Wants, Needs, Musts, Choices, and Sharks

When 'Want" is Confused with "Need" the Supposed Beneficiary Becomes the Victim.

We MUST obtain this data
We NEED to display this animal in captivity
I MUST preserve my culture
We MUST make our beaches safe
We MUST understand these animals to protect them
We NEED this data to protect them

Each of the above are choices rather than needs or musts.  When choices are misconstrued as needs these choices become excuses to do what we want, not what we need to do.  Let's see if I can defend this notion and for fun I'm going to do it from two perspectives; scientific and extremist.

---

Public Safety:  Let's start with politicians who state that we MUST take preventative action against shark attacks, whether this is referring to shark culls, beach nets, gill nets etc. 

• Scientific reasoning; Culls don't work.  Others have already shown this for me so you can take a moment to read this evidence here or you can take my word and keep going. 
  
• Extremist reasoning: The goal of culls is to prevent human death or injury inflicted by another animal.  This comes with the assumption that the human lives in question NEED to be saved.  An extremist might say we CHOOSE to save this life so as not to suffer the symptoms associated with loss of life, such as sorrow.  But a CHOICE was also made to enter the domain of an apex predator.  Taking action against such a predator is CHOOSING to believe 1. Our lives our more valuable than theirs 2. We have more rights than they do 3. The planet is ours and everything else on it is a guest.  
  These are beliefs, which are different than facts and when we take action based on beliefs rather than facts we are making CHOICES rather than acting out of necessity.  I'm not saying I want to be killed or have a family member killed, but the bottom line is that we have a different set of rules for everything on this planet based on our beliefs.

Display:  A big argument for the captivity of animals is that of "raising awareness", education, etc.

• The scientific argument is primarily one of physics.  Physically one may CHOOSE to observe animals in that animal's own natural environment, captivity is not the only option.  Depending on the animal in question It may be more difficult, more expensive, and less convenient, but it is still a CHOICE.  
• Extremist: Consider the awakening of attitudes toward cetaceans in marine parks; this can be applied to other species as well.  Monterey Bay Aquarium uses the same excuses Sea World is criticized for regarding orcas when justifying the capture and display of white sharks.  Do they raise awareness?  Yes.  Could I make a video of myself taking a bath in shark blood and raise awareness?  Yes.  MBA is guilty of the death of reportedly more than 2 dozen white sharks to date in their attempt to display them and they plan to continue. Use awareness as an excuse, use the ticket sales going toward research as an excuse, use education as an excuse.  Bottom line again is that it is a CHOICE and even you are unfortunate enough not to see a white shark in your life, you will survive.  I've seen white sharks in the wild and I've seen the ones on display at MBA.  Quite frankly, seeing them in captivity did little for the species.  It was a sad spectacle of a "caged animal" that would clearly either need to be set free or would die in captivity.  The difference between the white shark's agitated swimming behavior and that of the other fish, even the other sharks, was notable.
  

Science:  We NEED to understand these animals.  We NEED to see them give birth.  We MUST tag them to protect them.  We MUST know its complete life-cycle, solve their puzzle, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.

• The scientific argument is so obvious it's sad because each of the reasons listed above is given due to the fact that supposedly more data on the species will save them.  Ironically, the only thing they need to be saved from is us.  Seriously.  There's no invasive species wiping out sharks that begs for us to step in and help, unless we're going to step in and eradicate ourselves.  Supposedly we need to tag x number of sharks, write x number of papers, pass x number of laws, determine x number of a species' populations, and so on in order to save these animals.  History shows that our documented knowledge of an animal's behavior, habitat, and population size still does not result in us taking proper conservative action.  Admittedly I'm having a hard time separating extremist views from scientific on this one, but that's because the history of science and conservation supports this extremist attitude.  Science is cool, science is interesting, but "better' science not the answer because it isn't the real problem.
• Extremist: Knowledge is a privilege, not a right.  Survival of a species does not depend upon us knowing when or where that species gives birth or if it changes color after midnight, or swims upside down at 3 PM every 3rd day on its migrational path.  Survival of that species depends upon us not killing that species.  With few exceptions are there examples of animals that would not benefit from less death suffered at human hands.  For those who would claim that "cutting edge technology" and "better data" are keys to an animal's survival, please show me a study indicating that long-lining, gill netting, trawling, finning, etc. benefit the ocean.  We already know what we need to do; stop the killing.  Businesses don't fish the ocean, they rape it.  Mercilessly.  40,000 peer reviewed papers aren't going to change that fact.  The cat and mouse game of needing more data to determine what to do next is a bureaucratic bullshit system to keep funds flowing and people employed, also known as "science for the sake of science."
  
  

Culture: "It is important to my culture to eat this or that or kill this or that."  I've already discussed this before in the blog "A Culture of Killing", but here's a sample.

• Scientific: The concept of culture developed over time as populations grew and civilizations developed.  Culture can hold many wonderful treasures.  It is not, however, necessary for life.  Period. 
• Extremist:  Humans are a blip on the map of the earth's timeline.  We are only important in our own eyes.  I don't care what ethnicity you are or what your culture has endured, or if it makes your life feel more significant because you hold on to traditions that your ancestors held on to.  The bottom line is that our short span existence has brought this planet to its knees.  If there are still beautiful cultures among us living harmoniously with the earth, they aren't the prevailing ones.  
  
  

The irony of Understanding:  This was pretty much covered already, but I'm not afraid to beat a dying horse.

• The concept that we need to understand an animal in order to save it is flawed due to the resounding theme that everything on this planet is better off without us.  Sharks don't need us, in fact all they really need is us to leave them alone.  Whenever we meddle with nature the results are negative.  What's the motivation of this meddling behavior in the first place?  For nature's sake?  For the betterment of the planet?  C'mon.  Please don't play the angel.  Killing an indigenous population is about conquering land.   Land is about expanding a people.  Expanding a people is about food and housing.  Killing other predators is about removing competition for food (or these days for sport) and making land for sale more attractive to the buyer.  Chopping down forests for the sake of planting crops means we choose to grow and harvest something other than what is provided.  To solve world hunger?  No, for profits.