so, I find it a teensy bit hypocritical when you, as I see it, are painting strangers so badly
<<<

Leaving aside the empathy issue (as I've already addressed that) I agree that most individual scientists are probably motivated the same as anyone else. I did say in the other thread that I don't consider scientists to be any more good or bad than anyone else. For the most part my critique of science is more about Science, the culture and how that is influenced by politics, economics, and big business.

Having said that, in the area I'm most familiar with (medicine) there have traditionally been alot of individuals who have behaved badly and/or supported their profession to behave badly (the most obvious example here is doctors and their symbiotic relationship with drug companies. Although one could argue that clinical doctors aren't scientists). So I do think that individual scientists have some responsibility for the practices of their professions and how this impacts on the world. But for the most part when I strongly criticise Science I am speaking culturally rather than thinking about individuals.


>>>>
<< I don't buy the argument that animal testing is really expensive >>

Surely the drug companies are simply profit-driven businesses, with some of the best intellectual muscle going... If so, do the maths....


Breeding and housing takes time and space = $mega/project

A computer simulation can be run so that 2 zillion years pass in a minute, all from a laptop: $kilo/project

<<<

You've misquoted me there. I wasn't saying that animal testing isn't expensive. I was saying that I don't buy the argument that animal testing is necessary because it's so expensive that they wouldn't do it if it wasn't necessary. It probably IS necessary - if the imperative is economic (and I think often it is)

And again I'm not saying that scientist are greedy. I'm saying that Science is now so instrinscially mixed with economis and politics that individual scientists probably have little control over it.


I'm struggling here to explain well what I am meaning. I don't have an inherent stance against animal testing (meaning I can probably see some contexts where's it's worth the suffering). I do have a huge problem with how it is done today. From my perspective the problem isn't at the individual scientist level, it's to do with the whole cultural construct that thinks that health and wellbeing are derived from high tech medicine as a priority. Cancer research is a really good one - if one compares the amount of resources spent on searches for cures compared to research on prevention. I'm not saying stop all research on cures and focus soley on prevention. I'm saying we need to critique a culture that thinks that solution to cancer is soley biomedical, and we need to analyse the connections between that view and the economic imperative of drug companies.



>>>
I guess you've stirred something up in the darker recesses of my skull - so thanks!
<<<

Likewise again

ps Maslow's heirarchy of needs should probably be in the Canon

This thread is cool!

I don't entirely understand every point you've raised - on a quick skim read... I was supposed to be out the door 5 mins ago! - but I like the gist of it

I have a hunch we share a fundamental philosophy, yet come to our world-view via different paths... so maybe we can illuminate one another... I know my eyes are open, thanks!

Anthoo...

<< I'm saying we need to critique a culture that thinks that solution to cancer is soley biomedical, and we need to analyse the connections between that view and the economic imperative of drug companies.>>

ABSOLUTELY! And I like the way you use the word 'we'

My only addition to that would be:

Don't blame the scientists (small s), nor the researchers, not even the drug-company bread-heads for OUR seemingly single-track approach - instead, ALL of society is responsible... hey, from an holistic point of view, even the wetas have to shoulder their share of responsibility (I actually mean that too)

Cheers!

Yes, good conversation we have here

Thought you might be interested in this:

F3745360?thread=2955223

Do you know the origin of the US calling kiwifruit 'kiwis'? I had assumed that it was a shortening of 'kiwifruit' ('kiwifruit' being a marketing invention in NZ 20 or 30 years ago). But the entry is saying that the US named the fruit after the bird.

Morena

I see Opti has put the kiwifruit entry in the Writing Workshop.

I did a bit of lurking the other day and found that Opti had been feeling PR was too hard on them. They also seem to be having a hard time in RL, so I'm going to repost my comments in the WW thread and try and make them more encouraging.


you keeping warm?

Warm and toasty by the fire

The WW approach seems like a great idea to me - not cos PR should be harsh - just that WW is designed for 'support' on entries that still need work

However, when I was writing my one and only EG entry, I went via the WW and got (from memory) v little if any feedback - so I plonked it in PR, where the feedback was sluggish yet supportive

Nostalgia eh? It sure ain't what it used to be

The WW is much busier than it used to be, so hopefully Opti will get some good support for the entry.

I'll be interested to see how the kiwifruit vs kiwi thing plays out. I'd think that in terms of the edited guide kiwifruit is more correct, but we'll see

Did you hear the birdcall on Natrad before?


I'm not sure about Kathryn Ryan in the Nine to Noon slot. Although I haven't listened to her much yet