Did Attenborough's BBC Earth team take the right course of action?

[TENINCH]

Eh we got enough humans. We need more animals.

[Small Town Values]

On 27/11/2018 at 4:29 AM, TXsteeler said:

It's probably different because it is both less common than the other examples you came up with, and something the animals are less likely to actually be able to adapt to.

We can't really say how common it is? We know Antartica is susceptible to extreme weather. And, that penguins in terms of mobility are less capable in the terrestrial environment, as opposed to the aquatic. So, I'm still not convinced this is a special case.

Like I said, fine with the decision, just not the reasoning.

Even if this is a rare case? You could still apply the drought intervention analogy, if you reserved it for unusually severe (Long) drought periods. The dry season is common, but once in a decade / century droughts could potentially warrant the same intervention.

Here's a video from South America of rescuers doing just that. They are relocating wild caiman (Looks like Black & Yacare species) from evaporating mud pools in sevre drought conditions to permanent water.

PS - They also rescue domestic cattle at the end. Which is their responsibility tbf. 

[Non-Issue]

On 11/22/2018 at 9:55 AM, Dome said:

Ehhh, I don’t take issues with humans intervening... but real talk, I’d slaughter an entire flock of flightless birds if it meant saving a single human life. 

Note: I don’t know if you’re putting equal weight into the value of their lives based on this post as I am drinking whiskey at 6:45am

Depending on the human, of course. 

[Non-Issue]

On 11/25/2018 at 3:17 PM, ET80 said:

You're JUST getting this about me?

The intervention, the "strength in numbers and structure" model we have adopted in modern society is our defense mechanism. We weren't blessed with fangs, claws, ligaments that allow us to sprint 80mph for up to 10 miles, etc. Our strength is the use of opposable thumbs and a logical mind to solve complex problems and leverage others to help when in need. So, when we "intervene" in situations, we're just doing what nature intended us to do with the tools given to us. 

Nowhere in there is it dictated that we need to do these things for other species. We can - and there are plenty who do, which is no problem. But in this specific scenario, that crew was to observe, not to intervene. To borrow a Star Trek trope, this was a violation of the Prime Directive. If you're job is to watch, then watch. 

Am I missing some details? Were they specifically told not to intervene?

[TXsteeler]

4 hours ago, Marc MacGyver said:

We can't really say how common it is? We know Antartica is susceptible to extreme weather. And, that penguins in terms of mobility are less capable in the terrestrial environment, as opposed to the aquatic. So, I'm still not convinced this is a special case.

Like I said, fine with the decision, just not the reasoning.

Even if this is a rare case? You could still apply the drought intervention analogy, if you reserved it for unusually severe (Long) drought periods. The dry season is common, but once in a decade / century droughts could potentially warrant the same intervention.

Fair enough but I feel like if it were more common we would have heard about it happening more often. It's not like March of the Penguins had scenes of penguins just being blown over by the wind constantly.

Also, if the drought is rare enough as you say I would agree that human intervention should take place, especially given that we are likely the cause of such droughts.

[Small Town Values]

On 29/11/2018 at 4:24 AM, TXsteeler said:

Fair enough but I feel like if it were more common we would have heard about it happening more often. It's not like March of the Penguins had scenes of penguins just being blown over by the wind constantly.

Also, if the drought is rare enough as you say I would agree that human intervention should take place, especially given that we are likely the cause of such droughts.

I'd say penguins are harder to follow year round than African megafauna. So, I'm not surprised events like that aren't often witnessed. 

I just didn't buy their special case reasoning. However, I agree, sometimes an event happens that's just too distressing to stand by & not to intervene. 

 

[incognito_man]

It's never clicked for me how humans are somehow not natural 😂

Having the opportunity TO intervene and not has the same magnitude impact as actually intervening. It's just the opposite choice. With different consequences.

There's literally no good argument that I can see for not intervening. It's not like the intervention disadvantaged (immediately anyway) any other creature.

[Leader]

At a time when hundreds / thousands of species are becoming extinct - or being threatened with extinction because of human activity, intervention and behavior - I've no problem whatsoever if these penguins (or any animal) was spared or assisted to survive. None. That scale is woefully out of balance.

The film crew can accomplish their mandate and still show the humanity and compassion that should define us.

[TXsteeler]

15 hours ago, Marc MacGyver said:

I'd say penguins are harder to follow year round than African megafauna. So, I'm not surprised events like that aren't often witnessed. 

I just didn't buy their special case reasoning. However, I agree, sometimes an event happens that's just too distressing to stand by & not to intervene. 

 

What might make it marginally different from a lot of the other ideas, is that penguins are much more isolated than a lot of African megafauna are, so an intervention in Africa could have much larger reaching effects than a penguin intervention potentially could.

[TXsteeler]

11 hours ago, incognito_man said:

It's never clicked for me how humans are somehow not natural 😂

Having the opportunity TO intervene and not has the same magnitude impact as actually intervening. It's just the opposite choice. With different consequences.

There's literally no good argument that I can see for not intervening. It's not like the intervention disadvantaged (immediately anyway) any other creature.

The only argument for not intervening is to "let nature take it's course", but I agree that in context it isn't a good argument here. Sometimes it is, but in this situation it just literally "let these penguins die, or don't". Not saving them would have effectively been the same as if they hadn't gotten trapped, and the camera crew decided to hunt them all down and stomp them out.

[Dome]

5 hours ago, TXsteeler said:

the camera crew decided to hunt them all down and stomp them out.

Now THAT would make for a rough nature doc.

[TXsteeler]

2 minutes ago, Dome said:

Now THAT would make for a rough nature doc.

Death March of the Penguins