recognition & localization of predators & prey feature analyzers in the brain
Predators are prey, says Elissa Sursara | NEWCASTLE HERALD
1
Wednesday, November 2, 2011 NEWCASTLE HERALD 11 OPINION & ANALYSIS ONLINE COMMENT theherald.com.au LIKE US on Facebook Newcastle Herald FOLLOW US on Twitter twitter.com/newcastleherald J O IN th e c onversation ... theherald.com.au th th t th th th th th th th th th th h h t eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh eh e er er er er er er er er er e er e e e a al al al al al al al al al al al a . d. d. d. d. d d d d d d d d d c co co co co co co co co co o om. m. m. m. m. m m m m m m m m m m au au au au au au au au au au au au a a a h th th th h th th t h th th th th th h h th th th h h h h h h h h h h l l l l l d d d d d d d theherald.com.au ONLINE poll VOTE NOW TODAY’S QUESTION Will yesterday’s interest rate cut encourage you to spend more in the shops? YESTERDAY’S RESULT How much of the state’s electricity industry should the government sell? Just the generators (power stations) 4.7% Generators and networks (poles and wires) 11% No more, we’ve lost enough already 84.3% TOTAL VOTES 318 No privatisation THE O’Farrell government will decide by Christmas whether to sell the rest of the state’s electricity industry, including Hunter power stations, following the recommendations of an inquiry into the sector’s future. Most online commentators did not agree with privatisation. Privatisation of the electricity network is a joke. The network makes $1.7 billion each year in income and the sell-off will generate a one-off payment of approximately $7 billion. It’s not worth it! The Victorians privatised their network and look what happened. The company that bought it was not obliged to maintain the infrastructure, and was partly implicated in the Black Saturday bushfires. Flossy The one big advantage of privatising electricity supplies is that it will prevent incompetent, uninformed politicians from interfering in something they don’t understand. JB How about a different approach – the government keeps the infrastructure and privatise the retailers. Lease the infrastructure to the retailers and legislate a percentage for maintenance, then contract out the maintenance. Less tax on the people, more competitive retail electricity and government doing it’s meant to do, that is provide services. Johno Get ready for power costs to triple as companies squeeze every last cent out of consumers to keep shareholders happy. If they do sell it off then we need the money for our assets spent here. stumeister If they want to reflect the public interest then keep them. We are sick of our assets being sold off! When everything has been sold and the money is gone, where will the money come from to replace the lost income from our sold-off utilities and assets? Crazyivan Species tragedies as humans blitz sharks TERROR: Change human behaviour at the beach instead of slaughtering animals in their own habitat. The sea’s most feared predators are prey, writes Elissa Sursara. Elissa Sursara is a conservationist, documentary filmmaker and environmental writer. HUMANS are responsible for the slaughter of more than 100 million sharks a year, while sharks have accounted for fewer than 500 fatal attacks on humans since the 1500s – quite a contradiction to their role as ‘‘rogue man-eaters’’ in some media. And while authorities talk about hunting endangered white sharks thought responsible for a series of attacks on bathers, conservationists pose an important question: are humans the real predator? Despite acknowledging the waters are ‘‘the sharks’ domain’’, West Australian Premier Colin Barnett pushed ahead with a decision to bait drum lines along the south-western tourist strip in an attempt to attract and persecute white sharks – despite their legal protection. Ignorant of, or disregarding attempts from, marine biologists and conservationists to prove that revenge expeditions and shark culling will do little to ameliorate shark attacks on bathers who swim in dangerous conditions, authorities have justified the decision to hunt the endangered species, claiming it is the only way to keep swimmers safe. But how real is the threat of a shark attack? Falsely considered a major threat to humans, sharks are responsible for fewer deaths every year than falling pianos. In Western Australia, home of the recent anti-shark lobby, there have been fewer than 20 shark attacks since the 1930s, and with an average of four fatal shark attacks a year in Australian waters, it’s clear sharks have a reputation they cannot live up to. But it hasn’t stopped the sensationalism. Some media and Hollywood films depict sharks as mindless eating machines that seek out humans along coastlines. In reality, statistics offer a less exciting truth. Shark attack figures range from zero to four a year in Australia, with sharks fatally injuring 52 people in cases of mistaken identity in the past five decades. What will happen if we lose them? There’s no denying the loss of a life is a tragedy, but the loss of a species is an even greater disaster. With sharks representing the largest group of threatened marine species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, the decision to purposefully