As humans were evacuated from the area 20 years ago, animals moved in. Existing populations multiplied and species not seen for decades, such as the lynx and eagle owl, began to return.Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world? For the animals, a nuclear disaster is preferable to life with us.
There are even tantalising footprints of a bear, an animal that has not trodden this part of Ukraine for centuries....
There is nothing to disturb the wild boar - said to have multiplied eightfold between 1986 and 1988 - except its similarly resurgent predator, the wolf....
[T]he benefits to wildlife of removing people from the zone, have far outweighed any harm from radiation.
२० एप्रिल, २००६
"A lot of birds are nesting inside the sarcophagus."
Chernobyl as paradise, for animals.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३६ टिप्पण्या:
Why would that make me ashamed? People are more interesting than animals. Culture is more interesting than nature. Etc.
Mainly it makes me wonder why birds, bears and boar would be immune to radiation where humans are not?
Perhaps they are not immune, and they are unaware of the need to leave, while we wring our hands about whether to interfere?
Or perhaps whatever one doesn't have is more appealing than what one has.
I don't find myself feeling ashamed by stories like this. I find them heartening in a rooting-for-the-underdog sort of way.
I would say that the aftermath of a nuclear disaster is preferable for animals than life with humans. The animals died during the disaster, too. I don't think this story makes me ashamed -- it just underscores man's extremely large impact on local ecologies.
This is also a fascinating story of adaptation to mitigate the effects of radiation. What a treasure trove of data!
Here is the website from a lady who journeyed to Chernobyl. It is eerie
Perhaps it isn't a question of the animals being more resistant to radiation than humans, but rather that we are willing to let them take their own chances with it, and we aren't willing to let our own kind.
In CO here, first it was the Rocky Mtn. Arsonel, filled at one time with chemical weapons. Then it was Rocky Flats, filled at one time with plutonium. Both have turned into wildlife refuges (ok, Rocky Flats is just getting started).
The Arsonel is located between Denver's old and new airports. They built the new one because they wanted a 4th (or 5th?) runway, and some were worried that landing over all that polution at over 100 mph might endanger the passengers. Well, today, all you see there is wildlife. A lot of it, as you drive by on the back way to the new airport. And, surprisingly, none of the deer you see have two heads.
There aren't a lot of preditors in the Arsenal, since it has a pretty good fence around it (to keep humans out). Rocky Flats may be better for that, and is right by some mtn. lion habitat - though both are more wolf (which are just reentering CO) than lion territory.
Sure, all that radiation may slightly increase birth defects. But the absense of humans in all these areas is even more important than that in allowing these wildlife species to flourish.
After all, how bad can a 1% increase in birth defects, or a month or so off the end of a life, be to animals where 50% attrition of the young is considered exceptionally good?
All those Russian swine running lose? They probably see 75% or better attrition their first year. Always have in nature. They just have big litters.
So, I think in the end, I don't feel guilty here, but rather a bit ambivalent.
Simon, the lower radiation levels present now (as opposed to during the disaster and it's immediate aftermath) might have less impact on animals with shorter life-spans than it would one humans. Also, since most animals breed more often than humans, the can probably deal with more birth defects and still maintain population levels, especially with the absence of the most successful predator.
Slocum, large fauna that were extinct in New England since before Thoreau's time (1840s) have since returned to the area in force. Large animals can roam fairly widely, so it wouldn't be a total surprise if one bear wondered in from parts unknown.
Sure we don't feel guilty now, but when all those creatures mutate into supervillians from the radiation and come to exact their revenge, we'll probably feel differently.
And now to amswer Ann's question.
Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world? For the animals, a nuclear disaster is preferable to life with us.
Ashamed isn't the right word, not for me. Homo sapiens are just another animal. Our particular adaptations are such that we change the environment to suite our needs. And most of those that came before us couldn't be fully aware of the consequences of their actions. (I doubt that we are really aware ourselves. We're jsut more aware.) Frankly, if you move into a new area, killing all the bear before the bears kill you is a pretty damn good survival strategy!
But the greatest problem for other life has been the invention of agriculture, and all that that allowed. Agriculture requires large amounts of land, which means habitat destruction, which means the moose will flee the area even if you don't hunt them to extinction. And the arts of civilization, which occur naturally from agriculture, serve to further increase the population of humans, requiring more land, etc, etc.
And it's not just land. There are growing deadzones in the oceans too, which are linked directly to large agriculture.
Fortunately, as society's grow richer, they can afford better environmental policies. The return of moose to New England is a result of improved environmental policies. Another would be the improved air quality in places like Pittsburgh over the last 60 years or so. Unfortunately, most of humanity isn't wealthy enough to afford a better environment, and may never be so.
