IBNLive.com: Breaking news from India

Jyoti Kamal

North by North West

Jyoti Kamal

CNN-IBN Correspondent Jyoti Kamal

RSS

Ads by Google

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 12 : 33

Font Size A+A-

Let the Tigers Die


Email PrintBlog
Ads by Google

Let the Tigers Die

Why save the tiger? What exactly are we trying to preserve here? A beautiful animal, an entire ecosystem or the genetic diversity of life? Is it at all possible or even desirable to preserve and try and halt the inevitable extinction of the Tiger. We may prolong their survival, we cannot ever ensure it for ever.

I say, let Tigers die.

Shocked? I am sure, you are. Media exposure, campaigns, photographs, a deep rooted psychology that hates to see a powerful creature helpless makes many want to rush to save the Tiger. But pause, for a moment, think of the parallels between ideology that rests to a great extent today on philosopher Freidrich Neitzsche's and economist Joseph Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction.

One technology is wiped out when a better one comes around to replace it. Dinosaurs were wiped out when mammals arrived on the scene. No one could do anything to keep the dinosaurs around, not that that would have been such a great idea considering the absolute impracticality of dinosaurs coexisting with present human civilization. Either they would have stayed or we could have arrived.

Close your eyes (after reading what follows) and ponder coexistence where giant dinosaurs plodded through cities disrupting our traffic systems, breaking down buildings with their mega ton swishing tails and snorting the dragons breath down ten storey buildings. Ok, we could have kept them behind fences just as Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park promoters disastrously tried to do in the movie series, but then again, aren't we interfering with their natural way of survival? They would have consumed tons and tons of scarce food resources that humans are unable to spare for one another, leave alone for worthless dinosaurs.

All said and done, the dinosaurs became impractical for survival, a comet crash with earth removed many of them and then warm blooded mammals quickly scurried to occupy the space vacated by them, effectively sealing the possibility of their ever coming back to thunder their way around the planet. This is just one example, millions and millions of species have died out to make way for better evolved ones to inherit the planet as its atmosphere and its ecology changed over time.

Today we are the masters of the planet. The tigers are not geared to survive along with us. We cannot give them space to coexist. We can try, but we will fail. Humans have too divergent a thinking process and are too self centered. It is our nature. It is what we are programmed by evolution to do. We have taken over because we evolved to take over. All that we can do is to preserve their genetic imprint, their DNA, the code that builds the tigers in genetic repositories to make use of the blueprint if we ever require it at a later stage when our technologies are advanced enough.

How do we know what is right or wrong? Why are we so worried about the environment? What exactly is wrong with it? Are we being simplistic craving a changing past as an unchanging present? Consider for a moment that the changing environment, the changing composition of gases in the air that we breathe is something that is already happening and has always happened and is something to which some of us in the population are adapting, like we have always done. That is how we are here today and that is how we are getting ready to survive in the future. We will. We will evolve to cope, to live with it. So why do we struggle so hard to live in a present that will forever be try to be like the past?

When tiny green cells in the oceans of a young earth began to release oxygen into the atmosphere, there were many creatures that died out. The green cells were releasing a toxic gas called oxygen that wiped out many life forms. But then, in that toxic oxygen rich environment evolved cells that eventually led to us, almost three billion years later. Perhaps well meaning interventionists then too would have argued to prevent the `atmosphere' from being altered, from preventing the oxygen from accumulating. If that had happened, I wouldn't have been writing this and you wouldn't have been reading this. For we are all the present products of an unbroken lineage that stretches 3.5 billion years into the past. If even one of our ancestors had failed in the struggle to survive, if even one of the little fishes or reptiles that perhaps was one of our very distant ancestors had got crushed under a stone or got eaten by a predator our chain of life would have broken and we wouldn't have lived to tell the tale. And if there had been no replacing of species with better evolved ones to cope with a changing world, we would still be globs of protein in the primeval soup of the planet. And even if we don't realize it, the world around us is changing, the balance of species is changing. Tigers and polar bears along with millions of other species are losing out. They will have to die. They will have to go. They will go.

If petrol fumes are polluting the atmosphere, if there is smog, if there is toxicity in the water, if there is lead in the food, if there is arsenic in the groundwater, it is a preparation for the future. For it is the present. Love it or hate it. It is there. And nature is clever enough to get some of us to adapt.

The future will be different. We don't know what exactly will it be like, but we do know for sure that it will be different. If we don't continue to adapt, we won't survive. We too will be wiped out. For now, the Tiger's time is up.

Total Comments: 23

CollapsePosted 2008-06-19 15:25:40 : By Keshav

You must have studied something called "food chain" when you were in your 5th standard. i am commenting about saving tigers because the author said "let the tigers die". I would have commented about saving horses if the author had blogged "let the horses die". simple.

