I am at a loss: how to talk to people who think it is futile to conserve our environment

[twenty4blackbirds]

I hadn't realised that I take it as an article of faith that people of a certain age group know that conserving our environment (habitat, animals) is in our best interests.

Today I found myself discussing at my colleague (40-ish) about saving endangered species. Living in New Zealand (where a lot of introduced flora and fauna - possums, rabbits, german wasps, wild ginger - compete with native species, with natives losing out) means that this topic is a big part of the national psyche. The kiwi bird (New Zealand's national icon) is a threatenned species, although I tend to think of it as endangered when there are so many more predators out there - stoats, cats, dogs - than kiwi.

Her rationale was that the animals are endangered for a reason, possibly due to Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest process. I asked whether animal's habitat loss had anything to do with the humans who are/were encroaching on the animal's usual territory? I think, although I can't be sure, she didn't answer that.
    Edited to add: At that point, iirc, I used the example of the African elephants whose habitat was being encroached upon by humans; she replied "why would the loss of elephants affect me personally?"
    At some point she brought up her belief that humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, had been giants in-the-time-before-now; I mused upon the poor nutrition and health, and the smaller armour in English museums. I asked for proof. She replied "well, I cannot show you any bones or proof. It is what I believe." I pondered on the current Ancient Egypt exhibition at the Auckland Memorial Museum and wondered whether we could go and see the mummies. I did not hear her answer.
    /edit
...

Although to be fair, the discussion segued from the ethics of killing possums (a pest in New Zealand): my position and the Department of Conservation's point is that the animals are destroying New Zealand wildlife; her position is that humans should only kill animals for immediate benefit (e.g. for meat or fur or to prevent harmful things happening to humans).

I'd appreciate it if you could give me some ideas on how to talk to this world view; I'd appreciate it if you could give me more examples of this type of world view.

Thanks,

[ForrestGump]

1. At this stage in the game, every step we can take to preserve/conserve/restore

natural habitats is a step that is for our immediate benefit.

Possums are cute. Ferrets, stoats, and weasels are cute. So are wild goats. So is Bambi. But they all need to be removed from those unique systems that they were never a part of in the first place.

New Zealand only has two native species of land mammals, those small bats that nobody ever sees, and the introduction to wild areas of mammalian predators and competitors like rats and mustelids, as well as agents of habitat destruction like possums, deer, pigs, and goats (chamois and thar, too?...not sure they're such a problem) is second only to human arrival in making NZ number two on the hotlist of places with highest levels of anthropogenic extinctions. They don't belong there. Neither do people or domestic or farm animals, arguably, but here we start to get absurd and the fact is that for the most part these species don't infiltrate the remote and wild corners of the country.

I like the cuddlier of these animals as much as anyone does, but they need to be culled...ideally, they need to be removed from all the wild areas of that country. To not see this as an example of enlightened self-interest, if that is what it takes to persuade her that it's right, is to (a) fundamentally lack an understanding of the way the natural world works and (b) be shortsighted (and, ultimately, selfish) in the extreme.

[twenty4blackbirds]

2. "self-interest" is the operative word

If I did understand her correctly, she doesn't see what she personally has to gain from the conservation/protection of endangered animals. In the case of elephants, I could understand her view because endangered elephants is a long distance from her :-)

In the case of possum...I did explain/evangelised why and how possums are destroying native habitat & fauna.

How can I appeal to her self-interest to care positively about conserving our current biodiversity? The next time I encounter this attitude, I would like to be persuasive rather than hectoring.

It isn't about just about "her" of course. Some of my family have the same Me-view.

[ForrestGump]

3. Tell her of the possum's well-documented

tendency to randomly run up the legs of 40something females, their sharp little claws wreaking havoc along the way (Hone & Heke, 1937). It's all well-documented in the peer-reviewed literature. Gangs of misogynistic possums have been spotted on Queen Street already (Dagg & Bayliss, 2006). They need to be stopped.

Other than that, I'm not 100% sure...you can lead an ass to the truth, but you can't make it give a sh*t.

[twenty4blackbirds]

4. *lol*

Good idea.

I did find some info on 'public perception' 1, so at least the scientific and conservation types can maybe do their marketing a bit better. If possums are proven to be a vector of bovine tuberculosis, then my colleague would be on the side of killing possums (to save humans). But by that time, quite a bit of biodiversity would probably be lost. Who has time for that? :shrug:

[datasuspect]

5. we need the earth, the earth doesn't need us

humans are like a virus.

if we died off, the earth could restore itself probably within 5000 years, which isn't much time geologically.



we've done more harm than good to our only home.

[PVnRT]

6. Don't (n/t)

[seemunkee]

7. Cook her a nice possum dinner

That way she can justify killing them.
Its a head in the sand attitude. Too big of a problem for her to comprehend that her actions and attitudes can make a difference, best just to ignore it.

[unpossibles]

8. you could pee in her water glass

and then tell her, "well, that doesn't affect me."

But I don't recommend it.

[EstimatedProphet]

9. She believes she can have her own facts. Good for her!

Say something to that effect. There's a word for people that believe things that are contrary to facts, and still claim that they can believe them anyway, just because they want to - delusional.

Also, wouldn't the collapse of the New Zealand ecosystem be considered self-defense?