Of Walls and Wildlife

[Quintessence]

An interesting article from BBC News recently on the little-discussed implications of building a giant wall between two countries and the problems of such habitat fragmentations more generally:

"The US-Mexico border region is a delicate ecosystem located between two biomes, with regular animal and bird migrations moving between the north and south of the American continent.

...

Animals are susceptible to artificial borders of various shapes and sizes - not just walls but highways, train tracks and all sorts of man-made infrastructure.

...

Many historical human barriers had unintended ecological consequences, and did not have the benefit of environmental impact studies. Even in recent cases, the environment is often not a priority.

In the US, the 2006 Secure Fence Act - under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security - waived a number of environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, in order to expedite an extension of the Mexican border fence."
*full article here*​

Humans tend to make their concerns the center of the universe, for better or for worse. One has to imagine that if this absurd wall proposal is entertained, normally mandatory environmental impact assessments will be disregarded and ignored. And, considering the sheer scale and scope of what has been suggested, this would be yet another travesty against our non-human relations, wouldn't it?

Mostly, I just wanted to bring attention to this particular facet of an often discussed political issue. Feel free to discuss or comment at your leisure.

 

[suncowiam]

An interesting article from BBC News recently on the little-discussed implications of building a giant wall between two countries and the problems of such habitat fragmentations more generally:

"The US-Mexico border region is a delicate ecosystem located between two biomes, with regular animal and bird migrations moving between the north and south of the American continent.

...

Animals are susceptible to artificial borders of various shapes and sizes - not just walls but highways, train tracks and all sorts of man-made infrastructure.

...

Many historical human barriers had unintended ecological consequences, and did not have the benefit of environmental impact studies. Even in recent cases, the environment is often not a priority.

In the US, the 2006 Secure Fence Act - under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security - waived a number of environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, in order to expedite an extension of the Mexican border fence."
*full article here*​

Humans tend to make their concerns the center of the universe, for better or for worse. One has to imagine that if this absurd wall proposal is entertained, normally mandatory environmental impact assessments will be disregarded and ignored. And, considering the sheer scale and scope of what has been suggested, this would be yet another travesty against our non-human relations, wouldn't it?

Mostly, I just wanted to bring attention to this particular facet of an often discussed political issue. Feel free to discuss or comment at your leisure.

Well, the other animals aren't going to place my concerns before theirs so..., I kind of expect us humans to put our concerns first.

Hey, I haven't talked to you in a while.

Well, I don't want a wall that's going to cost up to 25 billion. Plus, the only thing it does is screw up bird and animal migration.

 

[Nietzsche]

Well, the other animals aren't going to place my concerns before theirs so..., I kind of expect us humans to put our concerns first.

Hey, I haven't talked to you in a while.

Well, I don't want a wall that's going to cost up to 25 billion. Plus, the only thing it does is screw up bird and animal migration.

I struggle to think of a historical example of a large-scale wall really doing anything, and the only things that come to mind are Hadrian's Wall. People like to bring up the Berlin Wall, but that was absolutely tiny, and even Hadrian's Wall wasn't some Goliath structure, especially not compared to the Mexican-American border wall proposed. It's just..not feasible. At this point I would suggest annexing Baja California just to cut down on the ****ing size of it.

 

[suncowiam]

I struggle to think of a historical example of a large-scale wall really doing anything, and the only things that come to mind are Hadrian's Wall. People like to bring up the Berlin Wall, but that was absolutely tiny, and even Hadrian's Wall wasn't some Goliath structure, especially not compared to the Mexican-American border wall proposed. It's just..not feasible. At this point I would suggest annexing Baja California just to cut down on the ****ing size of it.

Any wall is simply a passive aid at best. If its not monitored with any active defenses then the wall is useless.

The argument has to be made that we can actively monitor every inch of this wall, which I highly doubt at this initial design and cost.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I struggle to think of a historical example of a large-scale wall really doing anything, and the only things that come to mind are Hadrian's Wall. People like to bring up the Berlin Wall, but that was absolutely tiny, and even Hadrian's Wall wasn't some Goliath structure, especially not compared to the Mexican-American border wall proposed. It's just..not feasible. At this point I would suggest annexing Baja California just to cut down on the ****ing size of it.