So I'm not ashamed. People are products of nature too, and they are doing what comes naturally. I am concerned, however, about the overall level of habitat destruction we have caused, and continue to cause. But eventually that will sort itself out one way or another.
Freeman Hunt wrote: Sure we don't feel guilty now, but when all those creatures mutate into supervillians from the radiation and come to exact their revenge, we'll probably feel differently.
We'll feel differently, but we'll feel stupid instead of guilty. Why didn't WE move there? We could be supervillians too!
Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world?
Not being a granola Vermont hippie, I would say the answer is a squishy "no".
Although I do very much hate that hunter who killed Bambi's mum.
Cheers,
Victoria
This is gist for a good sci-fi movie... I can see it now- Bears and birds gone wild due to radiation combined with a bunch of good Russian vodka left behind.
Do I feel ashamed? If animals were allowed to flourish without human intervention, they would be a lot more of them killed by other animals, dying for lack of resources etc. all that natural stuff, its not like a Disney movie where all the animals live in peace until man shows up.
That said we need to be good stewards and learn how to not waste resources yet allow for human progress. Its unrealistic to think we should abandon great swaths of land to the animals, however romantic the idea of millions of buffalo roaming the plains might be. (please ignore the Native Americans running them over a cliff, in the corner of your screen)
"Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world?"
Heavens, no! Sentimentalize nature at your own peril (See Grizzly Man, Open Water).
I think they have thrived because the after effects of the incident turned out to be less severe than we thought.
I do think Walt Disney should be ashamed... for traumatizing sweet little children like Victoria.
What kind of monster sets up innocent children for such anguish?
Actually I gather the Korea DMZ is a natural paradise. Lots of mines, nobody walks around there, nobody wanders in ... it has become one big wildlife refuge.
For rabbits, Australia is preferable to places where things eat them.
What does that tell you about places where rabbits get eaten?
It tells you that somebody eats rabbits there, and not a heck of a lot else.
That having been said, if you're not having enough trouble sleeping at night, Mick Hartley found a photo essay on Chernobyl last month that'll make your hair stand straght up and quiver. The purpose of the essay is to scare people too silly to think straight about nuclear power, which is sad, but you can ignore that.
Wolves??? Peter better watch out... I hear the distant, but growing rumble of Prokofiev's hunters.
Icepick - the lifespan point hadn't even ocurred to me. I think you're probably right.
AJ Lynch said...
"This is gist for a good sci-fi movie... I can see it now- Bears and birds gone wild due to radiation combined with a bunch of good Russian vodka left behind."
Or at least, if not a sci-fi movie, a recurring SNL skit. Perhaps the tile music could proceed thusly: "bear city / bear city / bear, bear city / bear city!"
Prefer implies choice, so there's some anthropomorphism at work. Really they prefer a nuclear disaster to humans the same way lichen does. They just fill a niche.
Also, some people say low doses of radiation can be beneficial...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3642576.stm
Not too sure if that applies to this or is even true, but it is interesting.
I lived in the Marshall Islands for several years and a novel was written involving a mutated species with human/dolphin characteristics caused by all the nuclear testing of the early cold war. Not a great book but interesting for local interest. The real effect of radiation on the Marshallese is not so nice to consider. Of course we are talking about Hydrogen Bombs not a reactor leak, not to mention setting off the explosion when the wind would blow the fallout over inhabitants (and the weatherman!) instead of the open ocean.
"... Dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!"
SteveR -- wasn't that the Man from Atlantis? tongue in cheek...
Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world? For the animals, a nuclear disaster is preferable to life with us.
Ashamed? Please. One good meteor strike and 90% of the ecosystem scythes off the planet like dandruff off a greasy teenager. If anything, we should be embarassed that our worst depredations have so little long-term effect.
On this planet, nature routinely exterminates the biosphere as casually as you clip a fingernail. Worrying about our impact on the environment for the environment's sake is a bizarre combination of arrogance and irrelevance.
We SHOULD worry about what we do to the environment - on the specific and sole grounds of our own selfishness and the pursuit of our own interests and pleasures. We enjoy clean air and fields to run through; therefore, let's keep the air clean and refrain from paving every last field.
Screw the birds and the trees, save as they are convenient to our interests.
Troy, here's the description from Amazon of "Fish Heads' (and they aren't rolly polly fish heads)
In the peaceful waters of the Pacific Ocean near Bikini Atoll, a Marshallese fisherman’s motorboat suddenly strikes a mysterious object. Moments later, the horrified fisherman retrieves what seem to be human body parts. Back on shore, Jodi Larsen, a young American physician working in the Marshall Islands, tries to find a logical explanation for the fisherman’s grotesque find. After reporting what she suspects may be some unknown effect from American H-bomb testing, Jim Newell, a specialist in genetic disease research, arrives to assist in an investigation. Against a backdrop of their growing love for one another, Jim and Jodi are soon drawn into a dangerous web of cover-ups, murder, and intrigue that changes their lives forever.