If u think the food chain would not be affected because of just one carnivore being wiped off, we need to see the bigger picture then; we shouldn't be narrow minded.
am not saying the future looks bright for the tiger with our efforts; it is in bad shape, but we dont let our dear ones just die when they are weak, do we? we hold on and try everything in our power to do what we can!!

We started it and its our duty to stop it too!! ...Reply

CollapsePosted 2008-06-19 12:15:54 : By prem sugunesh

Ya.the authur has got a different thought about saving tiger.
Infact i do agree to most of the points mentioned by the authur.To add more,i would say that having more adaptability is not just the only way of existing too long on earth but also being useful to the system.

Why only tiger need to be saved and why not horse...the number of horses existed in the world few hundred years was much more than what we have today...and the same case with elephant and many more animals...

The only reason for all the above questions will be that these animals are not useful as what it used to be in the past..How many horses being used for transportation today as against those ancient days...

If tiger or any animal has any useful reason to exist in the world (good or bad reasons) they will continue to live on earth and no one can stop that..

The only responsibilty to the human being is to ensure that these animals are killed for unjustifiable reasons..Lets find out how tigers are useful to us,if they are useful i am sure they will continue to live as long as human beings on earth...
...Reply

CollapsePosted 2008-06-19 09:29:40 : By Keshav

Excellent!!

Your blog brings out the typical ego centric superior life form on the planet. The grand architect made a huge flaw in his master plan by letting Human Beings rule and we are doing everything in our power to make him realise his mistake over and over.

Mr.Jyoti, not doing anything about it is one thing, but going out of the way to ask people to stop doing anything about is something that everyone must take off their hats and bow down too.

Totally amusing to find you comparing dino's extinction to the tiger's; the dinos dint die out because man could boost his already over size ego by hunting them down or man could show off a leather jacket made out of a T-rex skin, they went off due to other reasons, but tigers are going out because of us.

If we need to support you, we can stop researching on new medicines, presuming future generations would get immune to the present day diseases. We can stop worrying about greenhouse effects and cut down all trees and at least make our cities bigger!! We can safely assume if Human Beings die out because of Carbon Monoxide, let there be another life form that can thrive on Carbon Monoxide.

Nature keeps reminding us who the boss is, our mammoth ego never seems to accept what she has to say.

Let’s please not discourage people who want to do something about it!! ...Reply

CollapsePosted 2008-06-16 21:28:33 : By Mohit

Going by this thesis ,if we let happen what is happening ,encourage the self centric human nature, poison everything around while continuing to enjoy our today, i think our end is also not too far away. And ours would be unique example of a species who would actually be fully aware of and responsible for its own extinction, unlike the examples mentioned. Being the most intelligent creatures on earth , its not only our resposibility but our duty to maintain what has been bestowed upon us. be it the tigers , the envirionment or the human species itself. ...Reply

CollapsePosted 2008-06-16 20:05:21 : By D.F

Why save the tiger? I agree that today we are the most powerful species and the masters of the planet. I also agree that the tigers are not geared to survive along with us. But as Spiderman's uncle would say, "With great power comes greater responsibility." Don't we owe the king of the Indian jungle, the same deference that Alexander once showed to the defeated king Puru?

The same logic Jyoti Kamal uses here can be applied to AIDS & polio patients as well. Why spend millions of dollars on their research and prevention? Maybe, if Darwin's theory is true, some people who are the "fittest" in the future may develop immunity to these diseases. Maybe a few million people eliminated now will be replaced by a fitter set of people just as "One technology is wiped out when a better one comes around to replace it." The last time such radical views as Jyoti Kamal's were propagated, the promulgators wore swastikas on their arms.

Don't forget that Evolution is a continuous process even though it is a slow one. Jyoti Kamal argues, "If even one of our ancestors had failed in the struggle to survive, our chain of life would have broken and we wouldn't have lived to tell the tale." But, what gives you the moral right to break the chain of life of the tiger? Tigers will eventually die out but we must try to prolong their survival. It is not any different than providing treatment to your near and dear ones even though you know that they are suffering from a terminal disease and may not live long. ...Reply

DISCLAIMER
The views/ideas/opinions expressed in this section of the website www.ibnlive.com / www.ibnpolitics.com are solely those of the writer/author and not of Web18 Software Services Limited (Web18) or of IBN18 Broadcast Limited (IBN18). The statements made by the writer/author have not been verified in any manner by Web18 and/or IBN18. Web18 and/or IBN18 shall not be responsible for or liable in any manner whatsoever for the views/ideas/opinions expressed by the writer/author of this section.

About Us | Disclaimer | Careers @ IBN | RSS | Podcast | Contact Us | Feedback | Advertise With Us | Connect.in.com

© 2009 IBNLive.com India. All Rights Reserved. A Web18 Venture

Site powered by URBANEYE