The Great Wall of China comes to mind as well as the Maginot Line. In all cases, walls of this sort have by-and-large failed, often succumbing to changing borders and international relations.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Any wall is simply a passive aid at best. If its not monitored with any active defenses then the wall is useless.

The argument has to be made that we can actively monitor every inch of this wall, which I highly doubt at this initial design and cost.

Sure we can monitor it, as video cameras a positively cheap and easy to connect up to a computer system and have people watching--like in the bank robbery commercial--the problem is having appropriate personnel who can be dispatched to the appropriate location in a prompt manner.

 

[Nietzsche]

The Great Wall of China comes to mind as well as the Maginot Line. In all cases, walls of this sort have by-and-large failed, often succumbing to changing borders and international relations.

I was looking for effective walls, not merely massive ones, and the Maginot Line wasn't a "wall", it was a series of fortifications. Though contrary to what I call "Historical Pop Culture", the Maginot Line did exactly what it was supposed to do; prevent the Germans from invading through the Alsace. They figured that that the manpower savings would allow them to defend the northern portion of France(the bit that touches Belgium) in the more traditional "you all sit here and shoot the Bosch" way.

So yeah. Effective large-scale walls don't really seem to exist.

 

[suncowiam]

Sure we can monitor it, as video cameras a positively cheap and easy to connect up to a computer system and have people watching--like in the bank robbery commercial--the problem is having appropriate personnel who can be dispatched to the appropriate location in a prompt manner.

Yeah well, that's your plan which I can already come up with some potential points of failure.

I like to hear what Trump is going to finalize with because he's only talking about a physical wall so far.

 

[Shiranui117]

I struggle to think of a historical example of a large-scale wall really doing anything, and the only things that come to mind are Hadrian's Wall. People like to bring up the Berlin Wall, but that was absolutely tiny, and even Hadrian's Wall wasn't some Goliath structure, especially not compared to the Mexican-American border wall proposed. It's just..not feasible. At this point I would suggest annexing Baja California just to cut down on the ****ing size of it.

Might as well take Baja California Sur while we're at it...

 

[Nietzsche]

Might as well take Baja California Sur while we're at it...

I was referring to the entire peninsula.

 

[Valjean]

Well, the other animals aren't going to place my concerns before theirs so..., I kind of expect us humans to put our concerns first.

The other animals are our concern. Organisms don't exist independently, they interact as part of a larger ecosystem -- an ecosystem we're a part of and dependent on. They're like organs and tissues in a larger body; all interacting, all interdependent, with their activities and populations carefully regulated. Interfering with any detail of this affects the whole organism.

Well, I don't want a wall that's going to cost up to 25 billion. Plus, the only thing it does is screw up bird and animal migration.

It does a whole lot more than just interfere with migration. It blocks off scarce regional water sources, denning areas, hibernation cavities and foraging territories. It plays havoc with the flora and fauna of the region, not to mention the hydrology, soils, &c.

We're like a virulent infection, rapidly and mindlessly destroying our own host.

 

[suncowiam]

The other animals are our concern. Organisms don't exist independently, they interact as part of a larger ecosystem -- an ecosystem we're a part of and dependent on. They're like organs and tissues in a larger body; all interacting, all interdependent, with their activities and populations carefully regulated. Interfering with any detail of this affects the whole organism.
It does a whole lot more than just interfere with migration. It blocks off scarce regional water sources, denning areas, hibernation cavities and foraging territories. It plays havoc with the flora and fauna of the region, not to mention the hydrology, soils, &c.

We're like a virulent infection, rapidly and mindlessly destroying our own host.

At least we agree there shouldn't be a wall.

Concerning animals, if you're willing to stop eating other animals and plants for your own survival, then I believe then you will be completely unhindered by your own ideals. Otherwise, everything else is arbitrary.

Just my 2 cents on that.

 

[Valjean]

At least we agree there shouldn't be a wall.

