|
Post by joee30 on Apr 4, 2016 12:54:21 GMT -8
We are creating a world of VR idiots- kids that can't see but can make a sniping shot at 500meters without ever having had to work the action, fat kids playing soccer for two hours without getting winded, really stupid hunting games where every deer has a huge rack and is broadside. Where is the "change the brake pads" VR game or the "fix the siding on the house" game? And don't get me started with VR social interaction or worst of all, intimacy. Chuck I agree. I feel the same thing about constant cell phone use and texting. It's fine to push a point across when you are busy, and have a minute to do so, but seeing families sitting at a restaurant, and all of them texting, is nuts. I play video games, but not often. Now that it's warming up, I am already collecting again, and am going fishing more often.
|
|
|
|
Post by papiliotheona on Apr 8, 2016 16:28:08 GMT -8
I don't think the culprit is NABA nearly so much as the culture itself. Times have simply changed.
Collecting insects is no longer socially acceptable for the same reason shouting an anti-gay slur in a crowded building is; it's viewed as a trampling of someone's/something's civil rights. It's an extension of animal rights. Glassberg did not cause that, he merely rode it.
Twenty years ago, you could be against same-sex marriage or affirmative action and those positions were well within the social mainstream. Today, if you publicly voice such feelings, you're unemployable and may lose your spouse and friends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 18:31:52 GMT -8
Oh and not mention you can go to jail like the woman in Kentucky did!
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Apr 8, 2016 22:00:56 GMT -8
To comment on the virtual reality idea. I would love to have amazing hi-resolution 3D scans of my specimens, and then be able to manipulate and study them in VR. That would really enhance the hobby for me.
Collecting in virtual reality, on the other hand, I don't get. It would be a programmed environment, which means there would be no true discoveries to be made. There would be no tantalizing hope that around the next bend in the path might be a species that no-one's ever netted before. We also don't know enough about all the various species habits and habitats, (not to forget larval food plants) so how could those be accurately programmed? Any current VR based on hunting butterflies from this part of the world would be based on conjecture and the result would be nothing like reality. So, before VR would be a fulfilling/convincing experience for me, we'd have to conduct a lot more field research first.
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on Apr 13, 2016 20:38:07 GMT -8
I don't think the culprit is NABA nearly so much as the culture itself. Times have simply changed. Collecting insects is no longer socially acceptable for the same reason shouting an anti-gay slur in a crowded building is; it's viewed as a trampling of someone's/something's civil rights. It's an extension of animal rights. Glassberg did not cause that, he merely rode it. Twenty years ago, you could be against same-sex marriage or affirmative action and those positions were well within the social mainstream. Today, if you publicly voice such feelings, you're unemployable and may lose your spouse and friends. I disagree. Nutty people have become louder with Facebook etc. but not more numerous. Most people do not care about the life of a bug/insect. Those who do, are so loud as to seem to be a majority. Perhaps this is a regional thing and I am basing this opinion on observations. Florida, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi residents I have interacted with in ther home states have been fascinated by insect collecting and sought to learn more when they experienced the hobby. Times change but people.....not so much.
|
|
|
Post by laurie1 on Apr 14, 2016 0:24:05 GMT -8
That's it for me. You heard it here first. I'm hanging up my net for good. I'm not relinquishing my passion for butterflies. Just no longer risking my neck to discover new taxa, rediscover so called "extinct species" and to follow in the footsteps of our heroes (e.g. Meek, Brandt & Eichhorn). Thanks to the many for your encouragement and support. It's been quite ride, Indie. (As many of you affectionately or madly? have often referred to me!).
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Apr 14, 2016 4:07:52 GMT -8
That's it for me. You heard it here first. I'm hanging up my net for good. I'm not relinquishing my passion for butterflies. Just no longer risking my neck to discover new taxa, rediscover so called "extinct species" and to follow in the footsteps of our heroes (e.g. Meek, Brandt & Eichhorn). Thanks to the many for your encouragement and support. It's been quite ride, Indie. (As many of you affectionately or madly? have often referred to me!). Ah, it's just burnout. Been there too. Chuck
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 6:31:56 GMT -8
It's a shame to hear that Laurie, and no need to be humble-you are already a hero to many.
