: If you're supposed to relocate insects and animals that don't spread disease, and make the world a worse place (your example cochroaches), what about animals that overpopulate farms, like rats, mice, rabbits, cane toads, locusts, and the rest of those living creatures that come under the category of "pest."I consider no animal a pest, except for maybe a certain two-legged hominid. I understand your point about critters which attack farms; in those cases, I'd examine all possible non-lethal methods first. If it was really a case of the farmer's livelihood at stake, and absolutely all non-lethal methods didn't work (which I doubt, but I suppose it's possible), then I would advise said farmer to employ the services of natural predators, as is done now with beneficial insects like ladybugs used to eat insects which destroy agriculture, like aphids. I would not condone the use of cruel and indiscriminate methods, like poison.
: And there is something else I'm not clear on. If you agree that it is okay to cull these pests, on the basis that they cause the death of other animals
No -- I said it they pose a direct health threat to you which can't be avoided any other way...
:, in particular those that are endangered, wouldn't that mean you'd have to kill all who prey on these rare animals?
Good question. As is almost always the case, the animal which brings out threatened and endangered status for other animals is none other than our own, humans. Therefore, it's time to start culling each other. Barring that, I know that there are occasions when animals have been introduced to new habitats where they proved extremely destructive to the native fauna (e.g. when people introduced rats to Hawaii, or cats to the Galapagos -- people, once again, don'tcha know?) and now those animals are wiping out another species. What to do? Again, try all non-lethal methods first, including relocating the endangered species or otherwise protecting them. Should we kill one animal because it is feeding on another, endangered animal? I think not. Human beings have brought about the extinction of other animals, and if they die out, it's a loss we've brought upon ourselves. In other words, if we make them extinct, we never deserved to enjoy their presence in the first place.
: I amit not to knowing a whole lot about nature, I breathe the smog not that oxygen stuff. But I'm sure somewhere in the world there is a rare species of something that can only live where it is due to the climate or some rare plant, but I'd be willing to bet that there would be another endangered species on which it preys.
Probably. Again, while I believe it is important to prevent species from going extinct, I'm more concerned about the individual animal's wellbeing as opposed to the species. In this way, I differ from the deep ecologists. Of course, species are interdependent, and so one species going extinct could cause a calamity for another species, and hence create individual suffering. In the end, I believe that we humans are clever and ingenious enough to prevent species extinction (and crop losses, per your first question) by humane and nonlethal ways.
:I'm a bit confused...
We all are: it's the human condition. By the way, you're not the Sierra who told all us animal rights activists to fuck off some time ago, are you?
None.