Concerning animals, if you're willing to stop eating other animals and plants for your own survival, then I believe then you will be completely unhindered by your own ideals. Otherwise, everything else is arbitrary.

Just my 2 cents on that.

Predation is a necessary ecological function, just as apoptosis is necessary in individual organisms. Nature recycles itself as part of normal maintenance.

And, by the way, I've been vegan for >30 years, and vegetarian before that.

 

[suncowiam]

Predation is a necessary ecological function, just as apoptosis is necessary in individual organisms. Nature recycles itself as part of normal maintenance.

And, by the way, I've been vegan for >30 years, and vegetarian before that.

I had a feeling you were going to be a vegetarian. I don't put animal lives before my own survival or my well being. You can call it selfishness, which I'm cool with.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I had a feeling you were going to be a vegetarian. I don't put animal lives before my own survival or my well being. You can call it selfishness, which I'm cool with.

I'm not a vegetarian, but let's be honest. It's 'I don't put animals lives before my own laziness and comfort.' Because you don't need meat to survive or be healthy.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm not a vegetarian, but let's be honest. It's 'I don't put animals lives before my own laziness and comfort.' Because you don't need meat to survive or be healthy.

That's fine too. I use lots of animal products for my comfort and my laziness. Have been doing this since the day I was born. Probably will keep on doing this till the day I die.


I guess you all simply are better than me in this respect.

 

[Valjean]

Have I said anything about carnivory vs vegetarianism?
I'm not making any moral judgements here, I'm just saying we shouldn't build a wall.

 

[Quintessence]

LOL this thread somehow getting derailed into human dietary habit debates.

To bring things back to our other-than-human brethren, one of the reasons habitat fragmentation like this is an issue for other creatures is because it can cut them off from food sources they need. Imagine if someone put a giant wall between your house and the grocery store you like to shop at. There might be a grocery store on your side of town, but now your options are limited. Depending on where your grocery stores are located relative to population density, the one on your side of the wall might not have enough food to support everyone. And with the wall there, you can't get to your other food sources. The net result is you get starvation, discontent, and death.

It's been my general impression that ecological sciences don't tend to get covered much in public education. It's unfortunate, because ecological models apply just as much to humans as other animals. The entire issue of illegal immigration can be understood as a lesson in ecology - when you've got a migration-capable animal living in a sub-par environment, it's going to move to more suitable environments where it can. If you want the animals to stay put, you improve the environment where they live! Barriers to migration can work, and if they do, you might get population crashes and suffering because the animal can't move to a place where it can survive better. Population booms and crashes are part of the rhythms of the biosphere, certainly. But then this complicated thing humans call "ethics" comes into play, and it is usually considered bad to enable suffering and death. Build a barrier to an animal's migration pattern when they live in a sub-par environment? That also impacts many other species, some of whom are threatened with extinction? Is that the solution we really want? Beat it with a stick, instead of hold out an open palm?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

LOL this thread somehow getting derailed into human dietary habit debates.

To bring things back to our other-than-human brethren, one of the reasons habitat fragmentation like this is an issue for other creatures is because it can cut them off from food sources they need. Imagine if someone put a giant wall between your house and the grocery store you like to shop at. There might be a grocery store on your side of town, but now your options are limited. Depending on where your grocery stores are located relative to population density, the one on your side of the wall might not have enough food to support everyone. And with the wall there, you can't get to your other food sources. The net result is you get starvation, discontent, and death.

... or animals moving into human-settled areas to look for food. Then you get coyotes killing people's pets, cougars attacking people while they're out running, bears going through people's garbage, etc.

 

[Quintessence]

... or animals moving into human-settled areas to look for food. Then you get coyotes killing people's pets, cougars attacking people while they're out running, bears going through people's garbage, etc.

Yeah, they basically behave analogously to the homeless. It's what happens when a creature runs out of options. Though for many animals, they are not able to be as adaptable as the homeless. Many animals are what we could call specialists - able to sustain themselves only in a narrow range of habitats or have restricted food sources. They are pretty much just screwed when habitat destruction and fragmentation come down.