As Tom mentioned, there is plenty to yet be discovered, and we shouldn't form a strict dichotomy between technology and the natural world. If anything, field research should be a priority considering the economic state, and hopefully technology will complement and aid the process.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 14, 2016 8:57:22 GMT -8
Laurie,
I hope you're not being serious! Try collecting in less hazardous places and looking for less unusual species. You know that you would regret just hanging up your net for good.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by nomad on Apr 18, 2016 11:45:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Apr 19, 2016 10:11:55 GMT -8
That's it for me. You heard it here first. I'm hanging up my net for good. I'm not relinquishing my passion for butterflies. Just no longer risking my neck to discover new taxa, rediscover so called "extinct species" and to follow in the footsteps of our heroes (e.g. Meek, Brandt & Eichhorn). Thanks to the many for your encouragement and support. It's been quite ride, Indie. (As many of you affectionately or madly? have often referred to me!). Is it the risking your neck? The hardships and dangers? Or is it the beauracracy, petty kostom games, and other "big man" (first and third world) games which take so much joy out of discovery?
|
|
|
Post by laurie1 on Apr 19, 2016 12:21:26 GMT -8
That's it for me. You heard it here first. I'm hanging up my net for good. I'm not relinquishing my passion for butterflies. Just no longer risking my neck to discover new taxa, rediscover so called "extinct species" and to follow in the footsteps of our heroes (e.g. Meek, Brandt & Eichhorn). Thanks to the many for your encouragement and support. It's been quite ride, Indie. (As many of you affectionately or madly? have often referred to me!). Is it the risking your neck? The hardships and dangers? Or is it the beauracracy, petty kostom games, and other "big man" (first and third world) games which take so much joy out of discovery? You summed it up superbly. The final straw that broke the camels back - The Nagoya Protocol is outlined on www.cbd.int/abs/about/#obligations. In effect it seems to require informed consent, i.e. a permit, from the originating country before any kind of scientific research on an organism including collection or description of new taxa. Another depressing step towards official-control of everything….
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Apr 19, 2016 13:15:44 GMT -8
In effect it seems to require informed consent, i.e. a permit, from the originating country before any kind of scientific research on an organism including collection or description of new taxa. Can you please point to the exact passage in the text (please also remember that the website is just a summary of the official protocol), that will enforce what you are claiming? Since a few months I hear the wildest claims about the Nagoya protocol from various people, professional or non professional, but when asked NOBODY has ever shown me the exact passage where their claims are shown to be correct. I may have misread the original protocol, and I am asking everybody to back up their claims as I may be incorrect. BUT, as I have understood it, and how it probably is, animals are not really part of the protocol. The whole things aims at genetic resources, e.g. gene sequences, that can be patented and only commercialized with the consent of the country of origin. FOR EXAMPLE IN GERMAN LAW, an animal as a whole cannot be protected under these "copyright" laws at all. The above text only uses the word "genetic resource", and never the word "organism", as an organism IS NOT part of this legislature. Also, it is a PROTOCOL, it has no standing in front of law, it has to be reinforced and backed up by a law on national level. You have to back check with your countries laws. The protocol aims at empowering biodiversity rich countries. Everybody is crying about biodiversity and rainforest loss, but when things are getting on their way to make a change in these countries, people cry again. The whole thing really is aimed more towards pharma industries going after specific plant compounds. CAPS LOCK is used to highlight the most important parts, not shouting.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Apr 20, 2016 0:06:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Apr 20, 2016 4:59:21 GMT -8
In effect it seems to require informed consent, i.e. a permit, from the originating country before any kind of scientific research on an organism including collection or description of new taxa. Can you please point to the exact passage in the text (please also remember that the website is just a summary of the official protocol), that will enforce what you are claiming? Since a few months I hear the wildest claims about the Nagoya protocol from various people, professional or non professional, but when asked NOBODY has ever shown me the exact passage where their claims are shown to be correct. I may have misread the original protocol, and I am asking everybody to back up their claims as I may be incorrect. BUT, as I have understood it, and how it probably is, animals are not really part of the protocol. The whole things aims at genetic resources, e.g. gene sequences, that can be patented and only commercialized with the consent of the country of origin. FOR EXAMPLE IN GERMAN LAW, an animal as a whole cannot be protected under these "copyright" laws at all. The above text only uses the word "genetic resource", and never the word "organism", as an organism IS NOT part of this legislature. Also, it is a PROTOCOL, it has no standing in front of law, it has to be reinforced and backed up by a law on national level. You have to back check with your countries laws. The protocol aims at empowering biodiversity rich countries. Everybody is crying about biodiversity and rainforest loss, but when things are getting on their way to make a change in these countries, people cry again. The whole thing really is aimed more towards pharma industries going after specific plant compounds. CAPS LOCK is used to highlight the most important parts, not shouting. You did not misread much. The protocol is concerned with genetic resources - especially the use of genes derived from living organisms that have commercial value. The definition is broad, and includes collections that are used for selective breeding and propagation (live organisms) - again for commercial use. I see nothing in the protocol, or in the long and painful definition of "genetic resources" that will impact insect collectors. I agree with your assessment - we whine when habitats are lost. We whine when countries try to create economic incentives to protect habitats. And it seems like there are certain groups of people who go out of their way to "find problems" where none exist. At least we can say that they have active imaginations... John
|
|