Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The oddest bird in the world gets a boost

By Tatarigami in News
Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 10:13:43 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

"The kakapo is a bird out of time. If you look one in its large, round, greeny-brown face, it has a look of serenely innocent incomprehension that makes you want to hug it and tell it that everything will be all right, though you know that it probably will not be." - Douglas Adams, British author, 1990.

The New Zealand Kakapo is the world's largest parrot, weighing in at up to 4 Kg (9 pounds). It is nocturnal and flightless, although capable of impressive bursts of speed across the ground. It is also very, very rare. Until recently there were only five dozen known to still exist.

Fortunately, this odd bird just caught a break.


The kakapo is remarkable for a number of comical features. They don't fly -- instead they waddle across the forest floor with a distinctive gait, and climb trees in order to forage, hanging on with their impressively large claws and beaks. They build tracks for themselves through the bush, using their beaks to clip off any outgrowth which gets in the way. During mating season, the males gather on hilltops and make a series of booming calls so loud and so deep that conservation staff claim you can actually feel them throbbing in the air. They are also reknowned for having a strong, honey-like body odour.

My country would certainly be a poorer place without this species, and I'm sure the world would miss some of its weirdest wildlife. For a while it looked like we might have to get used to the idea. Although the recovery project have established predator-free island havens and made sure the birds were well-fed, a successful breeding season depends on healthy crops of rimu tree fruit, and over the past decade weather conditions have permitted only three good growing seasons.

However, there has been a excellent rimu crop this year, and eighteen of the remaining females are incubating eggs. Conservation staff who have been observing the nests using infra red cameras, and taking measurements when the birds leave the nest at night to forage, estimate that half of these are fertile.

Nine chicks have hatched already, and all appear healthy, giving us cause for celebration. Website staff have promised more updates as information becomes available.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o New Zealand Kakapo
o Conservati on staff
o Website
o Also by Tatarigami


Display: Sort:
The oddest bird in the world gets a boost | 39 comments (36 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
How's the Kiwi ? (4.50 / 2) (#3)
by Phage on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 08:58:23 PM EST

I heard that it was under threat as well.


I don't find Heathens to be sexy, as a general rule.
Canthros

Good and bad news (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Tatarigami on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 09:10:16 PM EST

They're not doing so well on the mainland (introduced predators just love a big old kiwi egg for breakfast), but they have their own sanctuaries set up on neighbouring islands, and the outlook is much better there. Kiwi Recovery reports the transfer of 14 adult kiwis to Okarito at the end of January, bringing the local population up to around 200. The birds are breeding, so as long as the Department of Conservation can keep the population diverse enough, it's encouraging.

[ Parent ]
We sure are good for nature (2.25 / 4) (#6)
by Hopfrog on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 02:05:48 AM EST

Lets just forget about the natural survival of the fittest thing.

Hop.

Survival of the fittest is immoral... (4.25 / 4) (#9)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:07:30 AM EST

... if the fittest destroys everything it touches.

When the fittest destroys everything by omission or in purpose we are not anymore in a normal situation of survival of the fittest.

Perhaps in the great scheme of things it does not matter if one species disappears, but in the small scale (in this case planet Earth) it is a crime that by omission or in purpose we get rid of species that otherwise would have survived and continued to prosper.

Any intelligent person would see the immorality of this happening.

It has become humanity's responsibility to figure out how to redress the balance.

In an ideal world humans should try not to interfere with the workings of nature unless there is an specific purpose and measures are taken to disturb nature as little as possible, but as things stand now that is an unrealistic expectation.

It is better to err in the side of caution an preserve species until we find a way to mingle with nature without destroying it.


---
"At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look;
at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." F. Scott Fitzgerald.
[ Parent ]
Isn't true for this bird (2.50 / 2) (#11)
by Hopfrog on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:02:48 AM EST

This particular bird is on its way to extinction, not because of humans, but because of its very nature. There were millions of big walking birds millions of year ago. They have been going extinct very fast - there are only a few left, notably the ostrich.