reduce their populations is a concerning play of cards for the health of marine life. Like swimming in a pool with a broken filter, so too is a sea without sharks. Sharks are more far more valuable to the ocean than human beings. The lives of other marine species depend wholly on the existence of apex predators, and because sharks are vital to oceanic survival, reducing their numbers will have disastrous affects on the delicate marine ecosystems they regulate. Top predators like the shark influence underwater community structure in an irreplaceable way: they manage healthy ecosystems by feeding on animals that exist beneath them in the pelagic food web and pick off sick and weak individuals with potential to spread disease. This hierarchy occurs naturally to help maintain the balance of a sensitive marine ecosystem. Without apex predators, there are no superior hunters to limit populations of prey and regulate the occurrence of other marine species, and without sharks, there’s a worrying potential for unbridled predation and destruction of the delicate marine habitat. Put simply: the loss of sharks is a loss of sea structure. Smaller species will dominate the habitat, over- feeding on important species and vegetation, putting incredible pressure on the sustainability of an already collapsing ecosystem. They may be bigger and stronger than us, but we don’t need a death- squad to live safely with sharks. In a marine ecosystem, species that fear shark predation are known to cautiously alter their habitat use in order to live harmoniously with superior hunters, and with nine out of 10 fatal shark attacks occurring in conditions known to attract predators, staying aware of the swimming conditions more likely to involve them will drastically reduce the chances of a close encounter. Rather than enact unethical culls on animals within their own territory, bathers can adjust their beach activity in order to reduce the chance of encountering a shark. Measures such as avoiding unpatrolled beaches and resisting the urge to swim far offshore or at dusk and night, and making an effort to swim with two or more bathers away from deep channels, river mouths and fishing spots, provide human beings with the opportunity to safely enjoy the sea – on the shark’s terms. Sceptics’ faith is wholly with the facts Glen Coulton is a member of Hunter Sceptics Inc. Religious organisations have a responsibility to respect the evidence, writes Glen Coulton. LAST month, in a statement on behalf of the Churches Media Association, Bruce Robertson criticised ‘‘secular minority groups’’, and we believe that Hunter Sceptics Inc is one of the groups referred to. We wish to respond to some criticisms. But, first, who are we? Sceptics organisations throughout the world sound alarm bells when people cannot produce evidence to support claims. We challenge those who claim expertise in such things as fairies, gods, miracle cures, alternative therapies and paranormal powers to prove what they claim. We remind those making the claims that faith alone proves nothing. Proof needs evidence. Our motto is: ‘‘Seek the evidence.’’ Mr Robertson wrote that freedom of religion was under attack in Australia, but provided no evidence of this. We believe there is not a single Australian being prevented from worshipping the god of his choice in the manner of his choice. We agree with him that there is a shifting world view about the credibility of religious belief, but not because religion is being attacked. Religious belief is declining in most advanced countries, we believe, because their better educated citizens have more faith in evidence-based explanations of science than in the well-intentioned guesses of ancient writers about the origin and functioning of our world. Public schools are meant to be secular. Mr Robertson defended the recent donation by local churches of a classroom to a public school by insisting that there were no strings attached. But he then welcomed the improved access to students the classroom would give the churches. Mr Robertson wrote that secularism was anti-religion. We disagree. Secularism is a system of government in which church and state – God and Caesar – agree to mind their own business. The state does not meddle in how churches manage their affairs and the churches do not meddle in how the government runs the country. Secular systems of government give the best possible guarantee of freedom of religion. In countries where there is no democratic separation of church and state – no secularism – it is too easy for one particular religion to become all powerful and persecute other, ‘‘wrong’’ religions. There are plenty of examples in the world today. Like Mr Roberston, we love the great sense of freedom that Australians enjoy. But we understand that Australia’s freedom owes much to our success in keeping church and state separate. We guarantee never to attack his freedom to believe and worship as he likes. We would even adopt his beliefs if he could produce compelling evidence of their truth. But we deplore his attempts to deprive anyone, especially children and governments, of the freedom to act in accordance with the truths that evidence demonstrates rather than the convictions his faith demands.
