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

[ET80]

56 minutes ago, pwny said:

I just don’t understand the reasoning to not intervene in this scenario. They weren’t disturbing the penguins in any way, they simply made a path for them to take or not take.

Am I missing something? Because I don’t see how it could be seen as improper to do so. 

Would that path be available if they weren't there?

[pwny]

4 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Would that path be available if they weren't there?

No. But why does that matter?

They didn’t pose any type of danger to the animals or themselves, didn’t change the dynamics of the natural system, and didn’t depriving any other creatures of food.

Those are the basis under which the “observer but don’t disturb” rules are founded. Without breaking any of those, I don’t see the problem. It’s no functionally different than forest fire prevention practices, man-made dams, or fishermen using bottlenose dolphins to help with fishing.

[ET80]

43 minutes ago, pwny said:

They didn’t pose any type of danger to the animals or themselves, didn’t change the dynamics of the natural system, and didn’t depriving any other creatures of food.

Define "natural system"... because digging an alternate path such as this in the landscape would be a very big, very dynamic change to said system.

Such pathways, ravines, and openings are created by nature - over millions of years. Maybe a path would have developed over several generations of penguins - generation falls in, generation digs frantically to save themselves, fails in doing so, dies, another generation falls in, digs frantically to save themselves, fails in doing so, dies... until you get a generation that doesn't have much to dig due to the efforts of past generations, then they complete what others have desperately attempted to do and you have a naturally occurring solution to the problem. 

49 minutes ago, pwny said:

Those are the basis under which the “observer but don’t disturb” rules are founded

I don't know if there are any hard and fast rules on this (if there is, please feel free to share). I'd personally define altering a landscape would qualify, but I'm admittedly operating off of limited knowledge. 

[ET80]

56 minutes ago, pwny said:

It’s no functionally different than forest fire prevention practices, man-made dams, or fishermen using bottlenose dolphins to help with fishing.

I'd argue these fall into benefit to man, which circles back to my point on our own survival protocol:

18 hours ago, ET80 said:

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. 

Fire prevention benefits animals, but we benefit more. Ditto with man made dams (not just water retention, but alternative energy sources). Ditto fishing.

Que bono on the penguins? From what I've read, just the penguins.

[pwny]

8 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Define "natural system"... because digging an alternate path such as this in the landscape would be a very big, very dynamic change to said system.

Such pathways, ravines, and openings are created by nature - over millions of years. Maybe a path would have developed over several generations of penguins - generation falls in, generation digs frantically to save themselves, fails in doing so, dies, another generation falls in, digs frantically to save themselves, fails in doing so, dies... until you get a generation that doesn't have much to dig due to the efforts of past generations, then they complete what others have desperately attempted to do and you have a naturally occurring solution to the problem. 

I don't know if there are any hard and fast rules on this (if there is, please feel free to share). I'd personally define altering a landscape would qualify, but I'm admittedly operating off of limited knowledge. 

Landscape isn’t a system, at least insofar as the “do not disturb” actions are concerned.

As your second post noted, yes we do build dams and do fire prevention on large scales for human benefit, but in places like nature reserves, they’re all for the benefit of the wildlife. Adjusting sources of water for animal use, but not human use is commonplace, including building dams or redirecting streams. Clearing out dead trees or other practices to prevent brush fires in areas where a fire wouldn’t impact human life is a well established tactic in many areas. Manmade structures - primarily bridges - are often built to allow wildlife to escape areas where natural disasters are prevalent. Although the practice is usually done to try to cut down on poaching, altering terrain to get elephants to go elsewhere happens quite a bit as well. I just don’t see how this is any different.

[ET80]

11 minutes ago, pwny said:

Landscape isn’t a system, at least insofar as the “do not disturb” actions are concerned.

If you say so, but I have a very hard time conceptualizing any sort of difference. I'll stick a pin in this for the time being, but I do want to circle back, I'm actually interested in any sort of formal definition - if it exists, what it defines, etc.

13 minutes ago, pwny said:

As your second post noted, yes we do build dams and do fire prevention on large scales for human benefit, but in places like nature reserves, they’re all for the benefit of the wildlife. Adjusting sources of water for animal use, but not human use is commonplace, including building dams or redirecting streams. Clearing out dead trees or other practices to prevent brush fires in areas where a fire wouldn’t impact human life is a well established tactic in many areas. Manmade structures - primarily bridges - are often built to allow wildlife to escape areas where natural disasters are prevalent. Although the practice is usually done to try to cut down on poaching, altering terrain to get elephants to go elsewhere happens quite a bit as well. I just don’t see how this is any different.

I think I may have covered this (and apologies if I didn't) but human intention factors into this (I think Dome and I had the Q&A on intervention vs observation). You're right, there are groups out there that are charged with stepping in and providing a hand - but that's the reason they're out there, that's their job. 

That BBC crew? They were a film crew. Their job was to film. Digging a trench isn't part of that job description. Could they perform a proper risk assessment of their actions? 