This particular structure - being able to fly short distances - but actually being a bird is something that is being selected away, because it cannot naturally survive anymore.

I have nothing against it being preserved - it doesn't hurt anybody, I am just remarking that it isn't quite the natural thing.


Hop.

[ Parent ]

nothing is "unnatural" (4.50 / 4) (#12)
by kubalaa on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:22:57 AM EST

Even if it means species being selected for cuteness or ability to appeal to humans -- humans are not outside of nature, and human intervention is as natural as that of any other species. Of course, the common idea that "natural = good" needs to be dispelled as well.

[ Parent ]
I don't agree. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:26:51 AM EST

Human activity has an underlying design and purpose.

Nature has no purpose and no design, and exactly for that reason its workings are most precious, because they are a consequence of myriad of chance events that require no designer or executor whatsoever.

Your posture basically means anything goes. Anyone can go and do whatever he wants and that is natural just because it is possible to do it. With that point of view there is nothing artificial, even the computer I am using is a work of nature. Sorry but that thesis that allows for irresponsible actions just doesn't cut it with me.

Give me a good reason to dispell the notion of "Natural=good". It is in nature where we find the medicines that cure us, the resorts where we vacation, the materials we use to build our houses and many of the things that make life bearable (go and live in a place where contact with nature is impossible for a long period of time, then you will understabd whay Nature in balance is a good, positive thing). Of course it is also in nature where we find many of our challenges, but if we are going to be selfish at least we should know by now that lack of biological diversity prompted by omission or malice will not help us as a species in the long (I.e. thousends of years} run.





---
"At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look;
at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." F. Scott Fitzgerald.
[ Parent ]
irresponsible? (4.00 / 2) (#24)
by speek on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:09:26 AM EST

Sorry but that thesis that allows for irresponsible actions ...

Irresponsible as defined by whom? If there are reasons to preserve, to conserve, to limit our impact on the Earth, "reponsibility" is not one of them. That is a vacuous term that can be used to justify anything.

There are more solid things you can say to defend conservation, like our self-interest in surviving.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Perhaps 'natural=good' explains your posts (3.50 / 2) (#25)
by minra on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:15:04 AM EST

I see you've been consuming some 100% natural, organic Jimson Weed. Hey, it's natural, therefore it must be good, right?

You can have whatever religion you want, 'friend'. But as soon as you start trying to pass-off your wiccan wierdness as logic on K5, you will run into some who will call you out.

I don't know WHERE to begin...

Your belief that man is 'above nature' is understandable. It's the same belief that leads people to conclude they can escape natural death FOREVER if they kneel and mumble in cold stone buildings once every seven revolutions of the planet.

Spend some time on it before responding, 'Tezcatlipoca'.

[ Parent ]
separation of ethics and philosophy (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by kubalaa on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 07:18:35 AM EST

When we explain something, we do not make a value judgement on it. For example, evolution explains why animals and people act the way they do. It does not say whether these actions are good or bad; it does not imply that "might makes right." Or a contemporary example; it is possible to look at the motivations of Bin Ladin and try and understand the conditions which lead to September 9th. This does not, as Anthony Kennedy implies, constitute a statement on the morality of the actions either way.

So, it is possible to recognize that man is a part of nature, and indeed that, from the point of view of nature, anything DOES go, and anyone CAN do what he/she wants... without saying anything about SHOULD.

Your idea of nature is limited; drawing the dichotomy between man and nature may be romantic, but it is precisely what leads people to, for example, not care about the environment ("what's it got to do with us anyways?")

[ Parent ]

I think humans are the reason (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by jesterzog on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:06:04 AM EST

This particular bird is on its way to extinction, not because of humans, but because of its very nature.