-
Upload
elissa-sursara -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
143 -
download
1
Transcript of Predators are prey, says Elissa Sursara | NEWCASTLE HERALD
Wednesday, November 2, 2011 NEWCASTLE HERALD 11
OPINION&ANALYSIS
ONLINECOMMENTtheherald.com.au
LIKE US on FacebookNewcastle HeraldFOLLOW US on Twittertwitter.com/newcastleherald
JOIN the conversation ...
theherald.com.auththtththththththththththhht ehehehehehehehehehehehehehe ererererererererereereee aalalalalalalalalalalala .d.d.d.d.ddddddddd ccococococococococooom.m.m.m.m.mmmmmmmmmm auauauauauauauauauauauauaaahthththhththththththththhhththth hhhhhhhhhh llllldddddddtheherald.com.au
ONLINE poll
VOTE NOW
TODAY’S QUESTION
Will yesterday’s interest
rate cut encourage you to
spend more in the shops?
YESTERDAY’S RESULT
How much of the state’s
electricity industry should
the government sell?
Just the generators
(power stations) 4.7%
Generators and networks
(poles and wires) 11%
No more, we’ve lost
enough already 84.3%
TOTAL VOTES 318
No privatisationTHE O’Farrell government willdecide by Christmas whether tosell the rest of the state’selectricity industry, includingHunter power stations,following the recommendationsof an inquiry into the sector’sfuture. Most onlinecommentators did not agreewith privatisation.
Privatisation of the electricitynetwork is a joke. The networkmakes $1.7 billion each year inincome and the sell-off willgenerate a one-off payment ofapproximately $7 billion. It’s notworth it! The Victorians privatisedtheir network and look whathappened. The company thatbought it was not obliged tomaintain the infrastructure, andwas partly implicated in the BlackSaturday bushfires.
Flossy
The one big advantage ofprivatising electricity supplies isthat it will prevent incompetent,uninformed politicians frominterfering in something they don’tunderstand.
JB
How about a different approach –the government keeps theinfrastructure and privatise theretailers. Lease the infrastructureto the retailers and legislate apercentage for maintenance, thencontract out the maintenance.Less tax on the people, morecompetitive retail electricity andgovernment doing it’s meant to do,that is provide services.
Johno
Get ready for power costs to tripleas companies squeeze every lastcent out of consumers to keepshareholders happy. If they do sellit off then we need the money forour assets spent here.
stumeister
If they want to reflect the publicinterest then keep them. We aresick of our assets being sold off!When everything has been soldand the money is gone, where willthe money come from to replacethe lost income from our sold-offutilities and assets?
Crazyivan
Species tragedies ashumans blitz sharks
TERROR: Change human behaviour at the beach instead of slaughtering animals in their own habitat.
The sea’s most fearedpredators are prey, writesElissa Sursara.
Elissa Sursara is a conservationist,documentary filmmaker andenvironmental writer.
HUMANS are responsible for theslaughter of more than 100 millionsharks a year, while sharks haveaccounted for fewer than 500 fatalattacks on humans since the 1500s –quite a contradiction to their role as‘‘rogue man-eaters’’ in some media.
And while authorities talk abouthunting endangered white sharksthought responsible for a series ofattacks on bathers, conservationistspose an important question: arehumans the real predator?
Despite acknowledging the watersare ‘‘the sharks’ domain’’, WestAustralian Premier Colin Barnettpushed ahead with a decision to baitdrum lines along the south-westerntourist strip in an attempt to attractand persecute white sharks – despitetheir legal protection.
Ignorant of, or disregardingattempts from, marine biologists andconservationists to prove thatrevenge expeditions and sharkculling will do little to ameliorateshark attacks on bathers who swimin dangerous conditions, authoritieshave justified the decision to huntthe endangered species, claiming itis the only way to keep swimmerssafe.
But how real is the threat of ashark attack?
Falsely considered a major threatto humans, sharks are responsiblefor fewer deaths every year thanfalling pianos. In Western Australia,home of the recent anti-shark lobby,there have been fewer than 20 sharkattacks since the 1930s, and with anaverage of four fatal shark attacks ayear in Australian waters, it’s clearsharks have a reputation they cannotlive up to.
But it hasn’t stopped thesensationalism.
Some media and Hollywood filmsdepict sharks as mindless eatingmachines that seek out humansalong coastlines.
In reality, statistics offer a lessexciting truth.
Shark attack figures range fromzero to four a year in Australia, withsharks fatally injuring 52 people incases of mistaken identity in the pastfive decades.
What will happen if we lose them?
There’s no denying the loss of alife is a tragedy, but the loss of aspecies is an even greater disaster.With sharks representing the largestgroup of threatened marine specieson the International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN) RedList, the decision to purposefullyreduce their populations is aconcerning play of cards for thehealth of marine life.
Like swimming in a pool with abroken filter, so too is a sea withoutsharks. Sharks are more far morevaluable to the ocean than humanbeings.
The lives of other marine speciesdepend wholly on the existence ofapex predators, and because sharksare vital to oceanic survival,reducing their numbers will havedisastrous affects on the delicatemarine ecosystems they regulate.
Top predators likethe sharkinfluence underwatercommunitystructure in anirreplaceable way:they manage healthyecosystems byfeeding on animalsthat exist
beneath them inthe pelagic foodweb andpick off sickand weakindividuals with potential to spreaddisease.
Thishierarchyoccursnaturallytohelpmaintainthebalanceofasensitivemarineecosystem.Withoutapexpredators, therearenosuperiorhunterstolimitpopulationsofpreyandregulatetheoccurrenceofothermarinespecies,andwithoutsharks,there’saworryingpotential forunbridledpredationanddestructionofthedelicatemarinehabitat.
Put simply: the loss of sharks is aloss of sea structure. Smaller specieswill dominate the habitat, over-feeding on important species andvegetation, putting incrediblepressure on the sustainability of analready collapsing ecosystem.
They may be bigger and strongerthan us, but we don’t need a death-squad to live safely with sharks.
In a marine ecosystem, speciesthat fear shark predation are knownto cautiously alter their habitat usein order to live harmoniously with
superior hunters, and with nine outof 10 fatal shark attacks occurring inconditions known to attractpredators, staying aware of theswimming conditions more likely toinvolve them will drastically reducethe chances of a close encounter.
Rather than enact unethical cullson animals within their ownterritory, bathers can adjust theirbeach activity in order to reduce thechance of encountering a shark.
Measures such as avoidingunpatrolled beaches and resistingthe urge to swim far offshore or atdusk and night, and making an effortto swim with two or more bathersaway from deep channels, rivermouths and fishing spots, providehuman beings with the opportunityto safely enjoy the sea – on theshark’s terms.
Sceptics’ faith is wholly with the facts
Glen Coulton is a member of HunterSceptics Inc.
Religious organisationshave a responsibility torespect the evidence,writes Glen Coulton.
LAST month, in a statement onbehalf of the Churches MediaAssociation, Bruce Robertsoncriticised ‘‘secular minority groups’’,and we believe that Hunter ScepticsInc is one of the groups referred to.
We wish to respond to somecriticisms. But, first, who are we?
Sceptics organisations throughoutthe world sound alarm bells whenpeople cannot produce evidence tosupport claims.
We challenge those who claimexpertise in such things as fairies,gods, miracle cures, alternativetherapies and paranormal powers toprove what they claim. We remind
those making the claims that faithalone proves nothing. Proof needsevidence. Our motto is: ‘‘Seek theevidence.’’
Mr Robertson wrote that freedomof religion was under attack inAustralia, but provided no evidenceof this. We believe there is not asingle Australian being preventedfrom worshipping the god of hischoice in the manner of his choice.
We agree with him that there is ashifting world view about thecredibility of religious belief, butnot because religion is beingattacked. Religious belief isdeclining in most advancedcountries, we believe, because theirbetter educated citizens have morefaith in evidence-basedexplanations of science than in thewell-intentioned guesses of ancientwriters about the origin andfunctioning of our world.
Public schools are meant to be
secular. Mr Robertson defended therecent donation by local churches ofa classroom to a public school byinsisting that there were no stringsattached. But he then welcomed theimproved access to students theclassroom would give the churches.
Mr Robertson wrote thatsecularism was anti-religion. Wedisagree. Secularism is a system ofgovernment in which church andstate – God and Caesar – agree tomind their own business. The statedoes not meddle in how churchesmanage their affairs and thechurches do not meddle in how thegovernment runs the country.
Secular systems of governmentgive the best possible guarantee offreedom of religion. In countrieswhere there is no democraticseparation of church and state – nosecularism – it is too easy for oneparticular religion to become allpowerful and persecute other,
‘‘wrong’’ religions. There are plentyof examples in the world today.
Like Mr Roberston, we love thegreat sense of freedom thatAustralians enjoy. But weunderstand that Australia’s freedomowes much to our success in keepingchurch and state separate.
We guarantee never to attack hisfreedom to believe and worship ashe likes. We would even adopt hisbeliefs if he could producecompelling evidence of their truth.
But we deplore his attempts todeprive anyone, especially childrenand governments, of the freedom toact in accordance with the truthsthat evidence demonstrates ratherthan the convictions his faithdemands.