One point that I just pondered (believe me when I say I don't think about this as much as my responses would indicate - thoughts are coming to me mid-response): What if that added path now made for easier access to any predators in the area? Sea Lions, or Polar Bears or even Orcas? A crew such as Greenpeace would be able to asseas such a potential risk in creating the solution. While a camera crew in the area probably has tangible knowledge of the area as a whole, is it something they can determine "in the moment?" 

In short, did they risk the many to save a few? Would they be around long enough to see said impact (if any?) What's the recourse at THAT point if they did create a greater risk? Save the penguins again, (thereby dooming any predators)? 

Just some thoughts. Remember, I was just wondering about Peaky Blinders here.

[Nazgul]

This is an argument?

Of course it was the right thing to do.
I don't care to hear about the "let nature run its course" bs.
Saving those penguins was absolutely the correct call.

[TXsteeler]

On 11/21/2018 at 10:20 AM, ET80 said:

Nature, in all of its infinite wisdom and understanding that goes beyond our time on this planet? She made her decision. Those animals would have died if left to the natural order. Those animals made an incorrect decision, and now their genes will not continue - which could be a service to the entirety of the species, as weaker genes are now removed from the population. 

What is you experience with ecology and evolution? I ask because the sentiment behind this is sound, but in context it's completely wrong.

If some birds got blown into a ravine by the wind, you aren't culling "weaker genes" (which don't really exist btw) you are just killing penguins. This isn't an environmental stressor that would lead to adaptation over time, it would just kill all of the animals it affects and be over with.

The other important thing to consider is how humans have affected these penguin populations (negatively) and thus saving some of them at no cost to anybody else (assumed based on what I understand about the situation) is definitely the right thing to do.

[ET80]

1 minute ago, TXsteeler said:

What is you experience with ecology and evolution? I ask because the sentiment behind this is sound, but in context it's completely wrong.

This thread is about the extent of my experience. 

2 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

If some birds got blown into a ravine by the wind, you aren't culling "weaker genes" (which don't really exist btw) you are just killing penguins. This isn't an environmental stressor that would lead to adaptation over time, it would just kill all of the animals it affects and be over with.

Fair.

2 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

The other important thing to consider is how humans have affected these penguin populations (negatively) and thus saving some of them at no cost to anybody else (assumed based on what I understand about the situation) is definitely the right thing to do.

Very good point.

[TXsteeler]

2 hours ago, ET80 said:

What if that added path now made for easier access to any predators in the area? Sea Lions, or Polar Bears or even Orcas? A crew such as Greenpeace would be able to asseas such a potential risk in creating the solution. While a camera crew in the area probably has tangible knowledge of the area as a whole, is it something they can determine "in the moment?" 

If I understand the situation correctly, there was a deep hole in the ice that the birds fell into and couldn't get out. This hole was just an environmental hazard to all life that could get stuck in it, and changing it does not really have a large effect on the populations around it, unless animals commonly get trapped in it. It shouldn't create any sort of easier path for predators because the predators wouldn't normally be down their either, especially orcas.

2 hours ago, ET80 said:

In short, did they risk the many to save a few? Would they be around long enough to see said impact (if any?) What's the recourse at THAT point if they did create a greater risk? Save the penguins again, (thereby dooming any predators)? 

The main way they would risk the lives of the many to save a few, would be if this was a common enough event as to normally keep penguin populations in check, and by "fixing it", the penguin population can now grow out of control and eventually cause problems for the food chain (eating it's food into extinction and then all the penguins die and then all of their predators on up die) this is very unlikely though (again, based on my understanding of what happened.

[TXsteeler]

On 11/21/2018 at 10:25 AM, Marc MacGyver said:

Severe antarctic weather blows emperor penguin mothers & their chicks into an inescapable ravine of ice (A death trap). That's the very definition of a natural occurrence, & likely a fairly common one.  

It might not be the same as blocking the path of hunting lions in pursuit with your safari vehicle, so prey animals can make an escape. However, following their logic, how is it different from using tools to dig wells / trenches to uncover ground water for animals suffering during severe drought? Or, perhaps, using tools to create wider channels / pathways on steep river banks to prevent so many wildebeest from being crushed due to bottle-necking on the great migration? 

There is no reasonable explanation as to why the above scenarios shouldn't warrant the same kind of intervention.

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.

[Dome]

There’s starving kids in Africa that would’ve eaten those dead penguins.

Perfectly good dead penguins, completely ruined due to human interference 

[Non-Issue]

I don't see why giving them a helping hand is bad. Nature can always use a hand. It's a good thing. In fact, some may say we kinda owe them a helping hand, all things considered.

I mean, I can understand the angle of strictly observationist. But I won't fault anyone who doesn't adhere to that mind set. Not at all. Help em out. 

[RuskieTitan]

On 11/22/2018 at 7:55 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

OMG even Hitler?

[Dome]

37 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

OMG even Hitler?

Indeed. That’s how much I hate penguins, and really flightless birds at whole. You had one job birds, fly.