I don't really agree with what you've said. New Zealand is a comparitively isolated country that more often than not, appears off the edge of world maps. Before people arrived several hundred years ago, it had an entire internal eco-system of its own with virtually no predatory mammals (unless you count several species of bats). This resulted in lots of unique flightless birds that survived perfectly until the system was turned upside down overnight.

Humans, starting with migrants from various other parts of the Pacific, have been living here for up to about the last thousand years, and first up they brought dogs and rats with them. (It's debatable exactly when they arrived.) A few hundred years after that, by far one of the world's largest birds was wiped out because it was a convenient food source -- regrettably the Maori people weren't conservationalists in that sense. Unfortunately because it was also the main food source of the world's largest eagle, that followed shortly after.

All of this happened relatively shortly before Europeans even arrived, but when they did they brought more mammal predators, they drained most of the seemingly "useless" swamps and cleared "unproductive" bush land to turn it into farms. All of this is why these species are dying out.

I'll admit that a Kakapo can't pull out a submachine gun to shoot the stray cats that people decided not to keep. It also hasn't evolved the ability to hold a pen well enough to write a protest letter to a local Member of Parliament complaining about the local farmers driving it out of its home for their own profit motives. (But why would the government care when humans don't recognise its ability to vote, anyway?) I guess that could mean that humans aren't the reason that it's almost extinct.

Personally I believe that humans are the direct reason why it's dying out, whether that's a natural turn of nature or not. I'm fully in support of the way that the government here is now working to save the endangered native birds, and to get rid of the introduced pests and predators on the mainland so the native birds can be properly re-introduced some time again in the future.


jesterzog Fight the light


[ Parent ]
Uh, no (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by dasunt on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:06:16 AM EST

The Maoris wiped out a lot of NZ's flightless birds, including the moas. They might have also wiped out a 30lb eagle that had a tendency to prey on some of the moas, although, this might have been in self-defense, since the moas ranged from 3' - 10' tall, and the eagle developed a habit of crippling bipedal creatures by attacking their legs, then it would decapitate them.

The NZ flightless birds filled a grazing niche left unfilled by mammels. They would probably still be alive today if it wasn't for man.



[ Parent ]
Ignore him... (2.50 / 4) (#10)
by tekue on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:20:34 AM EST

...as all trolls oughta be ignored.
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]

Tautology (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by bob6 on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:50:43 AM EST

In evolutionary theory, the term survival of the fittest is a tautology because the fittest is defined as the one who survives. That means a species is the fittest because it survives, and not the contrary.
I'm always worried when natural sciences are used to justify one's moral values...
(Related: any Stephen Jay Gould's book)

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
No (2.50 / 2) (#14)
by Hopfrog on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:58:43 AM EST

I don't know how fittest is defined in scientific terms, but fittest in us-normal-human-being-terms is the person who is best suited for his enviroment. The fastest runner in a country were there are lots of flash floods is the fittest, but doesn't mean he will survive.

Hop.

[ Parent ]

Let me (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by bob6 on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 08:45:24 AM EST

Scientific researchers are quite normal human beings and they like to observe things and share knowledge.
The problem is that living forms are so diverse and so complex that we can say "that species is the fittest" only after we had observed that it survived. Let's take your example :

The fastest runner in a country were there are lots of flash floods is the fittest

No. You don't know other features of that beast, nor the features of other beasts, nor other parameters of the that country. He may be the fastest but not be fast enough, he may not be able to hold his breath and swim, there may be a lot of predators in the place where it runs to, etc.
You could say that it was just an example, but the point is you cannot simplify, living beings are too complex, the relationships with their environment (including other beasts) is even more complex. You establish it survived then explain how it is fit and suited to its environment.

but doesn't mean he will survive.

Indeed, it doesn't mean a damn thing. He may even survive because he was lucky, causing hordes of biologists to try to explain how when there's no reason at all!

This was a bit off-topic. Now preserving species that are about to disapear costs money and requires (us-normal) human work. It is a matter of political choice and countries of the oceanian continent proved to have a strong preservation policy. I hold them in high esteem for that. They realized that endangered species must be preserved because :
  1. we may learn about ourselves (biology and society) by studying them and how they could have disapeared
  2. they could be useful - medical use comes to mind
  3. their loss may have bad consequences for us
These reasons have a lot of "maybes" but as I said above the relationships between different living forms (including Homo sapiens) are so complex that we're not able to predict consequences of extinctions.

(I followed the link and was disappointed to find only a few small pictures of the bird.)

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
Quibble (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Lord of the Wasteland on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 01:13:54 PM EST

The term "survival of the fittest" is a tautology only because it is continually taken out of context. The full phrase is "evolution operates through the survival of the fittest," which if you don't like redundancy can be shortened to "evolution operates through survival." It is that which defines natural selection, and distinguishes it from Lamarkian adaptation, which is why the phrase exists. Of course, now sexual selection has been shown to have a much greater impact than Darwin thought, but that's another story.

[ Parent ]
Darwinian? (2.00 / 2) (#16)
by Subtillus on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 07:44:00 AM EST

survival of the fittest is what stupid people say evolution means; there's no such thing as survival of the fittest.

What is more impartant is diversity of species, so take a biology class or shut up.

[ Parent ]
Mountain parrot stories (4.90 / 10) (#7)
by jesterzog on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 02:21:21 AM EST

There are very cute parrots in New Zealand, and having evolved without any natural predators before people arrived, some of them are really tame and inquisitive.

One of the favourite stories I've heard was from some backpackers who were staying overnight in a mountain hut. They had a run in with some Kea's which are the world's only mountain parrot. They're very cute and intelligent although they can sometimes be annoying to people who try to share space with them.

The trampers were trying to get to sleep, but there was a continuous and regular thumping on the roof. Eventually after investigating, they figured out that there were some Kea's dropping stones on the roof trying to get some attention.

The people inside eventually picked up a broomstick and they thumped it on the roof a few times to drive the Kea's away. This quickly stopped the thumping on the roof.

Just as they were settling down again a few minutes later though, the thump.. Thump.. Thump.. started up in a regular pattern all over again. The trampers picked up the broomstick, and again banged it against the roof. Once again the noise stopped.

Several minutes after: thump.. Thump.. Thump..

They were at it again, and the trampers again followed it with a solid BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG from inside. The noise stopped, and they tried to go back again.

Shortly afterwards though, it started again: Thump. Thump. Thump.

In a last ditch effort and probably hoping they could drift off to sleep before it started again, one of them again picked up the broomstick.

He got a surprise when they glanced up towards the window, though. Staring inquisitively towards him was an upside down face, watching his every move. The Kea's had arranged it so that several of them would continue dropping stones on the roof. As they did this, another one would hang upside down from the guttering, peering into the window in an effort to find out what was causing all the banging from inside.


jesterzog Fight the light


That is *so* cute :-) [nt] (none / 0) (#17)
by The Writer on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 07:51:18 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Keas (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Smiling Dragon on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:17:58 PM EST

My father did a lot of field work with the New Zealand Wildlife service (which later joined with the forestry service to become the Dept of Conservation) and during this time he spent months down in Fiordland (very ruggard terrain waaaay down south).

One of the big problems for them down there was Kea-proofing everything, if they got to your supply drop before you did you could be in big trouble. One of his favourite stories was watching an air-drop come down some distance away and setting off to find it. Having been on some extended field work myself, I can attest to how much one looks forward to these resupplies, there is nothing quite like a piece of fresh bread after being on cabin biscuits for weeks :)

About a km or so from the drop site, they started finding peices of equipment, mostly dry-cell batteries and lightbulbs. The keas had got into it first and had stolen anything small enough to carry in a beak and destroyed pretty much everything else! In particular, all the cans had lost their labels. Mystery dinners until the next drop - is it baked beans for tea or apricot jam? - they all got really good at reading the cryptic numbers stamped on the tins :)

Another problem was keeping food safe from them. Whatever you had, you'd hang from the clothesline so possums and rats etc couldn't get into it. Trouble is, the keas would fly down to the line, hold on with one claw and use their bill and the other claw to pull up the food and take it. So the workers would hang it on wire loops, so if they tried to 'winch' it up that way, it would just go round and round and the food would stay that the bottom. The keas learnt to call in a buddy, one would lift the loop up in it's bill, while the other would grab the food off.

Incredibly sneaky animals.



-- Sometimes understanding is the booby prize - Neal Stephenson
[ Parent ]
/me reads that again... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Smiling Dragon on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:07:03 PM EST

'ang on a minute... The way I'd heard the story was from an old retiring Wildlife serviceman. In his case it was the Keas themselves sliding down the roof making all the noise, rather than droping stones.

I'm trying to decide if it's one of those stories or if it's just something the birds have learnt to do for kicks to any visiters to the area :)

The native Weka is damned cheeky too (flightless bird, pretty sure it's not a parrot though). I've watched one outside try and kill our enamel pot, the bird stood up on it's tip toes and stretched it's neck up as high as it could, before slamming it's bill down onto the pot lid. You could just about see it's eyes rolling about in it's head from the bang! It ran off like a mad thing (remarkably straight line too considering) and only reappeared the next day to steal clothes off the clothesline. :)

-- Sometimes understanding is the booby prize - Neal Stephenson
[ Parent ]

not again... (none / 0) (#33)
by Smiling Dragon on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:15:42 PM EST

<groan> This seems to happen a lot these days. Ignore the repeat, the content is identical.

-- Sometimes understanding is the booby prize - Neal Stephenson
[ Parent ]
I think it's a true story (or based on one) (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by jesterzog on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:21:21 PM EST

It hasn't happened to me directly, but I'm easily convinced about this story because I've heard other similar stories from people who've experienced it. Every time I've met a Kea, that seems to be exactly what they're like, too. They are known to be very intelligent compared with most birds so I wouldn't put it past them. I guess like you mentioned, they just often get their kicks from being cheeky around people. :)


jesterzog Fight the light


[ Parent ]
Reading that again... (none / 0) (#32)
by Smiling Dragon on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:13:24 PM EST

'ang on a minute... The way I'd heard the story was from an old retiring Wildlife serviceman. In his case it was the Keas themselves sliding down the roof making all the noise, rather than droping stones.

I'm trying to decide if it's one of those stories or if it's just something the birds have learnt to do for kicks to any visiters to the area :)

The native Weka is damned cheeky too (flightless bird, pretty sure it's not a parrot though). I've watched one outside try and kill our enamel pot, the bird stood up on it's tip toes and stretched it's neck up as high as it could, before slamming it's bill down onto the pot lid. You could just about see it's eyes rolling about in it's head from the bang! It ran off like a mad thing (remarkably straight line too considering) and only reappeared the next day to steal clothes off the clothesline. :)

-- Sometimes understanding is the booby prize - Neal Stephenson
[ Parent ]

More pictures? (4.50 / 2) (#8)
by eyeflare on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:02:25 AM EST

If you have any links to pictures of the curious creature, could you post them?

I'd like to see these and other endangered species, such as the Bengali Tiger, survive, but I'm unfortunately a pessimist when it comes to conservation. We are looking at a future were we are destroying species at a faster clip than we are discovering them. Ok, that relates mostly to bugs and such in the Amazon, but still it's a chilling prospect.
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." -A. J. Muste
Some more kakapo links (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Smiling Dragon on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:57:17 PM EST

RA of the booming sound, also has some pictures of them with a person to give an idea of the size of these things.
Kakapo Society of NZ
Kakapo cushions! (boom boom :)

-- Sometimes understanding is the booby prize - Neal Stephenson
[ Parent ]
Thank you (none / 0) (#35)
by eyeflare on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 04:18:01 AM EST

Those pictures gave a much better view of the bird.

Still, I find it strange that they don't put up some really good pictures, it could only help in keeping interest in the birds strong.
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." -A. J. Muste
[ Parent ]
The trouble with pictures (4.00 / 1) (#37)
by Tatarigami on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 04:30:08 PM EST

Kakapo are nocturnal -- documentary footage is usually a grainy black and green taken using light intensifying cameras. (Kakapo eyes reflect light in the dark like a cat's. It's really quite freaky.)

Conservation staff really don't want to stress the birds, so they're reluctant to shine any bright lights on them or disturb them during the day.

[ Parent ]
"Last chance to see" by D.Adams (4.75 / 4) (#18)
by Vs on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 07:53:38 AM EST

For those interested, the quote is from "Last Chance To See" by Douglas Adams. This book is definetly one of the best non-fiction books on my eternal list.

Another interesting "feature" (I'd count this as a bug): According to Adams, the booming sound they use for finding mates has the same properties as the sub-woofer sound from your 5.1: Even if one of the few other kakapos hears it, he cannot exactly tell where it's coming from!

Shock your friends, read a book.
--
Where are the immoderate submissions?

..or don't (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by tekue on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:38:30 AM EST

...and just listen to it as it is read by the author (most probably). Belive me, it's worth the time!
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]

He? (none / 0) (#23)
by tekue on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:43:44 AM EST

Even if one of the few other kakapos hears it, he cannot exactly tell where it's coming from!
I guess it's either 'she cannot' or 'it cannot'. Or are there any gay kakapos among the bunch? ;)
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]
Depends if it's a bug or a feature... (none / 0) (#36)
by synaesthesia on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 08:38:27 AM EST

Assuming the cry is made by a male, he may not want other males to know where he is.

Anyway, 'he' was a grammatically-correct neutral until political correctness got a stranglehold.



Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
'it' (4.00 / 1) (#38)
by Vs on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 03:20:43 AM EST

And don't forget that non-native speakers might come into play, too.
--
Where are the immoderate submissions?
[ Parent ]
Books (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Lord of the Wasteland on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 01:18:20 PM EST

I highly recommend Last Chance To See. Also, if you like that, you might want to read the books of Gerald Durrell. They are also, mainly, very funny stories of his travels observing animals all over the world. In fact, he visits many of the same places as Douglas Adams did about, only about 20-30 years earlier. It is sad to see how much many of them are declined. Unfortunately, I can't remember the title of the book which catalogs Durrell's expedition to New Zealand, but I do remember he talks about kakapos as well as keas (meantioned by another poster).

[ Parent ]
Epistemology versus ontology (3.00 / 3) (#21)
by dollyknot on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:32:49 AM EST

There is a world inside the head and a world the head is inside of, any individual that believes that the world inside their head, to be more important, than the world their head is inside of, has not yet lost the solipsism of childhood.

The balance that swings as we grow up, (if we do:-) Is going from thinking about life in terms of oneself, to thinking about ones self in terms of life. As Kennnedy once famously said. "It is not what America can do for you, it is what you can do for America." Why don't we apply the same reasoning to the planet?

Full marks to New Zealand in trying to halt the dreadful slide into less diversity of life. Survival of the fittest? Don't make me laugh. Applying this reasoning to our species and looking for the peacock factor, amongst the dominant sections of our species, leads to the analysis that it is motivated by empty bollocks and a fat wallet.

This appears to be a process leading to the conversion of the garden of eden, into a parking lot serving a mall farm.

Peter.
They call it an elephant's trunk, whereas it is in fact an elephant's nose - a nose by any other name would smell as sweetly.

The oddest bird in the world gets a boost | 39 comments (36 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!