Robert to your point I give you the Manson Impact Structure in what is now Iowa from 74 million years ago. Anybody ever heard of it?
"In the fraction of a second that it took the meteorite to penetrate about one mile into the ground, the shock wave created by the initial contact with the surface reached the back side of the meteorite and its potential energy was transformed to kinetic energy, the equivalent of about 10 trillion tons of TNT. An electromagnetic pulse moved away from the point of impact at nearly the speed of light, and instantly ignited anything that would burn within approximately 130 miles of the impact (most of Iowa). The shock wave toppled trees up to 300 miles away (Chicago, Minneapolis, and St. Louis), and probably killed most animals within about 650 miles (Detroit and Denver). The blast left a crater over 24 miles in diameter centered in an area of unimaginable death and destruction."
"Is there no ability to step back and say, wow, as a species, we behave like a pretty nasty plague?"
Is this inspired by the "humans are a virus" speech from "The Matrix"?
Seriously, even if we have no particularly romantic notions of nature, it is in our own best interest not to go screaming willy-nilly over The Environment" with no thought to the consequences of our actions...
At the same time, past attempts by humans to positively effect the environment (by say, protecting a certain species, or stopping/starting forest fires), have themselves had unanticipated and sometimes negative long-term consequences.
"beyond what is reasonably necessary to our survival and prosperity."
I agree--except that this is where people disagree! "reasonably necessary" is a very, very debatable phrase.
I was just kiddin' about "The Matrix," btw
Marghlar,
I think animals can make choices, like the example you gave, but not this particular choice. Animals will live where they can live, and won't where they can't.
Cheers!
The modern use of the word ethics tends to how people treat eachother (e.g. a professional code of ethics) But going back to Aristotle it was about what was good for society, the common good. So it could be a differnce of what ethics means. To me what CB said is wrong about toturing a dog in our society, would make it unethical to Aristotle.
But then again, I could be full of B.S.
Are you really suggesting that we have no moral or ethical duties via a vis other species? We are not nature, we are ethical beings.
What do you mean by moral or ethical responsibilities? You've mentioned beating a dog to death for the hell of it, or torturing a monkey.
But what about neutering or spaying a day? If you did that to a person, it would be a far worse crime than mere genital mutilation. But for a dog? These days you're considered a bad person if you don't!
And what about the problem of rabbits in Australia, to choose one example? Those rabbits should really be exterminated. Genocide if done to people, but a necessary step to restore the balance for Australia's native habitats.
And I haven't even gotten into medical experimentation, or raising animals for food.
If you want to talk about the ethics, fine. But you need to provide some sort of working definition of ethical behavior to start with. And I can guarantee that if it runs into strictly utilitarian problems, it will be shot down by humanity as a whole.
"some animals are sapient enough that I want them to be considered as people -- that is, we shouldn't arbitrarily kill them, or hurt them, or take away their liberty."
Does that mean we can't eat them? does that count as arbitrary?
Also, what if they would eat us if they could? Are we allowed to eat them then. Like lets say a Kodiac bear.
Also, does that mean you think zoos and aquariums should not exist?
Marghlar, you wrote...
I can't call a principle legitimate unless it can be applied to all persons equally.
Why not?
I find it very hard to imagine that a society that permits such sadism ... could ever be happier, overall, than a society that doesn't.
So what? What does a happier society have to do with the price of tea in China? Can't be because it's the ethical thing to prefer; that'd be circular.
There have been very popular and successful ethical systems which didn't give a crap about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In fact, I suspect they've been in the majority, overall. How would you argue for the superiority of your ethical system over that of the Romans, without bringing essential parts of your system in as axioms?
(Heck, I'd go further and suggest that greatest-happiness ethical systems are unique to dying cultures, if that weren't off topic and, for all I know, gratuitously inflamatory as well).
I assume Rawls et al. have standard answers to these questions, but I figured it's easier to annoy you than to do all the reading.
I think what I'm driving at here is that it's meaningless in principle to talk about ethics other than in terms of personal preference. You can talk about the practical utility of given ethical systems in achieving certain goals (appeasing the volcano god, rural electrification of the Ukraine, you name it), but the goal-selection is just a matter of whatever floats your boat.
That's true even if you go with religion: God's personal preferences are likely to be enforced more spectacularly than mine (if He exists), but I fail to see how that makes them "more true". He's just got heavier artillery.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा